User talk:SlimVirgin/archive21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My contributions are systematically deleted by Muslims 2 WikiSort Project 3 Regarding protecting the Tajiks page 4 RfA 5 Islamist? 6 Adminship 7 Gimmiet 8 Admin-ness questions 9 Vandal? 10 Wikilante 11 Watching, always watching... 12 FYI 13 DOM 14 AE 15 Massive clusterf*ck 16 Daniel Brandt 17 unprotect 18 zionist terrorism 19 help 20 Anonymous Editor - Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 21 Naming conventions for articles on Jews 22 Would you (yes, you Slim) consider weighing in? 23 My admin 24 Straining times 25 Intelligent Design 26 "A Very Unpleasant Experience" 27 Template:Mormon_jew 28 Zephram Stark 29 Recently in the news 30 Accusing others of being sockpuppets 31 Clarification 32 Intelligent Design 33 Daniel Brandt 34 Revert war on Israel & West Bank 35 Dominion of Melchizedek 36 Email 37 She's breaking up. Eject, eject! 38 3RR 39 Wiki Birthday Balloon 40 Gabriel's back again 41 Eid Mubarak 42 Disruptive ? 43 Month long block on a DHCP IP User_talk:66.69.128.146 44 Sock Puppets Of Johnski 45 What is trolling ? 46 === You are now making threats === 47 Rabin 10 year annivarasary not on main page 48 Thank You 49 Controversy 50 PRueda29 RFA 51 Personal attack 52 Hello 53 Veganism 54 Notes about quality of sources 55 WP:CP images of October 19 56 Turki al-Hamad 57 KAJ 58 Wiki-facts 59 Ramallite 60 Ramallite tally clarification 61 Talk page vandalism 62 Double degree 63 Haldane's dilemma 64 Missed a bit 65 Could this become a featured article? 66 MSN 67 My RFA 68 wikipedia-watch 69 Double degree 70 Rod Coronado 71 How appropriate do you think it is ... 72 Jung Chang 73 Dispute at Mizrahi Jews 74 Mark A. Gabriel 75 Thanks!! 76 User talk:Daniel Brandt 77 Anniversary 78 Help with Striver 79 BCCI 80 Annoying vandals 81 Philwelch's RfA 82 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 83 Email 84 Utterly frivolous request 85 Your attention requested 86 You coy bird! 87 Yellow train 88 User talk:SlimVirgin (Jeremiah Duggan draft) 89 Erica White 90 Origin of the conflict 91 Israel 92 Disruptive apartheid editor 93 Yuber 94 Request for undeletion 95 WP:MENTCOM 96 Crazy changes by Gilgamesh 97 Hebrew naming conventions 98 DOM Conflict 99 AFD 100 DRV 101 Double degree again 102 User:Spellchecker 103 Ingrid Newkirk 104 Gerry Adams 105 Meaning of Life 106 Copied from Ann's talk: 107 It's your fault... 108 Yeah, that was bad. 109 Thank you 110 Conspiracy theory redux 111 yuder again 112 Henry King 113 Acceptable sources? 114 Double Degree 115 Email 116 Can you look at this? 117 A suggestion 118 Is Wikipedia the place for such propeganda ? 119 Icke/Littlejohn 120 No response 121 Thanks (with a few quibbles) 122 A few questions 123 Questions about a dispute 124 RfA Request 125 Statement by Nobs01 125.1 Proposed wording 126 Noitall

[edit] My contributions are systematically deleted by Muslims

Dear Slim, I have started editing the pages Islamophobia and Useful Idiots. However my contributions are systematically reverted by Muslims who work in group and seem to be more motivated by their ideology and protecting the immage of their faith than by love knowledge. Despite the fact that I kept modifying, adding and removing different citations, the result is immediate revert. I urge you please to intervene and see to this matter. If necessary please protect (but please this time protect my version) until the dispute is resoved. Thanks! (21:33 23 October 2005 OceanSplash)

[edit] WikiSort Project

Hey, the WikiSort Project has begun! Come on over and check it out!the1physicist 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding protecting the Tajiks page

Thanks Slim for protecting the Tajiks page. I'm sorry it had to be done in the first place, but the guy who kept editing it is off his rocker. Thanks again and adios. Tombseye 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

What I did was actually to restore a lot of comments, including BYT's vote, but some other stuff was apparently lost in that process. I apologize if I have contributed to the confusion there, but fact is that I was actually also a bit confused myself about what was actually going on, and at the same time the servers are terribly slow today... However, when I now take a closer look at the diffs there, it all seems to have been solved (due to your efforts!). I apologize again if my edits somehow made a mess there, but it was never my intention. -- Karl Meier 19:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamist?

I didn't realise you converted. Congratulations. Does that mean you have to resign from the Zionist Cabal, or will they make an exception for you? I suppose if both sides accuse you of bias, that probably suggests you're getting it right (or have Dissociative Identity Disorder). Guettarda 17:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough about OS, but the conversation you linked to on Will's page looks like some sock + puppeteer conversations I've seen, but I doubt Rangerdude is that vicious (or dumb enough to conclude you are a Muslim for your actions). Guettarda 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Me, I'm holding out for full membership in Unitarian Jihad. BrandonYusufToropov 18:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll sign up just so I can be Sister Flaming Sword of Moderation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please move all the comments from the voting section to the talk section. That's why it is there. I can see how you'd be reluctant to move the comments to another page. Maybe one solution would be to add a copy of the current voting page to the talk page including both the comments and votes. Then, on the voting page, delete all comments except for the person's vote and the person's userid. --JuanMuslim 19:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the comments to the talk page, and I copied some of the votes because without them the comments made no sense. The page should be easier to edit now. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I don't want the thanks from a Islamist like you. gren グレン 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks a bunch for all of your help, and I hope those silly things go away :) gren グレン 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Gimmiet

Incidentally, when you blocked User:69.195.126.149 for being User:Gimmiet, and then extended Gimmiet's block for block-avoidance...

that's not him. That's not his IP. It resolves to Missisauga. I know him from pre-Wikipedia, I know where he lives, and he lives several thousand miles from there. DS 00:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely him, Dragonfly. I'll leave more details on your talk page later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin-ness questions

I've been reading the admin material again and I just had two questions. Firstly, there was a page ARRY bONDS with the concent "Misspelling of Barry Bonds" or the like. I'm pretty sure there is no need to have it... it's just a bad redirect... should I put something that obvious on redirects for deletion or should I just delete it under CSD? Secondly, there was Category:Richard Thompson and Linda Thompson albums I deleted it because the proper is Category:Richard and Linda Thompson albums. I just transferred everything and deleted it arbitrarily (my true reasoning is that it was created by User:Rydia whom personally told me to delete it so there was no need for him to blank it and put up a CSD template since we're 5 feet away from eachother). For things like that should I be dealing with it through requested moves (had it not been my roommate and just some anon)?. Thanks. gren グレン 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal?

Excuse me, but why did you revert me like a vandal for removing section headings that RfAs never have? -Splash^talk 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

An edit summary to that effect would have been better. But I see why the headers are there now. -Splash^talk 01:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilante

Hello, SlimVirgin, love your handle and the story of it. I created this article as a result of what is going on over at Dominion of Melchizedek. Do you think it is a good idea? From what I read on your user page, I'm impressed with how fair and the patience you are said to possess. I believe DOM needs someone like yourself, to help with this article. I've reached out to a few others tonight asking for help too. Sincerely, Johnski 08:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watching, always watching...

Well, thanks to this I've found several new sets of contributions to observe! - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I got a mass email today. See User_talk:Muwaffaq#email Guettarda 13:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DOM

SV thanks for protecting the DOM page. I think there is more then reasonable suspicion about the sockpuppets that are trashing that article and others. The DOM page have been reverted by Johnski/KAJ/SamuelSpade as well has his IP addresses over 60 times in two months. If you need any specific proof, let me know. Thanks... Davidpdx 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• After that round of fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts, you did the right thing to protect. All I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is illegal, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here? Sincerely, Johnski 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AE

SV, I already thought about writing you yesterday, but didn't then. I'm sure that you understand at least some of my issues that I've listed in these discussions. I wanted to write you yesterday that you could maybe (because you were the nominator of AE and regardless of how the vote turns out) from time to time take a look at AE's contributions, and if there are edit conflicts he's involved him kind of mediate and point out to the involved parties ways to solve the issues. You were also once proposed for a Request for Comment regarding Anon. Anyway, I'd be glad if some of the issues that I listed could be dealt with in good faith by Anon and in view of positive changes that are acceptable for everybody. User:Kefalonia

[edit] Massive clusterf*ck

Even, I myself am surprised by all the opposition that Anonyme raised up. I was expecting this to break (30-40) vs (10-15) and die gracefully as no concensus. The best thing is for someone to suggest that he withdraw, because at this point it's not going to pass, and the longer this drags on the more animosity and frustration for everyone. I feel bad for Anonyme, because I bet he is really surprised by how many don't trust him to be an admin.

