User talk:SlimVirgin/archive22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Sorry, but its the eXile page again.
2 User:SamuelSpade
3 Re your message
4 Old User talk page
5 You were right
6 No problem
7 thank you
8 Frances Power Cobbe
9 Arbitration accepted
10 Help needed
11 Thank You
12 3rr
13 I think I forgot
14 Islamofascism (term)
15 Thanks for your support
16 Neofascism and religion
17 Animal Rights and POV pushing
18 Please look at the rational for this edit
19 List of Dictators
20 Kyoto protocol reference dispute
21 Thanks for your note
22 Your message
23 Dispute about notability
24 Footnotes
25 DOM Arbitration
26 Mylo Carbia
27 Lord Goldsmith
28 Email
29 Brandon
30 Re Unicodify
31 Judeofascism
32 E-mail?
33 NPOV policy
34 deleted discussion of direct links
35 Left this for Ta bu, but want you to read it too, dammit
36 Reasonably, then
37 If I may boil this down
38 Request
39 Email
40 Is this a personal attack?
41 Important AfD
42 Check user request
43 Jewish list
44 Rollback?
45 Email
46 British Jews List
47 censoring the sources
48 Question for you
49 Official warning
50 Talk:Animal rights
51 Halibutt's RfA
52 censoring the sources
53 Question for you
54 Official warning
55 Talk:Animal rights
56 Halibutt's RfA
57 Chaosfeary
58 Circumcision advocacy
59 disruption
60 personal attacks
61 People can judge for themselves
62 questions for jayg
63 question to jayg
64 Jewish votes
65 Point Made
66 Elie Weisel
67 20,000 edits!
68 Hi User In Question, this is for you too
69 CheckUser request
70 Pub Pic
71 Automatically numbered footnotes
72 Thanks Slim!
73 blocking User:Chaosfeary
74 Please help
75 Reliable sources
76 Disruption
77 Confused
78 Arbitration accepted
79 3RR
80 3RR
81 Ward Churchill
82 3rr
83 Eh?
84 Dbiv
85 Heya Slim
86 Hi
87 policy editing
88 Leaving?
89 The power of one
90 Spum
91 Wikipedia Boycott Campaign
92 Chindits
93 Thanks for your response on the Blocking policy proposal
94 Verified
95 Again?
96 Giselle Littman
97 List of British people of Jewish descent
98 3RR
99 Mediation regarding List of Jewish jurists
100 Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations
101 your message
102 Mindmatrix scam adminship
103 Thanks
104 WP:V...
105 Spum
106 Terrorism
107 Jeremy Clarkson
108 Personal attacks
109 Again?
110 User:Antidote and Max Born

[edit] Sorry, but its the eXile page again.

I don't know what else to say, but could you check out the eXile again.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 15:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:SamuelSpade

SV, just to let you know another account has been created, SamuelSpade is now User:Spadesam. I'd appreciate it if you could ban this person as well. Davidpdx 19:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SV your the best! Davidpdx 00:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know KAJ is back and I think he, Johnski and SamuelSpade are mounting an attack on the articles again. You might want to keep an eye on them. Thanks... Davidpdx 05:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re your message

Thanks for the advice and I agree. I wish to stay far away from conflict at the moment. I had put my vote in the wrong place and since have corrected it I think. I agee with your statement and I won't back down from that. I mess up a little lately, guess because I am five months pregnant and frustrated from being housebound. Anyway thanks again.--Dakota ^t ^e 04:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old User talk page

Hello, another admin recently helped me delete my old user page for User:Julian Diamond. He also helped me take my old talk page and link it to an archive on my new user talk page. Unfortunetly, I have a new message on my old user:Julian Diamond account but I can't get to it because the talk page now only links to that archive, is it possible to make it so that new messages automatically link to that archive as well? I apoligize for the inconvenience.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You were right

Got this just now. -The record is clear that I've been patient with the anonymous user. SlimVirgin has relayed several unfair accusations against me and is incapable of justifying any of them. Ryan Utt- Would it be deemed proper for me to tell that user to cease or would it reflect negatively down the road.--Dakota ^t ^e 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Thank you and you were soooo right. I did misunderstand it to begin with. I still agree with your outside view and that stays. I never intended to get into conflict. My wikistress level is going up because of it. Keep up the good work and thanks.--Dakota ^t ^e 02:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

thank you for your comments on the page but it doesn't seem to help because yuber just reverts me 3 times in a row then threatens me with "3RR". John McW 05:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

i am getting really fed up with wikipedia, why are people like yuber allowed to do this? John McW 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frances Power Cobbe

Hi, would you mind if I removed the Animal liberation box, it is pretty overpowering to the article. Arniep 17:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you removed Ouida frrom the activists cat, I re-added her as it states she was an activist in the article. Regards Arniep 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message. I'm glad you agree about the template. You deleted Category:Animal rights activists at 01:44, 20 November 2005 so unfortunately I can't use it. Was it really necessary to delete it, isn't it more specific than Animal liberation movement? Arniep 17:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Don't know if you are in now but I have an article name problem. I have just put up a new article on the actor Reginald Denney and the spelling is the problem. I just found out there are two of them. I should have spelled it Denny. I didn't even remember the other one who was in the police brutality matter some time ago. When I typed that name in and saw there was no article I went on and submitted my work. I have an offline copy of it not yet deleted out of my pc. My question is can the title of my article be changed from Reginald Denney to Reginald Denny which was the actors correct name? Can an admin dothat or does it need to wrote again with the correct spelling? ( I wrote the article at the suggestion of my father who is a model plane nut and has a collection of Dennyplanes cause I had never heard of this actor) If you can help me I would be grateful. Thank you--Dakota ^t ^e 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks so very much. I also appreciate your comments about my article.--71.28.246.3 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

i have talked on the talk page many times but every time I bring information with proper sources yuber just reverts again. he reverts everything and pretend he is only reverting one thing and then pretends he is "compromising". Why do you defend him? why don't you tell him about 3rr and to stop reverting? There must be more people here than just me who see a problem with yuber. does he revert everyone or is it just me? John McW 15:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think I forgot

To thank you for helping me which I think I forgot. Thank You. Mayo su día sea grande.--Dakota ^t ^e 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamofascism (term)

Circular reference .--CltFn 23:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Hi, Slim. I just want to say a big big thank you for your support on my RfA, and for your flattering words, and also for all the help you gave me in the months coming up to it. You helped to make Wikipedia a nicer place for me. I expect my Wikipedia activity to be quite low in the next week, as I'll be very busy in the real world. But I'll look in occasionally, and I'll be back properly before the end of next week. Looking forward to blocking you first time you step out of line ;-) AnnH ^(talk) 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neofascism and religion

Hi SlimVirgin: Are you aware of this abomination: Neofascism and religion#Judaism? What's your opinion? I have tried to add some "rational info" for whatever it's worth. Take a look. Maybe the whole article should be nominated for deletion? IZAK 11:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean to suggest that equating an entire faith system with fascism is offensive and unencyclopedic? BrandonYusufToropov 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Rights and POV pushing

Over at the [[Animal rights] article, you did a blind revert of quite a bit of work I had done. Your edit summary said it was "minor", and you made no mention of why you did the revert on the talk page. I find it interesting since you were the one who was complaining about the National Cattleman quotation as being "inappropriate", so I went and found a more "appropriate" source. I replaced the criticism paragraph quoting the Cattlemen organization with sourced quotes from notable experts and a URL to back up each and every one of them. Yet you reverted it, completely, wholly, and without a single word of explanation, marking your revert as "minor". Given the emphasis by wikipedia on the importance of source quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up, perhaps you could give some sort of a legitimate explanation for your massive revert of all these sourced quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up. Without any such explanation, I'm left to assume this was simply the product of POV pushing on your part. FuelWagon 15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please look at the rational for this edit

Hi Slim,

This is your edit:

[1]

Now please look at this discussion:

Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Jewish_Exodus

does it all look consistent to you ?

it should be a no brianer to include related issues even if some claim that don't see the connection.

Thanks, Zeq 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dictators

Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a user on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. He has apparently been doing this for a few years.

Yours,

jucifer 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah sorry, it looks like a regular page huh! That is because s/he blanks it and adds a redirect to Dictator. It is User:172 that is doing it. jucifer 23:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant without the capitalised D. here sorry

[edit] Kyoto protocol reference dispute

Hi, I happened to note your question re:Clemson University on User talk:SEWilco which led to my recent post on Wikipedia talk:Cite sources. What I would like to ask is for you to have a look at the Kyoto Protocol page and comment on what SEW has been up to there. I've been trying ro reach a compromise, but am getting frustrated. A similar edit war over SEW's notes bot or whatever is is, is going on at Global cooling. I would like to interfere there also, but only after the Kyoto dust settles. Thank you, Vsmith 00:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I can see clearly now... what needs to be done (I think), to undo some of the mess we've made at Kyoto and Global cooling, if SEW will allow it. Probably a big if there as there is more to the story :-) Anyway, thanks again. Vsmith 05:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your note

Thank you for being so clear.