I guess his fighting over at the India/Pakistan dispute got him a fresh batch of friends. Compared to the Arab-Israeli conflict that sort of thing is very very very bitter (Israeli's as a class no longer care about the fate of the palestinians and so don't take the conflict very seriously anymore.)

Some folks it seems think that there exists a giant anti-muslim cabal on wikipedia, but that isn't true. The number of editors who are strictly working off of an anti islamic bias are faily few,fairly obvious and merit no further discussion. I don't think that there is any mass network of sockpuppets.

There are however alot of people who are annoyed at the extra tolerance that muslim editors seem to get. The Yuber arbcom case being a classic example. Most westerners have this great fear of being labled intolerant, while many people on WP take pride in being very tolerant, they take especial pride in being very tolerant of the intolerant.

How ever a certian fraction, beleive in the existance of moral standards and universal human dignity, and find that special privliges are abhorrent. And if being called "islamophobic" is the price of expecting that people not to kill each other and condemning them for doing so. Then so be it, for Satyameva Jayate. Klonimus 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean you are surprised by all the support? You're the one with the "opposition." --JuanMuslim 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You would think that Klonimus would bequiet now that its all over.:) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, what kind of language is that to use in a heading? If you're not very careful, you'll leave fast-scrolling newcomers with the impression you have a bias on some of these issues ... or even that you have occasional problems sustaining civility. BrandonYusufToropov 21:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You already think that I am biased, so I can hardly hope to convince you of anything. I'm not surprised that Anonyme got as much support as he did, but the level of opposes votes was almost as great as in your RfA BYT. Unlike lots of people, I'm not running for Admin, so I feel free to say things as I feel them, on the talk page. I personally felt that Anonyme's RfA was unsalvageable and that it was preferable that it be ended early rather than drag on, and end up like BYT's RfA which died with more oppose votes than support votes. Anyways this message was in reply to to comment of SV's on the talk page of the RfA. The amount of bitchiness on WP is truely astounding sometimes. Klonimus 21:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Why delete it? The old article looked good... Can you please restore it, or put it up for AfD? I don't understand what the POV issues are that made you decide to scrap the article. Note also that it is being recreated regularly... +sj + 09:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Boy, this is weird. My google alerts today included a line about Daniel Brandt. I thought I was seeing things... but no. +sj + 08:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought this stuff's been solved! -- Svest 03:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I heard your story on d news! -- Svest 03:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] unprotect

I *think* the freaks have gone, so would like it if you could please unprtect my user Page.

Cheers --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :-D --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] zionist terrorism

Fair comment about the point making. However read the entry I modified by jayg and I'm sure you'll agree that it was also very much a WP:POINT. I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically someone insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then inssit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. Unbehagen 22:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] help

The well written article about the plight of "Snowball" as been renominated for deletion...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball (Hurricane Katrina dog) (2nd nomination)
Please vote to keep this article! Many thanks!

[edit] Anonymous Editor - Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with Anonymous Editor regarding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community/Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam? Anonymous Editor doesn't want to use their official name, or any name that refers to them being Muslim/part of Islam, because he does not consider them to be truly Muslim. He insists that they agree to the removal of any reference to Islam from themselves, and that we should do so for the purposes of "NPOV". The discussion is at the bottom of his talk page and mine. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry SV. I have solved the problem. Jayjg and I have reached an agreement. Btw, it wasn't that I didn't think they were "truly Muslim" but that I suggested a possible choice that both mainstream Muslims and Ahmadis could agree to rather than making it one-sided. The discussion was huge though; I think that's the largest one sentenced discussion I've had! :) Regards --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Would you (yes, you Slim) consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My admin

Thank you - I followed the instructions on the relevant page and posted the page (with my answers) to WP:RFA. Thank you so much once again! Ramallite ^(talk) 15:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straining times

I'm feeling strained from and drained by an attempt to reiterate what long ago I argued should be clear. A discussion of these issues is currently ongoing on my talk page. Please offer your thoughts on these matters, and perhaps on my conduct throughout the affair, specifically. Thank you. El_C 15:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. Guettarda has just now entered the discussion and I want to avoid any appearence of numeric superiority (i.e. 3 versus 2) and underhandedness therein. Though, of course, numerically, only a tiny minority seems to have supported/supports my opponents position. El_C 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the conversation seems to have reached its end rapidally and unpleasently enough. El_C 16:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

Will you say the same sort of thing to User:FeloniousMonk? Will it make a difference? He does not assume good faith of anyone. He talks about conspiracy theories with bloggers on the discussion board, so I do not see why I cannot discuss my conspiracy theory of administrator cronyism in relation to why FeloniousMonk ignores me and simply reverts anything I change in the article. I have argued my case, probably said at least 1500 words arguing my case to introduce two sentences into the disambiguation part of the article.

The first is to, in my view, properly, characterize the article content as unrelated to the literal phrase except culturally (i.e. idiomatically, though I'm not sure if that word is entirely the correct one to use). This is because the phrase "intelligent design" is vague and amorphous.

I also wanted to add "If you want to see an article about the concept of an intelligent being who designed the universe, see Theism." I'm sorry but for the life of me I cannot figure out why FeloniousMonk says this is factually inaccurate and POV. I don't even know if it is possible for that statement to be those things.

When I explained to FeloniousMonk my reasons as well as I could, he ignored and/or misinterpreted and/or misrepresented all my arguments. This, in my opinion, is common when someone has an axe to grind and are unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinions. User:Guettarda understood my argument, and I used it to show what I was talking about. I received no comment from him or, as far as I remember right now, anyone else after that. It seems every time I broach the subject, I am met with absurd commentary unrelated to my points, and anytime I make a good point, it is just ignored. Attempting to even add a "clean-up" tag did not even work, as FeloniousMonk reverted it no less than half an hour after I added it. I also attempted to have a discussion regarding the relationship between Deism and the article, and was met with absurd, unrelated, and suspicious comments.

I am extremely frustrated and I have no idea what to do other than filing an RFC against FeloniousMonk. Something which I do not want to do as it would take up a lot of my time considering how bulletproof it would have to be as FeloniousMonk is an administrator. The contentious nature of the article also suggests that in an RFC people will think with their personal opinions about Intelligent Design, and side with administrator FeloniousMonk given the movement's infamous nature, not their opinions on whether or not I have a valid point and FeloniousMonk is intentionally ignoring it.

If you could talk to FeloniousMonk I would appreciate it, but will he do anything? I told him numerous times he was misinterpreting my comments and my arguments, but he did not listen. --Ben 07:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

That was my only real edit. The other edits were a short revert war on the same sentence with FeloniousMonk who was saying nothing about why he was reverting, and a few others of putting templates on the page. Those templates were a factually inaccurate template, which FM reverted, a clean-up template and a expert attention template, and FM reverted both of those within 30 minutes. I realize that the disambiguation part that I was trying to add is not really clear, but that's the best way I thought of of describing it to make sure people knew what the article was about. I am not trying to define what "intelligent design" is, I was trying to define what the article was about--how it has been written, what it deals with, etc. A lot of people get confused about what intelligent design means and have pre-conceived notions. I thought it would help to explain it so they don't get angry like I did the first time I read the article, expecting a discussion about theism.

If you would like to read and see that FM is not paying attention to what I am saying, you can start here (my first comment I made is about a page-length down, and then I start commenting again after I say "I've added the disambiguation link, it's ok with me now." That's when FM reverted it the first time. After I apologized for saying the article was violating Wikipedia policies, I don't say anything more in that section and noone responds to me anymore.

The next section would be a section I talk to FM in is a section I started after I tried to add the change again since FM had just stopped talking to me. I think this was the 3 revert war. Anyway, I ask him why in this section. That's about it.

My other comments are 2 or 3 scattered comments, including chastising admin User:RoyBoy for responding to trolls by saying "Wikipedia is not a chatroom." I also tried to have a discussion about ID and Deism, which I mentioned earlier. That one is here. The last discussion is when I wrote to tell everyone that FM, amongst others, are admins because I thought it would be good for people to know that. I could not understand why FM and others were ignoring and insulting me, and why almost everyone I talked to on the page did the same thing, including another admin whom I told that it was FM who was revert warring because he was the one not discussing his changes and ignoring me. He just told me to file a RfM. When I found out that FM was an admin, as was a bunch of other people who had been misinterpreting and ignoring me I figured it was a case of cronyism. Not that I can prove it, but I thought it would be good for potential contributors to know in the interests of disclosure the number of admins editing the article and discussing on the talk page. An admin User:Duncharris even showed up literally out of nowhere to call me a "lowly troll" which of course further reinforced this belief. Then everyone attacked me for posting this information and I defended myself.--Ben 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also read my reply in the Ben's Point section that Ec5618 just made if you want to know more about my motivations for the changes. --Ben 11:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "A Very Unpleasant Experience"

• "Marsden, you're way out of line here. I didn't withdraw from editing because of losing any argument over the name. I withdrew because of your (and saxet's) personal attacks and I made that clear at the time. If your attitude to editing is that the way to make "progress" is to "beat" your opponents "into submission," then you'll end up winning all your battles, because all decent editors will withdraw from you at some point, until someone takes you to the arbcom and they ban you. You make editing a very unpleasant experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)"

Slim, it is only my attitude toward editing when Jay is involved that the way to make progress is to beat him into submission, and I like my chances if I'm taken to the arbcom over a dispute with him, regardless of the fact that he's on the committee. And, given how you tend to edit -- threatening new users, joining your friends in edit warring without even looking at what is being disputed, belittling people for not having many edits, accusing administrators of abusing their power for unblocking people whom you managed to get blocked unjustly -- maybe it's best for Wikipedia that you find it a very unpleasant experience.