Apart from the actual historical connection the issue is the use being done today in these historical events. It is common knowledge (and I can find soyrces) thta palestinian narritive about the Nakba is at the core of Palestinian claims and rallying causes today. (which lead to the demand for "right of return" which is one of the causes for the continued conflict). As such the jewish "answer" (see many jewish websites about the issue) which include showing that the palestinian exodus is not unique (not in the world and espacially at that time in the middle east) is an important addition so that the article will be NPOV. Keeping the Palestinian exodus by itself is making it similar to the palestinian narritive. So it is POV. I am quite sure that there should not be an issue here on original research Vs NPOV as I already broghut jewish websites which connect the two events. Clearly there are historical connection between the two exodus: Jews who fled from Arab countries lived in homes of Palestinian who fled Israel. The Arab leaders in their decision form 1949 (or 48) mention both refugees, a source I placed on talk describe the flight of the two groups of refugees as desrving financial help (that source dats to Nov 48) so clearly the connection exist then and now.

Best, Zeq 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have again read your note and than I read this:

"We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them"

No where did I find that no original research takes precedence but it does not matter. There are in talk of that page (and in reverted edits) enough sources which would help make this article NPOV and allow the reader to make up their own mind. So far the limited biased info there is not helping. On the other hand Hertzel is connected to to an historic event that occur 44 years after he died. Please apply the new yard stick in your note to me to every line in this article - I expect it would lead to a much smaller article. It is not just "my issue". You have a responsibility to make this article NPOV as well. Thank you. Zeq 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

What do you mean, don't add it again? All I did was revert an unexplained revert that also took out additions of the sources (which you among others asked for) and readded highly pov stuff in the intro and elsewhere.

When rd232 removed it, however, without blanking anything else and with a justification on the talk page, I didn't revert. I agree that it's not worth adding it now (as you would have known if you'd read my recent talk page comments), but I might change my mind at any time and insert the material. Of course any major change would then be explained on the talk page, and existing arguments would be adressed. Please look more closely at the talk page before issueing such requests in the future. Dsol 23:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you and I have different points of view about this, but there's no need to threaten me with a block. First I want to say something about the content issue at hand, and second I want to say something about your last message on my page.

I have not heard any convincing arguments why the Ekman section should not be put in, and several other editors agree with me. There is no clear policy reason why not, nor is there a clear consensus. In particular, users Ryan Utt (formerly Clarence Thomas), Mgreenbe, Brighterorange, and Squibix, and several anonymous ips have expressed approval of versions of the page with the Ekman info in. Rd232's recent comments on the talk page were expressions of personal judgement, and not quotations of policy. This is fine, but it means they are not binding, and subject to consensus. As for the other debates that were ongoing about it, well, you seem to have broken off our previous discussion to question my identity. My last argument on this subject, which despite my repeated specific requests for a response has gone completely unadressed by you, can be found (as a diff) here, though I later edited it (ce). Since these points were ignored by you and others, I did not feel under any obligation to remove the Ekman section when the anon ip readded it. After rd232 gave a rationale, however, it would have been inappropriate for me to revert without further discussion.

Aside from content, I feel I should adress the threat of a block which has been placed on my user talk page by you. I think that blocking me in this situation would be wildly, obviously, and indefensibly inappropriate, and if you were to do so as a result of an ongoing editing dispute I would formally contest the fairness of such an action. As I have mentioned before, there are other editors and other admins who have expressed views similar to mine regarding both content and the proper interpretation of policy. Of course, if you feel that you could defend and justify (e.g. "he was endagering WP") such a block, there is nothing I can do to stop you. What I will do, however, is continue editing just as I would have had no threat been made. Do not think, however, that because I am ignoring your inappropriate threats, that I would also ignore valid discussion regarding editing of the article.

On that note I am still waiting for a reply to my above-linked comment, or some other reason not to reinsert the Ekman section. Of course it may be that we simply make different judgement calls here, but then it is a matter for consensus do decide.Dsol 23:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about notability

Would you mind taking a look at and giving your opinion about a dispute I'm having regarding notability? See [2]. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Regarding proper citations and verifiability, I'm having another debate at Talk:List of Jewish jurists - would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

No policy, just personal preference. In this instance I was mainly annoyed because when I came in a while back the spacing was all over the place. So I harmonized it to no space and after punctuation, then suddenly the lead wasn't harmonized and that ticked me off. :"D Anyway, my logic is to keep footnotes as unobtrusive to the text as possible. However, if I see a page with spacing... I won't change it so long as its consistent; if it ain't I go in and the spacing don't know what hit it. If there were a wikipolicy I would likely follow publishing guidelines; dunno what else to tell ya accept keep up the good stuff. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DOM Arbitration

Hi SV, just in case you didn't know, our case for arbitration got accepted. I saw that you were involved with another arbitration case. Good luck with that. Davidpdx 15:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mylo Carbia

Hi SlimVirgin (I love your user name :-) ), I really can't remember how I ran into her name (I think somebody posted it in the List of Puerto Ricans, without writing an article). After seeing what was written about her in different websites (including her own), I assumed good faith on her behave and wrote the article on information recopilated. However, I do agree with the point of views posted and if the article was posted for AfD, I would like to know because I would be more then willing to vote for its deletion. Your friend in Wiki Tony the Marine 19:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Goldsmith

I'm delighted to hear that the SlimVirgin now prizes good faith above all. Please see my e-mails and read the talk page and edit history of the List of Jewish jurists. Please reply by e-mail. - RachelBrown 20:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please check your email. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon

Hey Slim, I appreciate the message on his page :-) Good to see you're looking out for me (and vice versa). However, it's cool. I'm happy to respond to Brandon and explain my position on things. He's getting borderline abusive, but it's cool, I can take this. He's upset about the existence of the article and I think that's understandable. If Brandon gets highly abusive I'll stop responding. - Ta bu shi da yu

[edit] Re Unicodify

Hi Slim, yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm maintaining the em/en-dash distinction. I've got a small Python script I pass the stuff I edit through that does things like turn (safe) HTML entities into UTF-8 and random other bits and pieces (don't worry, I watch the output fairly carefully).

Another wikipedia user asked me about my mdash ndash conversion a few days ago, and pointed me at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dashes). In it, it says "Use the HTML entity – (not the numeric form –; see below) or type it in directly if your keyboard allows it", so I guess UTF-8 is OK.

If you think it is a problem, I can easily special case it in my script. Let me know. 01:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

UTF-8 characters have a few things going for them vs HTML entities:

They look nicer in the edit window: you see actual characters as opposed to markup.
They're a more compact representation in terms of storage (this is especially true of Latin-1 entities like é)
They're a small step towards making life easier on 3rd party apps that deal with raw wikicode: ideally you wouldn't need a full HTML parser to be able to interpret wikicode.

That said, if it's frowned upon, or if converting things like – is regarded as too much needless churn, then I can easily stop doing it. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judeofascism

There has never been a "vote" on deleting the redirect, only on deleting whatever was in the article. The term is now mentioned on List of political epithets, and thus there should be a redirect there. If you feel otherwise, the correct place to discuss it is on Talk:List of political epithets, not by improperly speedying the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. An AFD result of delete means that the article as it stands should be deleted. The CSD dealing with recreations allows for speedy deletion of a new article with the same or very similar content. This is completely different content, and should not be speedy deleted. --SPUI (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the relevant section on WP:CSD about re-creations. "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject." --SPUI (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, particularly this section:

A useless redirect

Don't worry, redirects are cheap.

If you must, list on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion but only after reading our recommendations on deleting redirects

{{rfd}}

--SPUI (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I must admit, I giggled seeing you two fight. :P That said, I'm siding with SV on this particular issue - wikipolicy definitely seems to suggest that he is in the right Sherurcij 03:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I also. (Siding with SV, that is, not giggling.) On the other hand, the recent edit warring on WP:CSD has neutered the recreation of deleted content criterion even more than it was in July. I expect by this time next month, the new article will have to be word-for-word identical to the previously-deleted one. —Cryptic (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to prove you wrong on that one, Crypic :-) . And please don't side. It's silly. Let the two folks just talk it out. Forget whatever the policy du jour is, and just do what's sanest for the encyclopedia. :-) Kim Bruning 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail?

Hmm, no new messages in my inbox for some reason.. :-/ Did you use wikipedia E-mail? Sometimes that's extremely slow.

Kim Bruning 04:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I used wikipedia E-mail to complain to Jimbo about extremely slow speeds! Now less slow. What? El_C 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're speeding it up, please keep in close contact with him. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That no data warning in FF just kills me, at least with the foundation one I can still refresh. With my watchlist, I quickly lose track of what I did or did not look at. Thus, I end up reverting A claim of niggerology to numerology on 26 instead of 25 Novemeber (I could have been sleeping with it fixed), and so on. My memory is far too fragile. In other words, help computa. El_C 08:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV policy

The dispute that is on the talk page of the palestinian exodus is not charterized on the page it self. (as mandated by the NPOV policy) this dispute is between scholars .

On the other bundeling up Zionist transfer intentions (from 1904, 1930s, 1944) into events in the war of 1948 is implying enrosing a POV. You suggestion of relancy need to be applied to both sides equally.