By the way, have you really made a prediction about how long the word "occupied" would remain in the title of the Israeli-occupied territories article? Given the long and contentious debate that finally reached a consensus for that title, don't you feel some incling of responsibility to warn the people who have toiled on that article if you think some POV plot is waiting in the wings for the opportunity to thwart the collective will on what the article should be called? Do you feel any sense at all that, in order to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be, editing should be done in the open, and subject to the scrutiny of people of differing opinions? Do you see Wikipedia in the least as a worthy end in itself, or is it just a means for you to accomplish something more important to you? I don't expect you to answer, but if these comments make you uncomfortable and make editing Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for you, I would consider that a good thing.

Have you ever read F.A.Hayek's essay, "The Use of Information in Society," which makes clear why centralized control isn't a very effective way to manage information?

Marsden 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mormon_jew

Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jew has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jew. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarizes a Wikipedia template? LMAO --Zephram Stark 18:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Jolly glad that you think it's so funny honey... IZAK 07:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a Wikipedia template be just as open for use, copying, and changing, as an article?

The Mormon's don't mean any harm, and you can actually use them for your benefit. After all, another eleven million people supporting Jewish Zionism is nothing to sneeze at. --Zephram Stark 21:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the problem with the template, especially one that requires "official channels" to deal with. --Vizcarra 22:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you think, SlimVirgin? Since Mormons apparently migrated from Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C., don't they have a right to call themselves Jews? --Zephram Stark 00:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zephram Stark

Hi SlimVirgin, I noticed that in the past you have blocked sockpuppets of Zephram Stark. This user is being a massive disruption at Inalienable rights and United States Declaration of Independence (even resulting in that page being protected). Just wanted to point out User:D'Arby (contribs), who I think is another one of his sockpuppets. This edit is clearly written in the same rambling style. Is there any way to ban this person, or ban him from specific articles? It's really getting ridiculous.--JW1805 17:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. He posted a message recently on my talk page saying that you were "completely corrupt" :)

Actually, I said, "SlimVirgin sometimes protects the User:talk page of the person she's blocked too. Unless you can think of any other reason for her to do that, I would have to say that it proves she is completely corrupt." --Zephram Stark 18:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recently in the news

In regards to your work on the article concerning a certain critic of a certain search engine, I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your moral fortitude for sticking your neck out where you weren't obligated to. You are truly one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors. Thanks. Nohat 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusing others of being sockpuppets

Why do you think I am someone`s else sockpuppet? I have been a membe of wikipedia for roughly a year...I hope you didn`t do that only to help your nominee to win this voting. Thanks PMLF 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Being called a sockpuppet is just Slim's way of saying that she doesn't like you. Don't worry. According to the official reasons to block someone, you can't be blocked for being a sockpuppet. Of course, SlimVirgin doesn't follow any rules or policies, but being called a sockpuppet has nothing to do with that. She blocks people without citing any rule or policy on a regular basis. The important thing to remember is not to buy into her crap. If she gets you believing that she has power over you, others may believe it too. --Zephram Stark 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I won`t alllow her do that.PMLF 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

While I'd like to distance myself from Rangerdude's wild accusations, I would like to know what your edit to WP:PPol was for. It's just that I don't see what you're trying to say. Could you respond to this? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

Ben, I saw your note to FM. You can't file an RfAr as a first step; they won't accept it. You could try to file an article RfC, not one on an editor, but asking the community to comment on the article. Would that be a better idea? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This makes me nervous because, unless you commonly peruse FM's talk page, he is informing you of what I say through back channels which does not do anything to lessen my concerns about collusion amongst certain administrators. In fact, yesterday I noticed that administrator Duncharris, who showed up completely out of nowhere simply to call me a "lowly troll" on the ID talk page, came onto a page I created and worked on, Coingate (the activity there is very low), and reverted one of my edits without explanation[1]. In fact his reversion made no sense. It reverted back to old information and a factual error. I had clearly explained in the history why I made my changes. Duncharris had to have seen this. There was also vandalism on a page I recently edited yesterday (the activity there is just as low). This the first time that the page was vandalized.

Anyway, if FM will not participate in an RFC, an RFA is my only choice. I believe FM has clearly violated numerous Wikipedia policies, and I believe I can cite precedent when arguing my case. Whether the ArbCom will see it fit to hear my case or judge in my favour is up to them to decide. It is also possible that I will also have sanctions placed against me for my actions. I accept that. I would like you to please ask FM to respond to my question if you could.

p.s. I already filed an article RFC. We talked about it before. That is why FM contacted you. [2] --Ben 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

I believe FM is violating Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. He refuses to discuss my points. His responses are all off-topic and insultingly dismissive. He simply says something to the effect of "your change is factually inaccurate and POV." This is what he did the first time and he offered no more explanation than that. When I asked him to, his response has nothing to do with my edits, he starts talking about "Intelligent Design" as if it was a book he read rather than something you'd find in an encyclopedia. I attempted to clarify myself numerous times and in numerous different ways. His responses again were dismissive and any discussion he added was off-topic. He is obstructing changes to the article.

Two other admins, RoyBoy and Duncharris are both blatantly violating Wikipedia:Civility. Duncharris saying "you're just a lowly troll" is a violation and, further, his reverts of my contributions to Coingate I believe violate Wikipedia:Harassment. RoyBoy with his comment "Who's on first? A disingenuous creationist," which he later called his "favorite" joke, was not just likely offensive to creationists, but he was engaging an obvious troll, contrary to Wikipedia:Trolls.

What do I hope to achieve? Well, I believe the article violates WP:NOT in that the article is like a personal essay. I would like to see that change. I believe restructuring the article, or at the least, characterizing the article accurately for potential viewers and provide disambiguation will be helpful. It cannot change with these people there. I am not the only one who thinks the article is bad. People on ID's nomination for featured article status page[3] attest to this, saying things like:

"many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it"

"Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone"

"Shows Wikipedia At Its Worst," "makes Wikipedia look like a home for self-indulgent contributors"

"Who nominated this diatribe?" "This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia"

"The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes"

Here is a good example: on the Intelligent Design page, there is section solely devoted to the criticism "Who designed the designer?" This is appropriate for an essay on the subject, but not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. The question of "who designed the designer" is not at all unique to "Intelligent Design." It is a common critique of a variety of religious ideas. See Turtles all the way down.--Ben 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

I no longer wish to talk to you about this. Please refrain from posting on my talk page from this point on.--Ben 06:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

You're probably not crazy about hearing this name again but there's been some tag-team blanking of the page and it's gone through a couple protections. At the moment I have it protected but I'll probably unprotect it here in a little bit. I know you were involved in this so I thought I'd drop you a note about it. Rx StrangeLove 23:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war on Israel & West Bank

Take a look at the antics of User:Aabaas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aabaas recently in Israel and West Bank articles. Thanks IZAK 07:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion of Melchizedek

Hello Slim Virgin, since you protected the DOM article, and you say you are here to help, why did you ignore my question below:

"After that round of fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts, you did the right thing to protect. All I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is illegal, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here? Sincerely, Johnski 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)"Johnski 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the proposed text:

According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." [4] However, the only offical website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [5]

Do you think this section could be replaced with the current section? The last sentence is the only addition to the current version. Wouldn't this quote from the US OCC's official website help to give balance to the article?

SV I caution you to actually look at the links he's posted. Clearly, it does not say what he says it does. This is part of his campaign to twist the truth. He also goes around posting proposed pieces of text and then claims (fraduantly) he has consensus. This is exactly why no one will work with him. Davidpdx 06:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the exact text: "Information has been received that the subject entity holding a bank license issued by the Dominion of Melchizedek, a non-recognized

sovereignty, has an unauthorized address in the United States."KAJ 07:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please check. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] She's breaking up. Eject, eject!

So, how was my acceptance concession speech? ^_^ - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

"You appear to have violated 3RR at your RfC page. You may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself."

Does that mean you'll block yourself for violating RFC instructions? Or will your enforcement be selective? I think reverting vandalism is excluded from the 3RR rule. FuelWagon 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"You're deleting other people's comments, which you have no business touching, but you're leaving your own."