This article is a complete failure of the NPOV policy - read the talk carefully going back 6 month if needed and I am sure you too will see how wikipdia comuntee failed to generate an article that is truly showing both sides of the issue. This failure is shedding a negative light on wikipedia is a relaible source. Zeq 05:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deleted discussion of direct links

Hi Slim, in this edit you removed a discussion of direct links which Francis had archived. Did you move it somewhere else? Things discussed on the Village pump are supposed to be archived in a relevant discussion page and aren't kept in the pump archive after seven days, so I'm not sure if it is still preserved anywhere. Mozzerati 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left this for Ta bu, but want you to read it too, dammit

(I had hoped, perhaps foolishly, that you would be among the people willing to stand up against hate speech, SV)

And that's what it boils down to. Apparently Brandon believes we can't document hateful speech without agreeing with it, accepting it and welcoming it. Sad that he thinks this way, but he's already shown me that he's being unreasonable. Like I said, I'm cutting off all correspondence with him until he becomes more civil. I've already asked nicely once, I'm not going to do it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonably, then

Reasonably, then: Is there a discrepancy in the way we're handling terms like Kike and Zionazi as compared with the way we're handling Islamofascism?

Is Kike prominent in usage? Is Zionazi? Is Gun nut?

Where are their articles?

Can someone please answer these questions without offering a variation on, "Maybe you should go work on those?" BrandonYusufToropov 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If I may boil this down

(Examples -- Blowjob, Zionazi -- proving you are being utterly inconsistent with this)

"Gee, fascinating point, but, um, neocons really need to stand unchallenged in this particular case, but anyway thanks for raising this, and, er, what if you go fix those articles yourself?"

It is not my point (as though you didn't know) that Blowjob and Zionazi -- and Kike and Gun nut and Judeofascism -- "need work." My point is rather that a systemic bias exists preventing those harsh, controversial terms from meriting separate articles (and the perceived legitimacy such an article implies), and b) that this systemic bias has, at the same time, no problem whatsoever with harsh, controversial terms like Islamofascism or Feminazi or Raghead. (If I may quote from that article: "Sikhs (who wear turbans) are particularly offended at being lumped together with Islamic 'ragheads.' -- Can you picture a sentence like that in Kike? Oh wait, never mind that article doesn't exist, so it's a moot @#$%^&* point.)

Could you please do me a favor and read the above paragraph again, carefully?

What I have perhaps grown slightly weary of hearing:

"Gee, if you want to try pushing Zionazi, you can, but I don't think you'll get it up the hill..." THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT, TA BU.

What I have perhaps grown equally weary of hearing:

"Inconsistent? Who's being inconsistent? Tell you what, why don't you go spend some time on Blowjob? And, while you're at it, uh, stop bothering me?" That's what the neocons say when they want me to go away, Ta bu, and frankly I imagine that's your objective too. BrandonYusufToropov 12:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to also let you know Slim, I'll not be listening to Brandon any more. All his new messages that I deam abusive are going to be deleted from my page. I'm certainly not going to work on the blowjob article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I was paraphrasing your last message to me, as dismissive that I should go work on Blowjob. Once again, you have decided not to address the larger questions of systemic bias. BrandonYusufToropov 15:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hello. I wonder if I could ask a favour? Would you mind looking at circumcision advocacy and giving your views in Talk:Circumcision advocacy#Original research as to whether it constitutes original research? User:Jayjg and User:Nandesuka have been kind enough to do so, but another editor is protesting that it is 'obvious' and so does not need sourcing. It's most frustrating. Jakew 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pretty please? Jakew 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Email for you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a personal attack?

You once previously cautioned this editor about personal attacks. Could you please look at this diff? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Great_Scandal&curid=3142287&diff=29307428&oldid=29290183 Do you agree that it is a personal attack? Thank you. Robert McClenon 20:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. In case you're puzzled by Robert's statement that you once cautioned this editor about personal attacks, it was here.

He started as Flamekeeper (talk · contribs), but did not want to give an e-mail address to Wikipedia, so when his computer lost the cookies, he couldn't log in. (He seems not to have kept a record of his password.) He then became Fiamekeeper (talk · contribs), Corecticus (talk · contribs), Famekeeper (talk · contribs), PureSoupS (talk · contribs), and has recently reappeared as EffK (talk · contribs). They're not sockpuppets; they're just new accounts created when he can't access the old one.

He seems from his first appearance to have been on some sort of personal campaign to get Str1977 banned from Wikipedia as a Vatican agent, and has harassed both Str1977 and Robert McClenon for months. In fact, I am positive that his (harmless) oppose vote on my RfA was a result of wiki-stalking Str1977, who had just voted for me and had left a very friendly message on my talk page. As far as I can tell, EffK had no prior history of contributing to RfA pages.

Some of the talk pages have become quite nasty, e.g. Talk:Enabling Act, and Talk:Pius_XII/Archive2, etc. It's the kind of thing you might want to take a look at if you were feeling very energetic as an admin, but I couldn't blame you at all if you didn't want to get involved! In any case, an RfAr has been filed.

Just bringing you up to date on the situation. I have your userpage on my watchlist, so I saw Robert's message. :-) Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that might be a personal attack, but what it basically is is incomprehensible. But at least he's letting the Catholic Cabal take some heat off the Jewish Cabal. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! Yes, it's gibberish. Not sure how anyone could tell it was a personal attack. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important AfD

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

I am the main protagonist mentioned and I totally agree that this is an important AfD and a number of principles are at steak, and that is why I am pursuing it.
The debate hinges on whether "dictator" is a definable English word. As it is a clearly defined word (I list 8 very similar dictionary definitions on the talk page) used without controversy to describe a large number of rulers by historians, Britannica, the press, the public, 27,700 times in wikipeida, this is self evident - indeed the term is clearly defined in a number of wiki articles. Since there are certainly at least some dictators, there should be no reason why they cannot be listed - potential POV is no justification for deletion - it requires improvement.
172's repeated assertion that describing anyone is a dictator constituted original research is utterly without foundation as there are usually a myriad of sources. He has tried to argue that the application of an accepted definitions constitutes original research.

If this AfD is passed there will serious ramifications as this could then be used as a precedent for the misuse of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in a similar way. The use of English words would also be constantly open to question.

Yours jucifer 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Check user request

I've investigated the usernames in question. It seems unlikely that either of them is Environknot, unless Enviroknot has moved, and they certainly aren't sockpuppets for each other. As well, neither is using open proxies, and neither appears to be 209.123.8.125 (talk · contribs), which also does not appear to be an open proxy. On the other hand 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs), which was involved in a revert war with 209.123.8.125, is obviously an open proxy. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

While the edit histories are suggestive, there still is absolutely no technical evidence linking 209.123.8.125 with those userids, nor any evidence or indication that 209.123.8.125 is an open proxy. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish list

sorry about the rv, just saw the discussion. Arniep 15:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

there could be a snag here, as it might have meant his great grandmother was a Jewish immigrant which would have a different consequence for "the list".... Arniep 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

well if she was a Jewish immigrant, her children may have been brought up jewish, and their children etc., we don't know whether that was the case or not. Arniep 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, could you have a look at my posting at User_talk:OwenX#User:StabRule, I feel very upset that this user has 3 times place sock puppet votes yet User_talk:OwenX says he will not warn User:StabRule as he says this may mean he finds more sophisticated ways of cheating the voting systems. I would also ask if you could reconsider your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) as I do not think that WP:V or WP:NOR are being violated as the Jewish information comes from published material. Thanks Arniep 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback?

What exactly was [3] for? --SPUI (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the comment before El C archived it. I do not appreciate your unexplained reversion. --SPUI (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I came across the page and decided to respond, as there was no way to see that it had not been modified recently without looking at the history. Your rollback simply exacerbated the problem; you should have reverted manually with an edit summary like "this has been closed for 3 days". --SPUI (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --SPUI (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Emailed you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Jews List

The user who put in the tag did not mention it or explain why on the Talk Page. Neither did you when you added the other tag just now. One of the tags says "help Wikipedia by providing sources". Well, sources for what? You or the other guy need to be specific in which names you are doubting, etc. and also the "original research" claim refers to what exactly? You can't just drop these general terms hoping they'll stick, you need to be specific.Vulturell 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] censoring the sources

It's actually quite funny how much some editors are willing to dance around the language of the letter from the reservists to avoid a term they don't like. i.e. "Occupied Territories". The word "occupied" and "occupation" occurs a total of five times in the actual letter. In reporting this letter, it should be represented in proportion to the language it uses. and "occupied territories" is how they describe where they serve as reservists, and "occupation" is how they describe what they are being ordered to do. There is no other way to look at attempt to misquote and misrepresent this letter as anythign other than POV pushing on the part of editors who don't like the term "occupied territories". It is not our job to censor the point of view of the sources we quote. FuelWagon 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you

Wouldn't ANY List of Jews be COMPLETELY original research unless we copy and pasted the whole bleedin thing from somewhere else? The way you and your buddy are using these terms like "Original Research" indicates that placing ANYONE, even the grand high Rabbi of Israel, on a List of Jews is wrong unless someone described the guy as a "Jew" or noted that he "belongs on a List of Jews". The whole concept of List of Jews is an ORIGINAL CONCEPT in a sense and obviously any good encyclopedia requires some private thought, i.e. obviously if Wittgenstein is descibred as having three Jewish grandparents than he is 3/4 an ethnic Jew. It might not be stated directly but obviously that's the case. Calling that or anything similar "Original Research" is out-right misleading and wrong. Either the whole list is Original Research, in which case you can nominate it for deletion or something under that claim, or none of it is if there's a source that mentions the ethnic Jewishness of a person, even if it doesn't call the person outright a "Jew".Vulturell 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the problem here is one I have mentioned before. I previously pointed out that with these categories/lists that are labelled Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Russian Americans etc. these act as labels on people, and if those people do not use that label then it is not encyclopedic to include them. I proposed creating new categories Americans of xxx descent similar to People in Great Britain of Irish descent which does not place any label on the people included. If necessary you could keep xxx American categories and only use those for people who really do identify as that i.e. De Niro as Italian American , Woody Allen as Jewish American etc. Cheers, Arniep 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

DeNiro is a big stretch. You would have to have either one label or the other. Both is misleading, POV, etc. and we could get into endless discussions about who identifies as what.