I don't know of any threaded comments by me that I've left on the RfC page. If I disputed a comment by someone I copied and pasted their words into my response area, and then responded to their post there, that is completely acceptable. The only other threaded comment I know of by me was answering a statement by Ann Heneghan by giving her diffs to two posts by Ed Poor. But Ann's comment was also a threaded comment, so I've moved the entire block of threaded comments to talk. There are no other threaded comments by me that I know of. FuelWagon 03:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and people have no business leaving threaded comments anywhere on the RfC page, as per RfC instructions. So, moving them to talk is acceptable. Actually, Bishonen was the first to start moving comments when the threads started getting heavy. Have you talked to Bishonen about "having no business touching" those comments too? or again, is your enforcement selective just against me? FuelWagon 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh no. I sometimes wonder if what people see in Tony and I is what I see in the two of you, although I suspect that we're all insulted by that comparison in some way. I do wish that there was something that could be done to end all this fussin' and fightin'. I think I'm going to assign myself some homework and read up on the (certainly lengthy) history. Barring that, I'd be happy to do whatever it was thought it would take, just ask. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa. That's like some kind of performance art. I try to put on my NPOV tinfoil hat when looking at RfCs - you know, to leave my preconceptions at the door and just examine the evidence. But this, it's so bizzare and compelling, with tables and stuff. I'm certainly willing to concede that there could be a conspiracy, with you as the black widow in a fuzzy jumper sitting in the middle. (Note - I always imagine you wearing the same jumper as the dog. Is that rude?) If you were going to pick someone to "snowball" FC would be a good candidate, the word smog makes it easy for people to ignore things he says regardless of their veracity. It's like a car wreck, I can't look away. Still, of course, reserving judgement until I examine the evidence. Whoa. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I've got sore eyeballs, but I've reviewed the RfC pretty thouroughly. Before I tell you what I think, I'd like twelve words or less sketching out your opinion on my powers of judgement. (I.e. How seriously are you going to take anything I say.)
  brenneman^(t)(c) 11:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Birthday Balloon

Image:Wikiballoon1.jpg

Wiki birthday to you! Wiki birthday, dear SlimVirgin! Wiki birthday to you! Congratulations on your first Wikibirthday at Wikipedia (November 2, 2005.). On behalf of the community, we'd like to thank you for your countless edits in the past year! Keep it coming!. This Wiki Birthday Balloon was awarded to you by: SoothingR

Wow! Congratulations. ~~ N (t/c) 17:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel's back again

The_Great_Saiyuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Blocked indef; I extended Gimmiet's block to two months from now. Cripes. I'll CC you the email I send him.

Fwiw, there's some question on whether this was him. See User talk:The Great Saiyuki. Friday (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your follow-up on this. I'm actually quite happy to find out the IP was from an entirely different region. Friday (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak from my side too SV. Best wishes --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive ?

Slim, in what way I am disruptive ? Please take a good look at the use of such word. We all are only editing pages. Nothing disruptive as long as the software semaphores can deal with two or more editors editing the same page at the same time so please explain. If indeed I am disruptive I will stop editing the RfA. It really does not matter any more as it is far from consensus. Zeq 21:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried the discussion page but could not edit for some unknown reason so i am doing what you and others have done and editing the project page. Thanks, for your note. Zeq 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Try this: [6] - what you suggested does not work and since no one used it I am still asking how was I disruptive ? Zeq 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Month long block on a DHCP IP User_talk:66.69.128.146

I'm aware of the blocks being made today against the user editing islam from tor and other places, so I understand why you blocked the IP, but a one month block for a dhcp pool address is somewhat long, dontcha think? --Gmaxwell 03:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen that IP do anything blockable recently, and I don't see any evidence he's Enviroknot. Of course, I know next to nothing about Enviroknot. I'm supopsed to be on a wikibreak, so just do what you want with it and i'll trust your judgement. Anyway, if you reblock it, I would suggest a shorter block time, since it's a dynamic IP. --Phroziac^(talk) 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppets Of Johnski

SV, here is a list I've compiled of possible sockpuppets he is using. Most of them have the exact same edits and content:

Here are the user names: User:Johnski, User:Wiki-Facts, User:KAJ, SamuelSpade, User:207.47.122.10, User:202.162.66.158, User:12.202.45.74, User:67.124.49.20, User:63.164.145.198, User:71.130.204.74, User:66.245.247.37, User:208.57.91.27, User:68.123.207.17

I had posted a message on David Gerard's user page and got no answer. Please let me know if your able to find anything out. Davidpdx 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ms. SlimVirgin: It should be easy to establish that I am only one of the users listed above (KAJ) and I have only used one IP address before my user name, which I disclosed. You may notice that Davidpdx didn't show the same good faith. It is easy to believe his agruments unless you read the entire history between Davidpdx and Johnski which showed that Johnski patiently made attempts to compromise. It appears that they had a hard time of it because they were trying to handle the entire subject instead of one issue at a time. Mr. Harrison suggested one issue at a time, but nothing happened in that direction. Let's just see Davidpdx honestly deal with the issue of the US OCC, and some locigal reason why that part shouldn't be balanced. This will expose which side is being reasonable. I don't think you have to be an expert on the subject to handle this one issue. It is quite simple, as an employee (Mr. Shockey) of the US OCC has been quoted as saying DOM is a "scam" but his boss (Mr. Stipano) wrote in an US OCC official publication only stating that "Melchizedek is an unrecognized sovereignty" responsible for granting a "license" to a bank called Caribean Bank of Commerce. Should an article give both sides of an argument, regardless of where you stand on the issue? Whether it is a scam or not isn't the issue, only that if there are publications that provide different views, you don't just include one side. In this case, isn't the higher authority, an official publication, more important than a quote of a verbal statement?.KAJ 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is trolling ?

Slim,

Show mw other Rfas where some question are on the main page and other moved to talk. Don't abuse your powers. Zeq 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] === You are now making threats ===

Slim,

You are threating to block me. I prefer Dialogue not threats. If you remove the threat we can continue to talk. Zeq 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I am glad you stopped. Clearly, as you point out in [7] what you have been doing is not appropriate, not as the nominator, not as an admin and not as a civilized way of solving disputes. I am glad you changed your mind and decided not to reveret me for the 3rd time and not to block me for speaking my mind. I now expect that your request for others to do this on your behalf will be withdrawn as well. Wikipedia rulls are for a reason and getting others to violate them for you is not a nobel thing to do. Zeq 09:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rabin 10 year annivarasary not on main page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#.3D.3D.3D_Rabin_.3D.3D.3D

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for your help in updating the main page with this sad day in Israel's history. The day peace was murdered. Zeq 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Wow! You seem to be in the middle of lots of controversy these days! A nice girl like you - who'da thunk it? ;) I hope there is more collaboration and less conflict in your future. And more hot baths too. And maybe some fudge. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PRueda29 RFA

Thanks for your support! I really appreciate it. PRueda29 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Hmmm, looks like you are expecting personal attacks, eh? Well, I don't see any recent ones, so if you want, I will loan you a few. When you are done with them, you can return them to me.

(fill in blank with tauntee's name)

• "_____ is a meanie"
• "_____ is a poopie head"
• "Roses are green _____ is smelly" (this is a dumb taunt - it doesn't have to rhyme)

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I was moving this past week, and it took me ages longer than I expected to get fully back online. My apologies for being so slow. In part Bishonen has been doing more work than I have (as usual :-P ) , NullC also may have been tracking stuff iirc, and finally, see if you can ask NicholasTurnbull to find some more folks to help you (tell 'em kim sent you). IRC (irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia) will also often get you far, and there's a chance I'd be online too.

Once again, my apologies for the unanticipated slowness.

Kim Bruning 03:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veganism

Saw your comments to FuelWagon on the Veganism page, about his bizarre interpretation of POV policy. I went round and round with him via email, saying the same things you did, but he insisted that it's POV to say something objective like "People become vegans for a number of reasons, primarily out of concern for animal rights". He then removed that phrase from the article, so I reverted it. It's funny, I suspect that he's someone who's just really rubbed the wrong way by veganism and thus wants to counter every sentence, even the NPOV ones. I do think that the overwhelming majority of non-vegans would correctly identify the phrase in question as being a good description of vegans' motivations -- whether they agree with those motivations or not. Michaelbluejay 06:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes about quality of sources

Hi Slim,

While working on the history of Australia at the Winter Olympics, I've come across a book that I feel is semi-dodgy. The book is "Australians at the Olympics: A Definitive History" by Gary Lester, with an ISBN of 0 949853 05 4 , published 1984. The book appears to contradict itself (saying that the result in an event was X in one part of the book, and that it was Y in another), suggesting that inaccuracies may occur not just because of genuine confusion but due to sloppiness. Thankfully, I've got another source I've been checking against, but is there somewhere where I can note that a certain source is dodgy?