Anyway, SlimVirgin, regarding the message you left on my page, it doesn't sound unreasonable as long as, under what you wrote there, Wittgenstein and Montbatten would have been included (if Wittgenstein was really British, I mean).Vulturell 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't found a reputable source yet clearly saying either of them were Jews (which you know they weren't). But if you wanted to see they had Jewish ancestory, as Arniep suggests, I'd have no objection to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course I know they were both not religious Jews. Again I am telling you that "Jewish-British people" is an ETHNIC criteria, not a religious critera. And in that case YOU know that I would be correct since they are both ethnic Jews or part Jews. Oh, and that was a great point about the compiling of ANY Wiki article being original research as well - that is true and I should have used that argument against your "O.R." claims before. Original Research should really only refer to, say, me calling someone Jewish because their last name sounds Jewish, yet no source on the net mention any Jewish ancestry. Otherwise EVERYTHING ELSE is Original Research, except for out-right copy and pasting of a whole article from somewhere else, which we know is copy-right violation.Vulturell 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're opening a can of worms trying to make the religious/ethnic distinction when it comes to Jews, which is why I wish you'd just stick to our policies, because the former is a complex issue. The Jewish people regard themselves as a "nation" if you like. Wittgenstein did not regard himself as a member of that nation for a number of reasons, and would not have been so regarded by any of the major denominations. To say that is not to make a religious point. You are confusing ethnicity with race. The point is, if you want to call someone a Jew, find a good source that says it. You might want to consider Arniep's suggestion because it would get round a lot of these problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind Arnipe's suggestion as long as we don't create TWO separate categories because we are going to get something like 3,000 separate arguments about who identifies as what, etc. As I explained it is in fact the whole "Identify/not identifyas something" argument that is crap, simply because it's not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is about precision - you can't measure the degree to which someone identifies or doesn't with something compared to someone else. Identification changes over time, as well, no question about that. An encyclopedia should be based on facts. I can say it's a fact that DeNiro is 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish, etc. and it is regardless of what he's claimed to identify/not identify with just as I can say that Wittgenstein is 3/4 Jewish ethnically - it is a fact and it's mentioned in almost every article about him that, that is his ethnic background. Just like someone's birth date is a fact. That's how ethnicity should be measured. Religion is different because it refers to personal identification with a faith, etc. But ethnicity is a biological concept decided before a person is born, just like one's birth year, date, and place. We should treat it accordingly.Vulturell 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't say as a fact that X is 1/4 this or that. X's mother may have had an illegitimate child, an affair while married for all you know. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia isn't truth, but verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

There are many people who regard themselves as Jews who aren't observant, and who are so regarded by others too. You're getting race and ethnicity confused again. Race is the supposedly biological concept, though if you read anything about it, you'll see it's an increasingly discredited one. My guess is that if you were to spend some time reading about these ideas, you wouldn't want to compile any more of these lists. But in the meantime, if the lists are to exist, saying "List of British people with Jewish ancestory" would make more sense than "List of British Jews," though sources would still be needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

We would call it "List of British people with NOTABLE Jewish ancestry", since I still want the 1/4 rule and it is pointless to list people with distant Jewish heritage since it most likely has no impact on their lives. Are you saying make that list INSTEAD of the current one, or both? Both would just be confusing. Well, OK, illegitimate child and all that IS original research. You're bringing up the possibility that something/something happened contrary to the reported facts. I.e. DeNiro IS reported to be the biological child of (forgot his name) DeNiro and Virginia Admiral. Wittgenstein is reported to be the biological child a Jewish father and a Jewish-German mother, racially speaking. You can say it's possible that ANY piece of info is wrong then, that DeNiro's birth certificate was faked and he was born in 1939 and not 1943, etc. I'm not sure why you said that, but the fact is that ethnicity/race and birth date and all that are reported on by official sources and should be regarded as fact until proven otherwise.Vulturell 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK this is what I propose change all the xxx-American categories to Americans of xxx descent (I have noticed other users including Willmcw? suggest this also) as that would be pretty accurately describe most the people in those categories, and restrict it to a grandparent as it is now 'except for Jewish Americans as it is a little different, calling Woody Allen of Jewish descent wouldn't make sense, but maybe you could create a category Americans of Jewish descent and move out all the people who don't identify as Jewish if you want. I think it's going a bit far to say you can't mention peoples heritage at all because maybe their grandmother was fibbing, otherwise we'd have to say De Niro identifies as an Italian American although his mother may have been lying etc. Arniep 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think Willmcw saw our discussion on my talk page which is why he mentioned your idea. But, I don't know why we should make an exception for Jewish Americans - you could get into more debates with who identifies/doesn't as Jewish, even for "fully Jewish" unconverted people like Sarah Michelle Gellar. Woody Allen may write about Jews in his movies, but I highly doubt he is a practising Jew in any sense. Allen just has a "Very Jewish" public image just like DeNiro has a "very Italian" public movie image, it has no necessary reflection on their personal lives. I think there should be just one category per ethnic group otherwise it will lead into too much confusion. And again this leads us into the current situation - "Americans of Jewish descent" CAN mean someone who is 100% Jewish, just like "Jewish Americans" doesn't necessarily mean the person is 100% Jewish. The terms are pretty similar, but I dunno. I think all we really need to do is buff up the descriptions on every "xxx-Americans" category page so people know exactly what we mean. The situation is different with Brits because most British people ARE British-British people and there is no such category, if we put in Jewish-British people it is a bit misleading. But there are no "American-Americans" and anyone with mixed ancestry would be under two categories or more so people know they are mixed. Arniep I think we should continue this talk on my talk page btw.Vulturell 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

When I mentioned people's mother's having affairs, I was only trying to break down the fact/claim distinction Vulturell was erecting. There are only claims, ones made by good sources, and ones made by bad ones, and we report the former.

As for listing the ones with 1/4 ancestory only, you're back into original research, with Wikipedia editors deciding the cut-off point. It should be anyone with any ancestory, although the reality is that distant ancestors likely won't be mention much in print. Also, to answer your other question, I think the ancestry lists should be instead of the others, not as well as. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Arniep 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert De Niro an Italian American? He's supposed to have Jewish ancestry. Maybe he should be a Jewish American. Oh wait, I have a better idea; let's just cite sources, ok? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official warning

I hate to do this, but I must: your reply to FuelWagon, no matter what the provocation, was simply out of line. Wasn't it Robert Frost who said, "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper?" Well, at this web site the civility policy is such that one must be MUCH MORE polite than others if you want to be defended from impoliteness.

If it was my web site, policy would be different. But this is the web site Jimbo founded, so I have to go with his concept of civility. Chill out, re-think your strategy and PLEASE find a way to collaborate without criticizing the other volunteers. Think about the ARTICLES and the READERS. Uncle Ed 02:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping by to say "hi", not sucked in by an interesting edit summary of anything like that, no, no wikistalking here...
So, now that I'm here: Anything you need? A sympathetic ear, even? (Well, eyeballs, actually, but you know what I mean.)
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Animal rights

Slim - I was planning on doing some summarising as well as archiving, I'm reading over a print out of the page now to make sure that I understand what everyone is saying. I'll put a new section at the top?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

Although from your comments at my RfA it seems clear that I should not use your talk page at all, I hope you don't mind me using it once.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you basically held against me that I reply to people's comments, which is what talk pages are for, so I assumed that you don't want me to use your talk page as well. Halibu tt 06:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Too bad you didn't clarify that. Halibu tt

Not really. You wrote that It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference. Less is more, in the case of RfAs., which hardly gave me any clue as to when am I allowed to respond to people's accusations or questions and when I am not. Halibu tt 06:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] censoring the sources

[edit] Question for you

That makes a lot more sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

DeNiro is a big stretch. You would have to have either one label or the other. Both is misleading, POV, etc. and we could get into endless discussions about who identifies as what.

OK. Arniep 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official warning

In light of this, I have to say, this sounds unsettlingly like the pot calling the kettle black... Tom e r^TALK 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Animal rights

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

Although from your comments at my RfA it seems clear that I should not use your talk page at all, I hope you don't mind me using it once.

Uh-huh. Too bad you didn't clarify that. Halibu tt

Copied from my talk page's archive:

Since your talk page is now blocked for some reason, I will respond here. You wrote that Less is more, in the case of RfAs, but to me it was not clear whether your important to respond, and sometimes important not to remark was a general one or also related to RfAs. Anyway, I still believe that the right to defend oneself should not only be granted in real life, but also in wikipedia. Halibu tt 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaosfeary

Quote from HappyCamper's talk page:

As I see you're dealing with this situation, it might help you to know that Jayjg has conducted a user check, and confirms that User:Chaosfeary is not banned User:Enviroknot. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User:BrandonYusufToropov continues to make personal attacks on me, violating WP:NPA, and continues to slander me on talk pages claiming that I am "enviroknot"... Perhaps you could explain that this is not true, I have already, but he doesn't seem to want to know. --Chaosfeary 11:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

After a request from User:Chaosfeary to look at the attacks by [User talk:BrandonYusufToropov]] I left a note on his talk page that Chaosfeary was not Enviroknot. However, BrandonYusufToropov removed the note. I then put it back and added another note about removing valid comments from his talk page. He has since removed that remark as well. While I realise that Chaosfeary has not been innocent in all this I don't think that BrandonYusufToropov is acting in a correct manner either. However, being new at this I am not sure how to continue. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision advocacy

Would you mind taking a look at the Circumcision advocacy page, and the debate on Talk: page? From my perspective the entire page consists of WP:NOR, but one editor there insists it is not, based on the definition of the word "advocate", and on the fact that it is "obvious" that various people are Circumcision advocates. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] disruption

I would think combative questions to non-candidates would qualify as disruption, such as your statements to Marsden. You don't appear to be attempting to resolve anything with Marsden that I can see, only attempting to suppress criticism of Jayjg. Am I missing something? FuelWagon 21:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I must be missing it, too. Unless, of course, I understand it all too well. ;) Marsden 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

Please provide a diff of an edit made by me and indicate what specific words you believe qualify as a "personal attack". Your threats without any sort of hard evidence makes it impossible to address any real dispute. It does make it convenient for you to tell an admin "I tried to warn him", even when there was no NPA violation to warn me of. Anyway, a diff and a quote would be useful if you wish to resolve this. FuelWagon 22:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People can judge for themselves

You posted a side comment to Marsden announcing to the world his alleged wrongs, telling him that "People can judge for themselves whether you're approaching this situation with clean hands". Why can't anyone else post diffs pointing out your relationship with Jayjg and let people decide for themselves whether you are defending Jayjg and attacking Marsden with equally clean hands? FuelWagon 23:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] questions for jayg

Sorry - but the guy does pick up a lot of criticism. It's a real issue and one that needs to be addressed. Please assume good faith and dont take a sarcastic tone - it's both unnecessary and unpleasant. Thanks. Unbehagen 23:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

""when did you stop beating your wife?" - no. Sorry but he does attract a lot of criticism - fact. Some of it may be justified some of it may not be. If he, as an arb com, acts on a dispute where he is open to allegations of POV pushing then this could call the whole system into disrepute. I'm just asking for a reasonable discussion of this. Or are you saying that he doesn't attract controversy? Unbehagen 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but jayg was recently officially censured for edit warring over POV issues in the Yuber Arbitration case by the very arb com he is nominated for. Looks like controversy to me. It's not begging the question if it is a real issue. ie asking a proven wife beater is he has stopped beating is wife is valid enquiry not begging the question. Unbehagen 23:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] question to jayg

LMAO!!!! "you edit some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia: those about the Arab-Israeli conflict, anti-Semitism, Zionism, and related areas. This means you’re used to dealing with conflict, because the nationalist, pro-Israeli editors feel their POV is under-represented, while the pro-Palestinian editors look at the same article but see the opposite, so neither "side" is ever happy and you’re stuck in the middle. " Please review the section on begging the question! This is hysterical. Unbehagen 11:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish votes

Hi, would you mind reconsidering your vote on these categories? I agree some are not useful, but I strongly feel that Jewish people have made an equally important contribution to Science, Philosophy and Classical music as African Americans have made to popular music (Category:African American musicians). Also, you voted delete twice Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_25#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people. Regards Arniep 13:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point Made

Your point is well taken. I should have posted that to user talk pages. Robert McClenon 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, as to the Borges quote, I think that it is on the mark. You or Ed could have written it better. Robert McClenon 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elie Weisel

Hi, I was wondering about why you reverted several of the changes I made here . One was the result of conversation on the talk page, and a few others seem like pretty uncontroversial grammar / spelling corrections (like the "L" in Nobel Laureate is generally capitalized). I'd appreciate any feedback that you have. Thanks. 68.127.109.54 00:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 20,000 edits!

Nice work. You should be proud. This is in my view a major contribution to humanity.

Kudos.

jucifer 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi User In Question, this is for you too

I know you mean well, but I hope you can step back and listen for a second to what you are telling me here.

A sockpuppet who uses an open proxy pretty much has a free hand.

User:Enviroknot would probably never take advantage of that, though. (And PS: Who am I to say it seems like the same guy -- I've just been the actual target of some of the most obscene abuse for the past year or so.)

The fact that User in Question becomes measurably more abusive, files ridiculous stuff against me, accuses me of being Yuber, vandalizes my talk page, etc ***when I raise this issue*** (as opposed to looking at me quizzically or ignoring me, which is what a non-sockpuppet would do) really has no relevance.

And specifically, User In Question leveling the accusation that I am a sockpuppet of Yuber -- which is really absurd -- that doesn't really count as poisoning the well like my posts do. That accusation of User In Question's is not worth a long monologue about how we all want Chaos to go back to the old editor we knew and loved.

Would it be too much of me to ask you to spend the same amount of time and energy clearing my name as you have clearing this user's name? At a bare minimum, I'd appreciate a definitive check on whether Yuber and I could conceivably be the same person. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I was pretty clear about that:

In other words, do an IP check on me, please, and publicize your findings, as you have done for User In Question. Intervene on my behalf if someone questions the outcome, an outcome which you and I can each predict here and now. BrandonYusufToropov 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber and BrandonYusufToropov are obviously not the same person, and the technical evidence confirms that. While there is no technical evidence linking Chaosfeary to Enviroknot or the open proxies, and while it is extremely unlikely that Chaosfeary is Enviroknot, it is quite obvious that FluffyPinkKittensofDoom is a revert sock related to those open proxies, most likely of Chaosfeary. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone experienced in the use of open proxies is using those proxies as strawmen sockpuppets to implicate Chaosfeary. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser request

There is no technical evidence linking User:Peter McConaughey and User:84.92.40.169, nor anything I can find indicating that 84.92.40.169 could be used by Peter McConaughey. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pub Pic

Thenk you for protecting Image:Illpublish.png. Peter McConaughey has been filling it with POV all day. I would also like to put in a good word for Chaosfeary.

[edit] Automatically numbered footnotes

(from Wikipedia talk:Cite sources) :

Subsection=(Correcting a minor oversight in) the subsection Embedded HTML links : I inserted a paragraph repeating the same example link but now using a text fragment following a space in the single square brackets, so the reader clicks on the text fragment rather than on an automatically generated number. This addition merely corrects an oversight in the article. Let me point out that if there are any users who might wish to disallow this type of embedded HTML link, they would thereby be disallowing automatically numbered footnotes which this article otherwise permits. For7thGen 00:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Frank, it wasn't an oversight. We like to distinguish clearly in articles between internal and external links. Typing chaos indicates that's internal, and typing [6] tells the reader they're being taken to another website more clearly that typing The Guardian does. It can also be useful to have the links numbered. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim, may I call you Slim? I do have questions for you in response to your good message on the above talk page. 1st, do you wish to disallow automatically numbered footnotes to coexist with embedded HTML links in the same article? If you answer no, you do allow this, then please tell me exactly how it can be accomplished?

2nd, and far less important than the main question(s) above, your revert description was "no link title should be added to embedded links in articles, only in further reading or references." Please tell me where I can find this statement? I would like the source for this or for a substantially-the-same statement which you feel is the most official or highest credibility source in Wikipedia-land. Merely so that I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for your kind help, especially on the 1st question(s). For7thGen 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim, again. I'll just add a 3rd question for you. In Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style#Combined with numbered footnotes, this paragraph appears:
See for example Gymnopédie, an article using numbered footnotes (using the wikipedia:footnote3 system) combined with book and journal references, as mentioned higher on this page. Other source citation techniques used on that same page: in-line external links, and, of course, wiki-links.
You'll see that in the example article, the in-line external links are of the type that you are not allowing to appear in other articles. This is of course relevant to my 1st question. Naturally I can't understand how your version can be consistent with Wikipedia's apparent guideline. 3rd question is, please clear up my confusion. For7thGen 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Slim!

Just a quick note to thank you for your support. I have been constantly impressed by your outstanding work in Wikipedia, here, there and everywhere. I promise not to be a crazy person, ok? Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blocking User:Chaosfeary

G'day Sare,

just a quick note about your blocking with Chaosfeary. I had been indecisive what to do about that since User:Peter McConaughey brought his behaviour to my attention. Thanks for taking the appropriate action! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Would highly appriciate your comment on this: Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Reply_to_Doron. You may want to take a look at the discussion that led to that. Thanks. Zeq 09:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Maybe I misexpressed myself on the topic of quotes from experts. See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Experts.

Basically, there are technical issues on which you will not find good textbooks, nor peer-reviewed articles, yet warrant a mention. Generally, it is things that are "part of the folklore" on some highly specialized area: people allude to them, write on them, but nobody bothers printing a clear explanation in a textbook (since "everybody is supposed to know about it"), and since the idea is not new it does not get into peer-reviewed publications (remember: scientific publications must publish new ideas, in general). On the other hand, a number of reputed specialists will write on it in "white papers", technical reports, Usenet postings etc., which are not peer-reviewed publications. These things are published but are not peer reviewed.