Thanks, Andjam 13:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found out about wikibooks errata: Errata/0949853054 Andjam 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP images of October 19

Hi. Could you provide an update on the images currently listed under October 19, 2005 on Wikipedia:Copyright problems? That is, if permission has been received to use the images. Would like to clear them from the backlog. Thanks. RedWolf 21:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Could you add the appropriate fair use rationale to all of these images as required by the fairuse tag? Thanks. RedWolf 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turki al-Hamad

I know you will delete and revert this but i dont care i have aol and my ip changes every few minutes. But i find turki al-hamad offensive and he is against my religion please remove him or i will. 152.163.100.67

Can´t you tell us just what you find offensive? And do you feel everybody has the right to try to destroy everything they find offensive? Regards. Huldra 22:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well yes in this case I find it to be the only proper thing to do. TIP Check discussin page

But WHY do you find it the "only proper thing to do"? Just WHAT is it about the Turki al-Hamad article that you find so offensive? I am genuinly wondering. Regards, Huldra 03:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)PS: if you make reasonable sivilized comments, you will find that you are not reverted. But if you cut out a lot of material other people have spend a lot of time working on, and/or insert nasty language; well, there are a lot of people on "vandal patrol". Always.

I have a question do these vandal patrol people get payed. and how do you become an administrator? RESISTANCE IS FUTILE Really whats the point in blocking my ip i have aol and it takes maybe 5 seconds to change it so all you people are doing is affecting other aol users not me

No, the vandal patrol do not get payed, not to my knowledge! (Just as I do not get payed for creating articles about Emily Ruete etc..) But a LOT of people voluntare to do patrol. Articles that are often vandalized are put on the "watch-list" on many, many, MANY editors. Everywhere in the world! When an article is on a users "watch-list": then you can see if it has been changed recently.

You become an administrator by being a useful member of the Wikipedia community for some time (normally a minimum of a few months), and have a minimum of, say, about 1000 edits. The community (here: the registrerd users, i.e. those who have registred with a user name) vote on whether to support or oppose that persons "adminship". And if that user has made good edits (and not offended too many people....), then he/she will be elected.

Now; I´ve taken time on answering your question, could you please consider answering my question? WHAT is it about the Turki al-Hamad article that you find so offensive? I am still genuinly wondering. Regards, Huldra 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to contact me or ask me a question you email me at usnsealn2012@gmail.com this is not my main one but only one of my many so you dont need to search the wikipedia database for it because you wont find it

I have emailed you, Regards, Huldra 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KAJ

Ms. SlimVirgin: Check your gmail for the subject KAJ.KAJ 03:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it on the DOM talk page:

Kaj, can you supply a link to the WP article, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

SV, I found it here: http://www.melchizedek.com/press/war-france.htm Rriter 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ms. SlimVirgin: You can get a cleaner version from Nexis-Lexis that doesn't have inserts like "(what religion)". It is confusing because some of the other inserts are part of the article. KAJ 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The portion with inserts are not related to the issues of Mr. Shockey saying it's phony, or the response "who's to say it's phony" if that is what you are looking for.KAJ 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-facts

Hi SV,

It may just be me, but I was surprised to realise that "wiki-facts" is actually a user name. Regardless of behaviour, the name itself is (at least to me) confusing.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramallite

I'm not really familiar with this user, but in spite of your claim that he interacts well with people from all POVs he seems to have substantial opposition for being a POV warrior. My own reason for opposing him is his lack of Wikispace presence, suggesting a lack of familiarity with process. But it seems he'll get consensus to pass anyway, so I'm sure he'll do his best. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramallite tally clarification

I didn't mean to misattribute a comment to you. I just figured that rather than get in a revert war over how the tally was summarized, it would be good to alert the bureaucrat that the given tally included some questionable votes. I changed your comment slightly, but kept part of it (which is why I put my name as "co-author"); it seemed like the simplest thing. Anyway, I'm very happy to have the clarification comment just be from me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page vandalism

Hi! I would like to inform you about vandalism going on at the Talk:Republika Srpska (hot topic :). An anonimous user is deleting posts made by User:PANONIAN. Evidence is here: [8], [9], [10], [11]. I think that one of the worst and most perfid forms of vandalism is erasing posts on discussion pages. Could we do something about it? -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 21:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Tks for quick response! I'll let you know if this repeats. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 22:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double degree

Within ninety minutes of your unprotecting it, Howardjp (talk · contribs) leapt in and deleted the section under discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's strange, I know; he's behaving like fans editing articles on their pop-heroines, or people editing articles on the more extreme areas of politics or religion, yet it's just a sampling of relevant institutions. The only explanation for his behaviour (including the emotional commitment he brings to it) is that he has some sort of chip on his shoulder about universities, but I can't work out what it is. Perhaps he's just trapped himself in a need to stick with his initial action. I see that Winnermario (talk · contribs)'s other account, Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs), has pitched in — just about the only non-pop-music article in which he's shown interest. Odd coincidence... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haldane's dilemma

I reverted haldane's dilemma then saw the reversion was done by you so i reverted it back

[edit] Missed a bit

I'd undo this. Caesar's wife, etc. Someone else can carry the load, trust us a little. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that the ordeal is over, are you going to put yourself forward to help the (probable) newest admin overcome the shortfall in wikispace edits? Or are you just going to point him at WP:DRV and say "go crazy"? Just as cover until the Ijtihad replaces WP:5P, of course. Or are you a neo-Zionist this week? I can never keep it straight. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So I'm off the main RfA page! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I took you off because the vote has closed. If you want to be back on it, feel free to revert me, or if you feel uncomfortable doing that, let me know and I'll revert myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could this become a featured article?

Hi Slim,

I'm considering trying to make Australia at the Winter Olympics a featured article before the 2006 Winter Olympics starts. Currently it's nowhere near featured article quality, but I'd like to know if the topic is noteable enough or whether such a proposal would get voted down no matter how good the article is. What would your view be?

Thanks, Andjam 03:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MSN

Could you get on MSN about now? Redwolf24 (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia-watch

Hi,

I'm leaving this same message on the page of all the users mentioned by Brandt on this new page of his wikipeida-watch site. As you can see from the link, he's put together a list of the Wikipedia users that he sees as his enemies, and is trying to collect as much personal information as he can about each of them. Just thought I should let you know. Canderson7 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double degree

There are several reasons not to keep the external links there. Under WP:SPAM, there is WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. There, look at items 2, 3, and 4. And objective view clearly shows that 2, 3, and 4, as principals, are violated. I feel that 1 is violated as well, but am willing to admit that is more subjective. Secondly, they are, as I have more than adequately demonstrated, "common as dirt." Everyone and their brother offers some form of double degree program. I knocked the list up to 50 or so links and could easily hit 10x that. Any collection that provides a "sample" without sufficient justification of that sample is inherintly POV. As I said, why is the example from the United States Columbia? It should be the school I went to. Or all three of them. Finally, Wikipedia is not a web directory. That's [12]. So while it may be that you find the links helpful, it does not change the fact they are inappropriate. -James Howard (talk/web) 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Coronado

Looking over your edits to Rod Coronado, you removed the word "Professor", claiming this "removed implication that the two MSU researchers are full professors." I have gone back and re-edited this, since

• Professor Aulerich was indeed a full professor (promoted in 1979). Here's one reference[13]
• Professor Chou was an assistant professor, which I have now noted.

-- Kaszeta 14:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How appropriate do you think it is ...

... for you to censor people's comments in an arbitration to which you are party? Marsden 15:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jung Chang

Hi, an anon user (ip: 134.82.142.46) has twice already vandalised the Jung Chang article. Can you read the riot act please? I'll tell you if they do it again. Many thanks, John Smith's 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute at Mizrahi Jews

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with User:Al-Andalus at Mizrahi Jews? It's regarding various wordings - you have a way with words, and, if nothing else, I find his wording execrable. I'd appreciate some outside opinions. Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark A. Gabriel

Hello SlimVirgin. You mentioned in Talk:Mark A. Gabriel that you read of a reviewer, who stated that Gabriel's books looked as if they were written by a ten-year-old? Do know the name of this exact reviewer? I'd like to know about him or her. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 02:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!!

Wow - that was a close one. Thanks so much for everything, not just nominating me but working hard to press my case. Next time I'll provide the Johnny Walker (Black Label of course!) I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, remember when you asked me how much support it would take for him to pass? Like 30 more people.. and he still pulled it off. My lord... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Daniel Brandt

Might want to check out the bottom of the talk page for my additional comment... - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anniversary

Hey, it appears that you have been editing Wikipedia for a year now (O.K., I missed the exact anniversary by a couple of days). Congratulations/Condolences! Keep up the good work! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Striver

Slimvirgin, I'm turning everywhere in a search for help dealing with the user Striver, and coming up empty. He has made 500 edits in the last four days. Many of them have been to create new articles of complete uselessness. He is also trying to turn various Islam-related articles into items of Shi'a piety.