What do you think? David.Monniaux 11:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

To be honest, you're right about the annoyances, and although he's trying to do something what he thinks is right, he as an innate ability to really fuck up what i'm trying to use on the article. I am phrasing some of the paragraphs differently because they are paraphrased from books that i am referencing, in order to ensure that it is easier for people to refer to these books, and know where i got the information to weight the article.

Now, the other thing which is annoying is he seems to have an also subconscious train of thought that he thinks he is some form of administrator. He has things on his user page, which quite frankly, just beg for recognition "I love wikipedia" and other things. This also speaks volumes to me because when someone is supposed to dispute an article, they do it with sources. Certainly, after i have done 6+ hours of work on tha article, and i arrive to see chipped-away articles, NO reason why other than "This needs a cleanup", now i'm in a lad where i like to know WHY things are the way they are, hence - why i reference my articles. I know there are no regards as to status on the wikipedia - but this i see as a paradox - nobody has any higher status than anyone else, but yet there are templates Requiring Experts - Rather fishy to me relating to the idea of "nobody has weight in the wikipedia", well - for me it does - I don't really think there's a strict enough anything to prevent people from doing whatever they like - Viriditas simply doing what he/she/whatever does, with little reasoning whatsoever.

It seems to me that at such a point, i always come to a brick wall, and i'm forced to give people hints as to go away and allow me to finish my edits before they start jumping on the articles. Still, i've no remorse for what i have done because i'm just so ultimately annoyed by the likes of Viriditas, the type who wish they were administrators, but through their frustration, end up pissing other people off with their attitudes.

I apologise for any problems caused to the wikipedia by the both of us, and i think that although silly, it is unlikely i will be lending my "expertise"/"nobody-ness" to the wikipedia again for such matters. Spum 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The heart icon on my user page does not represent "I love wikipedia". It is a symbol for wikilove. Please read the article. --Viriditas 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

You're saying i'm overly capitalising things, etc. But wait a minute, i was correcting the title of the Governmental Schemes. "Government Schemes" implies that the schemes were done within the government, "Governmental" implies that they are guidelines, which they are - and they are not "Campaigns", either. You say i've done unfair capitalisation, etc - but i actually did trim the grammar down on the first few sections in the free time i had - but yet, for this i'm warned, look at the history and you will see that there are differences in grammar, where i have trimmed it down and yet i'm still getting bollocked for a small mistake i did with a Z.

I'm sorry, but i actually wanted to sort things out, and still, Viriditas makes it out that i'm staging a big "campaign" against ALL editors, when in fact, i'm only staging against him because he edits without any reason other than a line less than 50 words long. What's the point of even having rules if anyone can jump in willy nilly, again, and change things without documenting WHY they did them - Fair enough, i'm alright with cleanup, but the headings were there because they were taken from pamphlets, and related books which all used the same headers.

I'm prepared to work alongside Viriditas, and allow bygones to be bygones - IF he agrees to when changing articles, post more than a minescule amount which doesn't really tell me why something was changed. So, read that - Still, i'm not going to agree to wikilove, it's a pathetically silly concept. I'm not a chump, nor will i allow Viriditas to make it out that i am against a shitload of editors when i am only against parts of what he does.

Spum 19:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you read the wikilove article. If you can't agree to it, then you are essentially saying you can't agree to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Is that correct? If not, what particular component of wikilove do you oppose? Please reply on my talk page. --Viriditas 02:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Workshop. Fred Bauder 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

My understanding of the policy was that if you take out X, and say the reason was Y, then I can put part of X back in if I do so in a way that doesn't conflict with Y, and this doesn't count toward 3RR. For example, you took out stuff from the Kiriyenko letter prank, and only mentioned the comparison to Klebnikov in your comments. I didn't put that back in, but I put in the other material you didn't give a reason for taking out. Am I misunderstanding the policy? 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hello SlimVirgin,

If I add a comment to a page, and someone deltes it and I put it back and they delete it and I put it back and they delete it would I break 3RR if I put it back a third time or would they break it when they revert it. in other words: is the first placement of the edit counting?

Yours jucifer 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I have never been in a real revert war before but this is talk page and it is my own comments that are being reverted. Unfortunately I have the need to note the behaviour of a user who has spammed c.40 friends asking them to vote in a heated AfD debate. The user in question has also made it hard to trace his behaviour by cleverly editing so it doesnt show up straight away on the "user contribs". I guess this may border on a personal attack, but I feel that if he behaves like this and conceals it a note must be left for the deleting admin.

Again thanks for the advise. jucifer 03:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

Thanks for letting me know, I responded here, it's fairly experimental since a "traditional" article rfc looks fairly useless here. karmafist 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

My edits have now been reverted four times. Thrice by one person and once by another, so I am snookered, and cant replace them. What is the position? jucifer 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

It's not the ideas of whatever it is, wikilove.. It's the name, i do not love any wikipedia editor, nor do i love the wikipedia. They're tools that help do a job as far as i'm concerned. No, it's not breaking policy because i don't much fancy working with Viriditas, even if i've said bygones are being bygones, because i think we just have a major personality clash.

As for the information, some is from pamphlets, most is from my knowledge as a dietician, and the rest is academic material to ground the article in fact. Still, i think you're being rather strange constantly asking for perfection - and trying to condescend to me, i'm not a child, nor mentally deficient - i have a grasp of Grammar and the english language, i haven't used it in the professional sense for over 2 days, but i still get through because i draft and draft again, and i wont be made to feel i have to "observe" someone else in order to gain a grasp of language, because i have no need for it. With regards to the article, I still think a Campaign is an inappropriate term, but still, if i change it to scheme, Viriditas will whack it right back to "Campaign", so what's the point in actually discussing it on a Talk page, or anywhere else?

I'm quite sure if i need to wipe my arse again, i'll be able to ask Viriditas to come and help me. I still think again, that making articles in my talk page is rather silly, and i'm just not going to do it. I'd rather have a slightly "rough" article, than one that requires masses of information to be read, to be referenced, to not be POV, and other things, but i'll probably be accused of one or all of those soon. I've been told by viriditas that my Mistaken "z" is bordering on point of view - was that a joke?- i add references at the end of the paragraph that they've been used on, as opposed to all those who dont actually add them, and just add references to the bottom, or am i now wrong in doing that?

I'm not understanding most of these criticisms ; I'm not against every editor on the wikipedia, i'm not using point of view - why would I? if i did it in my job -- i'd be sacked. If i'm told how i'm supposed to do my job next, or how to father my children or how to be a husband, then i will know you're just really trying to piss me off. However, i will clean the article up.

Spum 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion on wikilove is a classic association fallacy. Please read both articles. Also, please refrain from making any more personal attacks per WP:NPA. And, again, please remember to discuss the topic and to avoid discussing editors or their motivations. Thank you. --Viriditas 10:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas -> I don't exactly know what it is you're tying to make me out to be, but certainly, trying to tell me what i am and what i am not will get you nowhere. I'm not interested in any form of rediculous scheme which, by it's very nature, has nothing to do with love, something which you must know is probably the most diverse topic in existance. After all, most policies of wikipedia are named as such on their wikipedia: pages, so why all of a sudden does WikiLove appear, and not Wikipedia:Civility_amongst_editors or Wikipedia:Co-operation_amongst_editors ?

Either way, i'm going to mention this once. Badmouthing me and accusing me of things i have not done is something i will not stand for, and no matter how much authority you think you have, i will only tolerate so much - I will be civil with regards to the wikipedia and the articles i write, but that does not force me to tolerate any accusations you throw my way. Spum 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the wikilove article, you would see that it includes civility and cooperation. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "badmouthing" or "accusations". Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Either way, I don't think it's fair to use SlimVirgin's talk page for this discussion. Let's respect her personal space and move this conversation somewhere else. --Viriditas 10:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dbiv

If I unblock Dbiv, is there any likelihood of anything being done about his breaking of the 3RR rule twice inside a week? No offence, but I'd feel a lot more confident about following your advice if you hadn't just reverted his version, which is clearly against the consensus view on the Talk page. AlistairMcMillan 10:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what "for my own sake" refers to? Just curious, because he's been using similar language all morning. AlistairMcMillan 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. AlistairMcMillan 11:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heya Slim

Go to User:Spum. I gave him another final warning this AM. He blew it off with "cest la vie" and now we have this diatribe. What do you think? I'm trying hard not to block him. But on the other hand, he doesn't quite seem to get it. If he thinks that anyone telling him that what he is doing is wrong is a personal attack, then I don't think he belongs here. Hell, he jumped right down Viriditas' throat when all he said was that the article needed cleaning up. And now after you gave him a final warning, he called me KITTEN THING (his caps not mine) in a post to Viriditas page. I warned him again. Tried to explain myself. And now he's referring to Viriditas as Virix8 and V.x1. I'm blocking him. I'll do 48 hours. If you want to go further than that, go ahead. If anything else, it'll let him cool off since he seems to have quite a temper and as I said, he doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure it won't be controversial since you and I are admins and Viriditas is a respected Wikipedian. We aren't newbies looking to pick a fight. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I went for 24 hours instead of 48. Excessive personal attacks is the reason. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And now it's 3 hours because I told him it'd be 3. Please keep on eye on him since I'm heading to bed in a bit and his block expires in 2 hours. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I saw a note that you wrote on someone else's user page, and thought that I would come over and say hello.

I am really only at Wikipedia for the Peter Falconio disappearance case, but since its quite a long one, I thought that I may as well make an account this time around, and because one of my articles, Planes of Existence (talker) was steamrolled for deletion, as was a second article, lintilla (talker) that I made to back up the first, I ended up participating in a lot of the deletion reform stuff. I mean, maybe I am biased because they were my articles, but it seemed to me that it being nominated for deletion 30 seconds after creation, on a very lengthy article that would have taken a lot more than 30 seconds to read, was very wrong. I imagine that it would have taken them at least 10 minutes to read it, and another 30 minutes to check everything to make a good faith nomination for deletion. But really, I don't see why newly created articles should be able to be nominated for deletion in the short term at all, unless they were bad faith creations, which this one obviously was not.

The methods employed, other than the simple method of nominating it for deletion and getting 3 votes for "delete" before I even noticed that it had been nominated, included removing the external links, accusing me of being a sock puppet when I created an account, accusing a second valid user who voted keep of being a sock puppet purely because they voted keep, putting nasty messages in edit summaries, writing "unverifiable" in edit summaries for things that were confirmed in official sites, making accusations that it violated WP:V as being original research, referring a non-existent web site for comparisons with WP:WEB (which is clearly not applicable), and making wild repeated accusations with no attempt to back the accusations up with fact. ALL of the votes for delete were ill informed.

I created the article, of course, because I used to go to that place, and I thought that it was notable because of historical relevance. I then wrote a bit more on talker which was a sub stub with almost nothing in it previously, and I also turned online chat from being a sub stub in to being an actual article. The reality is that this whole area was underdeveloped.

So this all led to me going on to these various forums to ask if their methods were acceptable. Of course they were not. And then, in looking at these, I found Wikipedia:AFD 100 days which makes a very good statistical analysis that suggests very strongly that the average person is not being represented, and that steamrolling is prevalent.

As a result, I started voting more. Indeed, I made a point to vote on every single article that was put up for nomination, without exception. I then researched every article, referenced the assertions made and spent 15-20 minutes on each article.

Now, as a result of that, I ended up with around about a 61%/39% delete/keep vote, in favour of delete, which is the statistical average of all users. In other words, I have voted as the average user votes - which is NOT how the average regular on AFD voting votes! The average AFD regular votes delete 80% of the time, which is a significant difference.

I then received enormous amounts of abuse on my talk pages, so I have gone to some lengths to try to remedy this, but it just keeps coming in.

Since then I have been looking at more specific evidence to prove the theories. Thus far, I have come across 4 very good specific examples of where voting was not conducted fairly (other than the 2 above which I was personally involved in). As follows:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tzmerth_shmarya - this was a "sheep vote", in that the original nominator made assertions as to why they thought that it should be deleted, but provided no evidence for it. The other 3 people who voted deleted provided no reasons whatsoever. To make matters worse, this was in fact the 2nd vote for the article: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tzmerth_shmarya, and it had passed unanimously the first time. Therefore, there was no question in my mind that correct process had not been followed - that the arguments put forward (0 arguments) failed to provide evidence that it warranted deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Keller - this was a "steamrolling", primarily by Zoe, who is a self-confessed hater of activism and a self confessed Deletionist who has had a wide range of problems over her deletion habits. Her method of steamrolling was to make false accusations of sock puppetry, and then engaged in acts of vandalism on the page etc, or encouraged others to do so. There were a variety of methods used. Nonetheless, the final vote was 6/6, which is a "no consensus" yet the closing admin also weighed in with incorrect process. There were so many problems with that process that it warrants its own page just because of how wrong it was. And that is not even starting with the whole undeletion thing, and the steamrolling of that.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolute Boyfriend - another "sheep vote", in this case not a single person bothered to check if the term was real, or if the text was accurate. In this case they didn't just vote for delete - they all voted for speedy delete. Speedy delete of a popular anime manga graphical comic book with 6 series published, 20 fan sites and 30 different forums dedicated to it (at least). Oh, it is likely going to be kept now, but that is irrelevant really.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Hawkins - "steamrolling" in one of its most obvious forms. The nominator, as well as another user to whom there is evidence that he is wikistalking the author, falsely accused the author of being a sock puppet and stated that their votes would not count. They even went to the effort of making a separate sub section to list "sock puppet votes". The reality was that the person simply hadn't made an account yet. Whilst this is essentially the same thing as what Zoe did in the Sholom Keller article (and what happened in my 2 articles), this time it was done a lot more obviously. However, unlike the Sholom Keller article (and others) this was the only method used to steamroll the vote. For the record, he might not be notable anyway, since he is only a high school football coach, albeit one of the most successful in USA. But that doesn't stop it from being steamrolling. What really concerns me though is that, rather than try to deal with the obvious steamrolling and probably wikistalking, admins instead tried to hide it, and insisted that making false accusations of sock puppetry in order to try to influence the vote is AOK. Perfectly acceptable, they said, and did absolutely nothing about it. And yet in that case as far as I could tell the perpetrators weren't even admins.

I've also been abused when I have tried to help with editing LJ Drama and Encyclopaedia Dramatica, both of which I have stopped editing because of the abuse that I received. It seems to me that the people who are editing those pages are likely regulars to those 2 places, both of whom are known as places that encourage trolling, stalking and other forms of internet-based criminal activity and bad behaviour.

And let's not forget that, in spite of voting delete 61% of the time, I have been abused, both in my talk page and in AFDs themselves by people who insist that I vote keep far too often.

So let's just say that I know how you feel. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] policy editing

Yes, I do intend to become an editor of policy pages, and will familiarize myself with them to the extent I have not already done so. Obviously I will not "desist" as per your request. It's highly facetious to accuse me of "advancing my cause" when you yourself added the tabloid newspaper example to WP:Verifiability only after edit warring on the eXile. Dsol 14:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving?

Really? Is this true? :-( Please don't let it be true. Guettarda 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded! Jkelly 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thirded (if that's a word). Please, no! AnnH ^(talk) 20:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No way. This encyclopedia very very much needs you! I really hope this is not true. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fourthed. Yr humble obdt svt, BrandonYusufToropov 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! But it's okay, I'm hanging on. I've been a bit down because of a long-term stalker, but I think I'll live to see another day. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

(Breathes a sigh of relief) Once again, thank you for your supporton my RfA. I must have barely squeaked by, by sometimes a squeak is all you need! Don't let the opinions of the very few discourage you, you have more support than even you might realize! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

(ec) Just wanted to add my voice to the list of people who don't want to see you getting run off. I haven't known you to be anything but reasonable and helpful, and the project needs more like you, not less. Friday (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

One of Ann's apple turnovers for SlimVirgin, in appreciation for all the good she brings here.

Good to know that you're staying. We can't afford to lose one of our very, very nicest admins. Even before I came directly in contact with you, I was struck by your fairness and courtesy when I used to eavesdrop in places like WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:AN/3RR — the way you explained rules calmly without jumping down people's throats, or unblocked people early as a sign of good will, etc. Perhaps one of my apple turnovers (made and uploaded last night) will cheer you up? And, of course, I'm sure you know that you can count on any help that I can give you. Always let me know if there's anything I can do. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 07:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And a cup of coffee Yusuf brewed for SlimVirgin, in grateful thanks for her patience when he is premenstrual or stressed from dealing with bigots or some #$%^& thing. Giving one to Ta bu, too. Please accept my apologies. BrandonYusufToropov 12:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! The thought of SlimVirgin leaving Wikipedia is truly a shocker and a downer! Slim, don't go!! Babajobu 13:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad you're staying SV! :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The power of one

Copied from User talk:Ed Poor:

The proposed new rule means that if I can get myself involved with you, from that point on you lose all right to stop me from breaking any rules

I can't agree with this statement. Speaking for myself, I'm not an admin and I have no direct power to stop anybody doing anything. But I can appeal to the person involved, I can appeal to people who are admins, I can appeal through formal channels. So long as I have the right to do those things, I'm far from powerless.

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. If a person obviously needs blocking, I don't see why a post to the Administrator's Noticeboard or hopping onto IRC wouldn't accomplish the same effect as implementing the block oneself. Blocking policy needs to balanced such that a problem user can't engineer a "conflict" with an admin to avoid a block, yet equally we need to make sure that blocks are always seen to be entirely above board, and that there's not even a hint of a personal agenda. — Matt Crypto 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the fact is, Matt, that often admins don't want to get involved when they see someone else come under sustained personal attack or harassment, perhaps for fear they'll get dragged into it too. We've had several cases of harassment recently where no one stepped forward to help until the editor was practically forced to leave. This is why admins are allowed, and should be allowed, to block people who attack them so long as they're not involved in a content dispute with them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but I think we can have our cake and eat it too. I believe we can both protect editors who are being attacked, and yet we can do it in a such way that admins avoid falling under suspicion of using blocking powers to settle personal grievances. If an admin is obviously being impartial, even with users who attack them, then, by all means, they should block without hesitation; but if it could reasonably be seen as a "grudge" block, then it'd be much better to get another admin to do it (and I don't see that as being impractical). — Matt Crypto 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spum

That was my plan, SlimVirgin. Yeah I agree. The thing that's most troublesome to me is this idea that telling him that he isn't following a particular policy is a personal attack. If that's the case, then what's the point of having policies? And now he's basically not allowing anyone to talk to him. So I'd agree with ya. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

I have addressed your concerns as best as possible. Let me know if you will now change your mind about deleting my personal subpage User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you.--JuanMuslim ^1m 06:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chindits

I would appreciate it if you would look through the postings on the Chindits Talk page and the edits in the last 24 hours to the Article. I may be wrong but it looks to me that "Anon" is quoting original sources and drawing conclusions from them which I think is against the NOR. As you have more expertises in this area I would appreciate you input. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your response on the Blocking policy proposal

Thanks for your interest. I had hoped that people who had already participated in the discussion would simply record their approval of their preferred options, so that there would be a clear record of where consensus stands. I hoped that folks would not feel the need to repeat what's already been said before; and that people's endorsements (not "votes") would speak for themselves.