He has decided that he is going to make all his article references by creating an article for the book he wants to reference, then linking to it. I asked him PLEASE not to do this, and he asserted, basically, that I was not the boss of him and he could reference books in a new way if he wanted to do so.

For examples of both trends, see the Ali article. There are his cockamamie references. He is also filling it up with Shi'a myths (Ali born in the Kaaba) and quotes laudatory of Ali.

He can't write, can't spell, and has no sense of what is a useful reference and what isn't. Take a look at his user page and see if you come to the same conclusion that I do about his mental state. Is there nothing one can do about a editor of dubious ability and amazing stamina? It is going to take months to clean up after him, even if he's stopped NOW. IMHO, he's trashing Wikipedia. What CAN I do? Zora 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCCI

Hey, Slim. I notice you've been doing a lot of good cleaning-up of Abu Nidal recently. (Nice job, by the way!) I thought I'd mention to you that the BCCI article is pretty anemic. It's a very important scandal, tieing in a bunch of hot topics: John Kerry's biggest accomplishment in the Senate was bringing BCCI down; many of the folks that funded 9/11 made their money at BCCI; the CIA's involvement in finance really got started here; Saudi Arabia's money in the U.S. is a potential hot-button issue, and you can't understand that without understanding BCCI; and the banking scandals of the 80's (including the infamous S&L bailout) are tie in too. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut here, but it really is all related. So a comprehensive BCCI article is badly needed. I just haven't gotten around to doing the research and writing it. So I thought it I brought it to your attention, it might somehow magically blossom into a featured article without me having to work at it. ; )

Hope things are going well for you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great! Good luck! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. A guy named Steve has been editing the Salem al-Hazmi article, and it needs a little love. Could you give it a look-see? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying vandals

Thanx for banning User:70.190.26.38. 68.39.174.238 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting me on my successful RfA, and I'll see you around Wikipedia! — Phil Welch 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Please describe your edits in more detail. In your last edit to PETA you decribe your changes as rv to New Testament; the "bible" doesn't only refer to the Christian bible). That's great, but you also deleted a reference I added as well as changing other text not related to the edit description. I accept your Christian Bible change, but it is fact that it is a minority of Christian scholars believe that Jesus was a vegetarian. I left you two references to this fact.--129.173.105.28 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please check your email. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)}

SV please check email. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Utterly frivolous request

Hey, I hope I'm not posting here inappropriately, but I wanted to email you a (frivolous for you, semi-serious for me) question regarding PETA. If that's not totally annoying (understandable if it is), can you tell me the best way to do this? IronDuke 05:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You coy bird!

"is npa3 defenestrated, by the way?"

It had been a while, but I was scratching my head, certain that that template had had its teeth pulled. You're really twisting a tom's tail there, and I have made a vow to be very very nice to the old tiger.

I'm interested in the whole dispute resolution spectrum, and this seems like an obvious thing to me. First we eliminate an atmosphere in which personal attacks are accepted, or even grumpily ignored. When someone makes an attack, other contributors, any contributor, should feel as though they have both the duty and the right to say, "Hey! Stop it!" They should also feel safe in doing so.

I had a guy jump me on the train Thursday because I asked him to leave alone a schoolgirl he was hassling. Half the time it's like that here, if you step in then all that happens is that you start copping it.

Once we've licked that, we begin to work on civility. Ok, we may have to start with me, but I can live with that.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow train

Hi, thanks for tidying up the small page i created....always appreciate help. But am interested in what flagged the page as needing attention? Collieman

[edit] User talk:SlimVirgin (Jeremiah Duggan draft)

Found this page in my travels, it looks like a temporary page. I thought I'd leave it to you to delete or move to a more appropriate location. -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erica White

Hi, Slim!

Thanks for your help this morning. (Well, I'm not sure if it was morning where you are.)

I recently started an article on nutritionist Erica White, and looking at it now, I'm wondering if it's too anecdotal. I started one earlier on Patrick Holford, and am much more comfortable with that one, because it's based more on facts and dates (where he studied, what organizations he founded, what books he has written). In the case of Erica White, I find that the information known about her is less concrete – she felt ill, her doctor was unsympathetic, her husband carried her meals up to her, etc. Sure, there are simple historical facts with dates, like starting the diploma course or setting up her own practice, but these things are not so interesting as her transformation from someone who lay on the sofa all day long while her husband washed the dishes to someone whose business expanded so rapidly that her husband had to give up his job in order to manage it full time.

If you have time, could you take a look and remove or change anything that you think shouldn't be there. I'm positive that she's notable enough for an article, but I mightn't be distant enough to be sure how to write it, as eight members of my family are patients of hers (through e-mail and telephone) with wonderful results. I don't think the article should be controlled by a very satisfied patient, though, and so far nobody else has gone near it!

Despite the drama this morning at my talk page, which wasn't really that bad – I eventually stopped reverting because I felt it was just wasting server space with all the versions stored in the page history – I'm going to ask you to unprotect my userpage, and we'll just see what happens. I'd like to make a few changes to it.

Thanks for always being around to help! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the conflict

Please see [14]. If this is the origin of Willmcw's monitoring of my edits, then this whole mess is one giant case of mistaken identity aggrevated by bad faith assumptions. Rangerdude 06:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

I'm sorry, but I doubt you read the changes entirely, or you would not have stated "rv to last version by Zero; I agree that it's better without these changes". That edition you two have reverted to contains outdated information on demography that changes from what is in stated in the intro to what is stated in the demography section. Further, I have also added Ladino as a spoken language. Please do not deny this. And I have also added that Arabic is also spoken my some Mizrahi and Teimani.

Please point out any inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. But do not revert under the guise that it “looks better”, but by doing so you delete so much relevant information that should not be omitted.

Again, I cannot comprehend how you could agree (I you have indeed compared version) that it is better without the changes, when the article content conflicts from one part of the article to the other. Al-Andalus 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

From your own user page: "Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR. Be self-limiting in how many times you revert a page in a day. Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk." I have done this. Please do also comply by your own demands. I am the only one who has explained my reasons. I'm still awaiting yours and user Zero's. Once more, please point out to me the inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. Al-Andalus 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive apartheid editor

I wonder what the guy was trying to prove by posting a link to a picture of me? It's not like I try to make a secret of my identity or anything. I know for some editors it would be an invasion of privacy or intimidation or something of the sort; but geez, if I was skeered of that, I wouldn't put my real name and my background on my user page. At least he chose a nice picture of me! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• That latest one he posted a link to is a funny choice. I'd almost never sung in public before; and I'd certainly never sung solo in public. As a result of the pictures taken at the wedding, I very quickly taught myself sing without looking like I'm in pain. I had no idea! --Jpgordon 05:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber

would you mind helping out again? a reverter named Yuber does nothing but revert everything i do! I put in information with proper sources but he just reverts and reverts! John McW 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't listen to this guy. The section was worked on by several editors and he just wants to put his version in against consensus. Yuber^(talk) 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

yuber keeps deleting information that I provided links at the Syria and History of Syria, articles, and he even takes out the link. at first he wouldn't even say why he reverted but now he keeps using different reasons. instead he puts in other stuff that doesn't even have any links, he just made it up. also he changed the Lebanon article to say silly stuff and revert me on november 6 and when i fixed it he keeps pretending that I am the one who changed the article. also he keeps adding a link to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon article about "Israeli occupied territories" which has nothing to do with lebanon. he keeps pretending they are about the same thing. yuber is a syrian apologist who only knows how to revert. everything I do he reverts, he doesn't even say why. how can I edit here if he follows me everywhere and reverts me? is there some way he can be stopped from doing this? John McW 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for undeletion

I have been asked to provide the details of our conversation of March 2005. Accordingly, please undelete what is under this Deletion link to some non-controversial place, such as to the as yet unconstructed page User_talk:Rednblu/Human. Thank you. Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There is need to have the discussion on that page available because the discussion on that page is integral to the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page as you can see at this link. The discussion on that page was moved from Talk:Human/Rednblu, is that not so? Rednblu | Talk 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to remember our discussions. Many people have written to me asserting that what is on that page is needed to assess the User:Rednblu account. That whole deleted page was moved from the Talk:Human discussion, is that not so? Perhaps if you could restore that page just temporarily to some page under my account we could both look at it and perhaps then delete it again. What could be the harm in that? Rednblu | Talk 04:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have time to restore that deleted page to some page under my account? Sorry to trouble you. I am not sure what you meant when you wrote "there is a problem regarding the Rednblu user account." But we don't have to ever figure that one out.  :) Let's move forward. You created the page Talk:Human/Rednblu where we had that March 2005 discussion, then you moved that discussion to User_talk:SlimVirgin/Rednblu, and then the page disappeared. Isn't that exactly what happened? Many people write to me saying that they have to see our discussion that was on that deleted page. My only interest is to have our discussion available for them since they ask for it. If what they tell me is right, and that is how I remember it also, this deleted page is not just your thoughts and cogitations. Many other people were part of those discussions also; so the discussions are a proper part of Wikipedia proceedings. Maybe you don't want that page restored under your account? Fine. Then please restore that page under my account, thank you. Sorry to trouble you, but we need that discussion undeleted. And I cannot do it myself. So I would appreciate your help here. Thanks. Rednblu | Talk 05:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MENTCOM

Hello Slim! I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the Mentorship Committee... Just read the page for some details on who we are and what we do.

P.S. when ya gonna join the medcom? :P

Redwolf24 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy changes by Gilgamesh

Unfortunately, User:Gilgamesh is now imposing his own views by changing the transliterated Hebrew names of articles with redirects to unreadable Hebrew names and fonts, as if his criteria are the only ones to reckon with, when there are in fact several. My computer, as I am sure many others' as well, does not pick up his type of fonts, and thus he is messing up articles such as Safed, Hadera, Holon, Afula, Arad, Israel and many others defacing them and making them unreadable on the web. He is going to DESTROY the normal usage of Wikipedia's Hebrew transliterations to satisfy his own needs without there being any consensus. Common usages are being thrown out in favor of obscure and pedantic academic usages familiar to only a handful of unkown academics. He should be called upon to stop BEFORE he rushes to do further damage without any consensus being reached. All his changes should therefore be reverted. See all his recent contributions via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilgamesh I thank you for your interest, and urge all readers here to act. IZAK 03:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew naming conventions

At the present time there is a serious discussion taking place, aiming at some consensus that will result in "official" Wikipedia guidelines about how Hebrew should be used and written in Wikipedia articles. Because of your past or ongoing interest in these type of articles with Hebrew words in them, your attention is called to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [15] TO MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN AND TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE "DOORS ARE SHUT" PLEASE SEE THE RELATED DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [16] Thank you! IZAK 03:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DOM Conflict

SV, I just thought I'd let you know that the conflict with Johnski has gone to arbitration. I saw that you blocked SamuelSpade as a sockpuppet. Can you tell me what proof if any you found? Thanks... Davidpdx 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Hi Slim, I'm trying to list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Evangelization for deletion, but it seems to be hosing up the Nov 13 listings. Help! It's the first time I've listed an AFD. I clicked on "Add a new entry" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and added {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Evangelization}} at the bottom, but it somehow is merging with the previous listing. Weird, I don't know what I'm doing wrong. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 13:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

oops! never mind, figured it out! there were more directions at the bottom of the page I didn't notice the first time : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! that was probably me in the edit conflict. I originally didn't have the template set up on the page listing --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Based on what I see of your discussions with Rednblu, I assume you're aware that a subpage of yours is currently being discussed at WP:DRV. As it's an odd case, I think it might be useful to get your opinion. I noticed on Rednblu's talk page you said something about not wanting to get involved. That's fine, but does that mean you have no objection to undeletion? -R. fiend 18:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double degree again

Sorry, I know that this is a pain, but I'm not sure what to do about this Howardjp (talk · contribs). He's still insisting (despite universal disagreement from those who have commented, and a clear set of definitions at Wikipedia:Spam) that the sample list of universities is "linkspam", and he has deleted the list again. He seems to have some sort of obsession with this, though I don't know what's at the root of it. I don't see any alternative but to protect the page. It's not clear that what he's doing is vandalism, though he's certainly fallen foul of "no personal attacks", and possibly of W:POINT (in that he tried adding a ridiculously long list in order to demonstrate that a full list was impractical). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I said before, and I will say again. I never engaged in a personal attack. You did above. And you did previously. Additionally, the "clear definition" at Wikipedia:Spam shows the sample list is spam. Finally, I have, more than once, offered compromise solutions which you have failed to even address. It is clear, through your actions and words, you are not acting in good faith. Your inability and unwillingness to participate in this in a civilized manner makes it quite difficult to resolve this issue. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Spellchecker

I saw your block on User:Spellchecker. User:Spellcheck8 may be the same editor/bot. BlankVerse 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ingrid Newkirk

I just wanted to let you know that I've pitched in to help the mediators on the Ingrid Newkirk issue. It's a little thorny but it doesn't seem like it should be too hard to find a neutral solution. I've extended the discussion on the talk page a bit given my reading of the Martosko transcript. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 19:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gerry Adams

We seem to have a mess between different versions here. Did you do a straight revert to your previous version of 13 November? There were quite a few other changes in the meantime (I thought the article was badly inadequate and made some changes as well as suggesting to a couple of other users interested in the area that they might take a look at it). Palmiro | Talk 23:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to be able to disagree completely with someone and still discuss it in an entirely civil way. I appreciate it.

By the way, I've pointed the issue out to a couple of other users, who may be able to shed light (or heat) on it. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Life

Care to have a look at this? It's a mess at the moment, and needs some work from people who actually know something (other than Douglas Adams and the Celestine Prophecy...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, my Talk page has light blue text, and your page is all underlined. I'd assumed that it was my browser playing up. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from Ann's talk:

==Messed up pages==

Hey, I'm noticing something very strange going on. At your RfA, someone messed with Journalist's (Orin's) sig and managed to screw up the page (I fixed it). And now it has happened here. I took a look at Slim's talk and it seems that has been messed with as well. I don't know if this is malicious or a prank but isn't coincidence methinks. --hydnjo talk 23:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Would this eplain it, or is it an unrelated problem? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I found it. Someone changed Al-Andalus' post by substituting <u/> for</u>. I'll leave it for you to fix in case you want to trace back to the doer.  :-) --hydnjo talk 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's your fault...

That I'm now obsessed with my user page. I wanted it to look nice so that my star (thank you!) could be displayed appropiately. So I've used up my yearly rations of disk space and server time in the last three days, and the devs now say I'm allowed to edit articles no one will ever look at. So, if you want to help me with Witty sayings by GWB or How videogames make you sexy, let me know. And thanks again!
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

[edit] Yeah, that was bad.

Regarding [17]. I'm surprised I wrote that, actually. I was desperately searching for some way to say "nutjob" in an NPOV way. The difficulties of describing LaRouche neutrally, I guess.. Anyways, thanks for getting rid of that little bit of crappy prose on my part. Cheers, Sean|Black 07:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you for responding to my RfA. I appreciate the comments and will certainly strive to interact more notably with the community. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory redux

"This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends..." See [18]. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yuder again

can you help me with this yuber reverter? he is reverting me again and claiming (lying) that what I put in is not sourced or that there is "consensus" that people have agreed to. he is even reverting me using an IP address. if you can't help me can you tell me someone who can? John McW 03:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

thank you. it is 4 articles, Syria, History of syria, Syrian occupation of lebanon, and Lebanon. John McW 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

thank you, but your question won't help, he keeps making up new reasons. read up higher on the page, every time it's something different, and then his edits use even more excuses. John McW 03:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry King

It's entirely appropriate to have minor subjects listed only in a disambiguation page, such as Henry King. If the redlinks offend, it'd be better to unlink them than to remove the info. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptable sources?

Hi SlimVirgin. As you're an expert on the policies regarding sources, I was wondering if you could provide some advice. An editor has added large sections to the Israeli Arab article using two French sources, and have quoted Marxist analysis as fact. I've argued that the sources are not verifiable (as they are written in French), nor should they used in any event (at least for the economic analysis section), because Marxist economic analysis is an extreme minority opinion. Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think in my own defence I should note that this (specifically the claim "has quoted Marxist analysis as fact") is not just an insubstantiated, but a highly inaccurate account of what has been going on. Palmiro | Talk 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I live in Syria, where there are very few books of an academic standard available in English (I have some of my own, of course, but that's quite limited). I have quite a lot of books available to me in French and Arabic, though. This sort of problem probably applies to a lot of editors who don;t live in anglophone countries. Should I just give up on trying to edit?Palmiro | Talk 00:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand. If I reference a book in English, I am not obliged to provide a verbatim quote of what it says. The policy doesn't seem to me to imply that more stringent requirements apply when a foreign-language source is referenced. The two examples you give are both of direct quotes, and I got that bit all right. In any case, Wikipedia is full of foreign language speakers, many categorised or listed as available, so the citation of a foreign-language source (particularly in a language such as French) may make the verifiability a little more complicated, but hardly makes it impossible.

To make my concerns a bit clearer, this is an example of an article I created based entirely on one foreign language source (by a respected academic) (here here is another example, which also would have been impossible without using a foreign language source). I made two direct quotes, which I now understand I should also give in Arabic. But the rest is summarised or simply based on the Arabic source, as one normally does when using sources for any work. Should I have cited in Arabic every element of the book that I actually used? This would make the process of creating the article almost impossibly burdensome.

Also, there may well be sources available in English, but I don't have them. Does this mean I should have refrained from writing the article? I'm not claiming it's a particularly good article (in fact, looking back over it now it strikes me as pretty poor in many respects), but it gives Wikipedia some level of coverage of a notable figure in the intellectual, and to a degree political, history of the modern Middle East.

As regards 'saying what your sources are', I actually did, and I still got jumped on despite the fact that lots of articles, including articles about the middle east, are filled with stuff that is written without any sources, or with tendentious internet sites as sources, and with no effort to seek information out in reliable sources and write it up, which takes rather more effort.

Thank you for your calm and rational intervention, it's a pleasure to work with you.Palmiro | Talk 00:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite keen to hear your views on this, when you have time. Palmiro | Talk 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Degree

James, if you continue to delete that list of links, I'm going to consider blocking you, which I don't want to do, but the page can't stay protected forever and this can't continue. No one agrees with you that this is spam, and you've used a couple of abusive edit summaries too. Please either discuss the issue on the talk page, or let it go and move on. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply: First, there is not sufficient grounds to block me. Removing linkspam is not vandalism. So blocking me would be an abusive act for an admin. Second, it's irrelevant if nobody agrees with me. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Third, there have been no abusive edit summaries (though the last one I made was "rvv" when it should have been "rv linkspam", due to lookahead in Firefox). Claiming so is a personal attack. Fourth, I am the only one discussing it on the talk page. I have discussed the issue ad nauseum on the Talk page. I note, quite simply, that I have answered every question you've posted whereas User:Mel Etitis continues to ignore any attempt at dialogue. I suspect you intended to post the above on User:Mel Etitis's page, since it is a far closer description of his actions, than mine. -James Howard (talk/web) 00:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so that you're aware, official policy states:

Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited...

So with that in mind, it strikes me that the threat of a block is probably in violation of policy, at least in spirit. Therefore, I ask that you immedietly retract the threat. -James Howard (talk/web) 01:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't come close to disrupting Wikipedia. Content conflicts are, by definition, not disruptive. Additionally, I am under no obligation to keep misguided threats on my talk page. -James Howard (talk/web) 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:Mel Etitis is a linkspammer. Wikipedia:Spam is especially clear on the topic. Also, you'll note that not everyone disagrees with me. User:Jasonglchu and User:BenAveling openly agree that the list shouldn't be there and User:Carolynparrishfan thinks it would be better to offer a list of institutions that didn't. Out of eight people (not counting you, since you claim to not be involved in the dispute, and User:Hollow Wilerding who just made a flip remark), four don't think the list should be there. There is no consensus to keep the list. There isn't even a majority. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

James, the list shouldn't be there but it isn't spam. It is abusive of you to call Mel a spammer, especially in an edit summary. And blanking a warning off your talk page, that's not the done thing either. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please check. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can you look at this?

Hi. I need some admin help. First see this, and look at my questions at User talk:Zoe. If you have time, please tell me what you think, and/or take appropriate action. Thanks!--Sean|Black 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

About a month ago I placed this note on Israeli Arab talk page Talk:Israeli_Arab#One_big_POV. Since then the article has been improving. I find it odd that you as an editor, as an admin have allowed this article to be the way it was as that time. Surly you have seen it. Are you really looking to improve wikipedia to make it comprehansive NON POV. If so, even if you don't "like" me you should take part in the effort of improving such articles. So far you are not helping. You allowed a text that is clearly Marxist propeganda to be on this article. Zeq 05:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikipedia the place for such propeganda ?

"The Israeli Communist Party played a major role in mobilising the Israeli Arab community ...Its newpapers and journals were important outlets for Arab Israeli expression and cultural production. " ?

Slim,

Maybe you can point me to the Wikipedia policy that support having such a sentnce on an article. Is it POV ? Is it sourced ? Is it add anything to the reader who looks for a encyclopedic info about "Who are those Israeli- Arbas ? I thought all Israelis are Jewish ?"

When I write an article I have my kids in front of my eyes: If they have a school project what would they be looking for ? I don't think what goes on in "Israeli Arab" article add any respect to wikipedia or any value to Wikipedia readers. Do you ? See other examples (one of many) in the talk page. A kinder, gentler 07:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Icke/Littlejohn

The Littlejohn interview is notable, it is often shown on those clip/compilation/worst moment things. Icke himself references Littlejohn in a letter he wrote to the producers of This Morning http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:WPnII5E4FywJ:www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2004/shu.html+littlejohn+icke&hl=en Jooler 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No response

Hello SlimVirgin, Can you please respond to my last gmail? Thank you, Johnski 08:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (with a few quibbles)

Thanks for editing the_eXile page. It does obviously need a 3rd party or "disinterested referee."

I'd think that the Edward Limonov section does need all the links, simply because the issue is so contentious, yet so straightforward if the links are consulted. Also removing the the "Our own Limonov" quote and link decreases the connection made between Limonov and the eXile. But maybe that was overkill in any case, the connection is clear.

As long as the section on Libel is accessable (not buried even further or split into even more pieces), and the material on Fascism is not deleted, the section about me is obviously fair. The question is how to keep it that way, and how to make sure the Libel section is not further downgraded.

Also I think you should take the reputable source issue more seriously and contribute to the RfC.

Thanks again,

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 16:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again

Peter D. Ekman

[edit] A few questions

I have a few questions about your various comments on several talk pages, and on my user page.

1. What do you mean by linkspam, exactly? Could you give me a link to the policy page that discusses it? I did a search and found only link spam, which referred to it as irrelevant advertising. In what sense is linking to, for example, the eXile's articles in the eXile or Mark Ames' autobiographical writing in his article linkspam? What policy page prohibits citing the subject of an article as a source? Certainly not wikipedia:NOR.
2. Why do you object to my citing Ames' writing about himself? It is an outside source, no? Can you give me a quote or link from a policy page that says not to do that?
3. Why do you object to citing the eXile in its own article, to show what it has published? Isn't the eXile an outside source? As before, please provide a quote or link.
4. Why don't you think the eXile is a credible source regarding the fact that their editors hit Michael Wines in the face with a horse sperm pie? They had a picture of him in the article, pictures of the sperm, the horse, etc. Why did you take his name out? In accordance with what policy? Again, a quote or link would be nice.

I, and several other editors on the eXile page, had hoped that this anonymous ip was totally alone in his opinions. But since you agree with him, maybe we should have a content RfC or some other form of arbitration? Obviously neither one of us wants to revert war over this. Let me know what you think, thanks, Dsol 20:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about a dispute

Slim, you know Anonymous Editor well, so I was hoping you could help with a dispute I'm having with him. On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he keeps inserting as fact that we know what Iranian politicians believe; my argument is that we can't know what they believe, only what they claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I said to Jayjg that if Iranian politicians have constantly called for the destruction of the Israeli state, that that must be what they believe. "Claim" seems unecessary here and I don't know why jayjg wants it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Request

Greetings SlimVirgin, I've recently put myself up for an RfA, and I figured I'd ask two people specifically to voice their opinions, both that I've had a level of contact/conflict with, to try and get a fair opinion. If you forget the spat, it was over Shehzad Tanweer. Hopefully I've learned more since then, but I'd appreciate your honest opinion, in either direction, on the RfA Sherurcij 03:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Nobs01

Hi! Have you been following Statement by Nobs01 at the RfArb, and particularly Exhibit 4? Thanks. nobs 04:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The intent issue; I never set out to trash Cberlet as alleged. Would it help if I demonstrated it. nobs 06:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The point being, Slim, I beleive I've read two posting of yours referring to me as acting with "malice" and I'd like to give you every opportunity to amend that statement. Thank you. nobs 20:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

An allegation has been made that nobs has acted in "malice"; nobs stands ready to document (a) nobs has made good faith efforts to resolve disputes since nobs first contact with Cberlet; (b) Cberlet has violated policy provisions for dispute resolution; (c) user:Cberlet has fanned the flames of disputes by editing practices in violation of policy provisions; (d) nobs raising the current issues at Talk:Chip Berlet was only delayed by nobs good faith recusal in August [19] from further editing, "As gesture of good faith in anticipation of collaborative efforts & dispute resolution"; (e) nobs raised the issue (i) substance of Laird Wilcox report (ii) basis for Chip Berlet using Wikipedia to smear of Mr. Wilcox's integrity on 20 September [20]; (f) Cberlet responded by repeating the unsubtantiated smear of Wilcox and delivered personal attack against nobs [21]; (g) nobs gave second opportunity to substantiate using Wikipedia as a platform to deliver personal smear against Wilcox [22].

I could continue if necessary, but clearly this dispute did not arise over night, and Cberlet has done nothing to mitigate it. And I do not believe yourself, or anyone else, can substantiate the charge that nobs has acted with "mailce". Thank you so much, and let me add I do believe you have an earned reputation for fairness as a Wikipedia Administator. nobs 21:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed wording

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by SlimVirgin could be amended with an addition like this,

Let me amend, where he term "malice" appears with reference to User:Nobs01, delete a "malice" and insert "questionable".

Just a suggestion, so it looks less of a personal attack. Thank you. nobs 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noitall

I don't think he's around anymore and hasn't made an edit since early October. You probably already knew that though and he may return or is at least watching things.--MONGO 06:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)