I apologize if you felt that my moving your comment out of the poll section was "altering your vote", but that was not my intent. The poll is to collect a record of which options people find tolerable, not to re-collect the same opinions and concerns which have already been expressed in the discussion. Please consider moving your comment back to the comments area, leaving your signature in the poll. --FOo 10:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verified

Image:Verified.png I am glad to hear you liked the addition of the rubber stamp on the page about making sure facts are verifiable. I thought it added just the right touch. The only regret I have is I had to move it on the left, it keeps having the words be overwritten by the image every time I put it on the right side of the article (In Netscape, anyway.) -- Paul Robinson 14:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A propos of which -- major article on WP's fact-checking processes appears in today's New York Times, first page of the Week in Review section. You may have already seen it, but just in case... BYT 15:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Again?

Apology accepted. I will do my best not to mention it, because the situation has been too unpleasant for too long. It is up to you whether to take part in the arbitration. As you noticed, I was trying to use him as an example of a disruptive editor ranting about the past. I will try to remember not to mention the two names in parallel. Robert McClenon 17:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giselle Littman

Hey, can you review WP:RFPP about Giselle and Talk:Bat Ye'or because Kelly Martin verified through mindspillage the name given in the NYT. So, I don't want to unprotect it right now but since I was about to censure Dhimmi over the issue that he had reverted CltFn again and saw you had protected it I figure now with the new evidence it probably shouldn't be. gren グレン 18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of British people of Jewish descent

Sorry - I'm rather new here. Are you the person responsible for this list? Can you do anything about Antidote deleting names of foreign born people? Next he'll be deleting Michael Marks. - Newport 19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

SlimVirgin, I clearly didn't violate the 3rvt rule...you might want to check, for if you did you would see I reverted it to Dwain's version not mine. So it is the first time I reverted that article to that version. Cheers, Chooserr

Lol, your good but wrong. You might be an admin, but you don't get it. I'm not vandalising the page. I didn't revert it to my version. And it isn't even partially reverted (I say that because I can't for the life of me understand what you mean by it). Also when you come to reply on my page you'll see another other posts they clearly out line the what Shanes told me about the policy or guidlines of wikipedia. Chooserr

Your not making much sense but I was just going over the guidlines to find out exactly what it says about this whole BC/BCE thing. Anyway how would I "revert myself"? Chooserr

[edit] Mediation regarding List of Jewish jurists

SlimVirgin, mediation has been re-accepted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists. Would you mind clarifying your view and role as mediator of the dispute? You can email me if you wish. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations

Hi SlimVirgin: Please see the Vote for Deletion (cfd) for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 4#Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. Thank you. IZAK 12:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your message

Thanks. Your were right by the way, that I have been repeating myself somewhat. Sorry to make you deal with that, it's something I've encountered before on other talk pages and found quite unpleasant. I don't think arguments should be won by the last person to get tired of them, and clearly you have taken a large adiminstrative role at WP with lots of postive impact, and I feel kind of bad distracting you from this with arguments, however justified I think I might be. I still feel after reading and rereading the policies and your arguments that I have a valid point, but I will think about it and try to put everything into a more coherent form before arguing on and on.

Aside from this I should add that I respect you as an editor, and have noticed that you have taken a mature and impartial stance in many unrelated debates as an admin. The piece of advice on your user page not to be a one-issue editor is a good one, and I have at times been conscious of being a one-issue editor on eXile-related stuff. Of course I have other interests and contributions as well, but the controversy over there has been sucking me in from time to time. It's true I have a positive personal POV bias about the eXile, which I try my best to supress in writing about it, and in accepting the edits and reversions of others. Please do believe, though, I have nothing to do with the paper. I find suggestions to the contrary, which were initiated by 69.253.195.228, really frustrating.

I want to continue to edit the relevantpolicy pages, because I do care about the policy beyond its impact on the eXile. I may run some suggestions and changes there by you beforehand if you don't mind, as you seem to be more experienced here. Dsol 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindmatrix scam adminship

Image:Loonie.jpg

I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for the Barnstar. You've encouraged me to look for sources for more people. Vulturell 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V...

Seemingly this was due to a redirect to the policy template to the guideline one, which must have also added the other category. This was very recently reverted, which really confused me when I looked back then just now. Alai 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spum

Is about to leave the building. He put "If Viriditas was a woman, i would have more children than i have" on his talk page just now after several more personal attacks the last couple of days. I gave him last warning. One more attack and he's gone. Just letting you know... --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why wait? Users like that are disrupting this encyclopedia. I am sure the majority of contributions are mainly personal attacks. Worse indeed, it is a waste of time for good and valuable editors as Viriditas (i.e. compromising, reverting userpages vandalism, arbitration, etc...) The only solution is for those kind of users to leave this building. Any user who doesn't think before shouting loud F**k/wan*er/your ma**a, etc repeatedly merits to stay outside the doors of wikipedia. That should set an example for the many who are walking around here. Cheers -- Svest 11:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] Terrorism

Please excuse me if I'm not doing the right thing here, but I'm just learning Wikipedia: The euphamisms for "terrorism" and "terrorist" are extremely painful to survivors (like me) and to the families of the dead.

I will provide lots of sources for everything I said in Munich, just give me a day. Trust me. 68.231.217.37 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Clarkson

Could I get you to keep an eye on the Jeremy Clarkson article? User:Pigsonthewing, and potentially a sockpuppet (although I'm not positive of this) is intent on manufacturing a dispute where none actually exists. His goal seems to be to keep the NPOV tag on a certain section of the article, but not actually constructively suggest any ways of rewriting the article to remove the alleged (but nonexistent) POV violations. Nandesuka 13:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to let you use your judgment about whether admin action is appropriate; I am too close to the issue to tell whether this rises to the level of disruption. If we simply end up getting your opinion on the issue as an editor, that's fine too -- more eyes is always good, and who knows, maybe I'm actually wrong. Nandesuka 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Your allegation of sock-puppetry (like your claim that there is consensus on the issue) is bogus., Desist. Andy Mabbett 18:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Marsden, your comments about Jay are not acceptable and constitute a personal attack. Rather than deleting them, I'd prefer to give you the opportunity to rewrite them so that they represent fair comment. Given that Jay is running for election or nomination, criticism is obviously acceptable, but it can't cross the line into abuse, and yours does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What comments were you refering to? Marsden 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete my comments from your talk page. I was referring to the ones above, particularly the first paragraph, but really the whole tone of the thing is disrespectful. But the first paragraph is certainly a violation of WP:NPA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack? Marsden 16:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Calling a good editor and admin with a large number of contributions a "troll of the highest order" is clearly quite false and definitely a personal attack. And the rest of the post is disrespectful. It's possible to criticize people, even quite harshly, and maintain a respectful tone. As another admin has told you, this is a nomination or election process regarding what's essentially a thankless task and a lot of hard work, so the least we can do is be respectful of the candidates, even if we strongly disagree with them. Anyway, I don't want to argue about it anymore. I'm going to give you some time to rewrite it yourself, and if you don't, I'll remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you restore my original question to Jayjg on his candidacy page, the one that Viriditas removed, as a show of good faith? Marsden 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Again?

hey hey! can you please protect my Userpage again? Also, are you a SysOp? If so can you delete this or get someone who is to do it?--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah, if it works that'd be great! Thanks again! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hoozah! Thank you again! --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Antidote and Max Born

Can you please tell Antidote to stop deleting Max Born? - Poetlister 20:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister, why don't you comment on the talk page about it? Antidote 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:SlimVirgin/archive22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sorry, but its the eXile page again.

[edit] User:SamuelSpade

[edit] Re your message

[edit] Old User talk page

[edit] You were right

[edit] No problem

[edit] thank you

[edit] Frances Power Cobbe

[edit] Arbitration accepted

[edit] Help needed

[edit] Thank You

[edit] 3rr

[edit] I think I forgot

[edit] Islamofascism (term)

[edit] Thanks for your support

[edit] Neofascism and religion

[edit] Animal Rights and POV pushing

[edit] Please look at the rational for this edit

[edit] List of Dictators

[edit] Kyoto protocol reference dispute

[edit] Thanks for your note

[edit] Your message

[edit] Dispute about notability

[edit] Footnotes

[edit] DOM Arbitration

[edit] Mylo Carbia

[edit] Lord Goldsmith

[edit] Email

[edit] Brandon

[edit] Re Unicodify

[edit] Judeofascism

[edit] E-mail?

[edit] NPOV policy

[edit] deleted discussion of direct links

[edit] Left this for Ta bu, but want you to read it too, dammit

[edit] Reasonably, then

[edit] If I may boil this down

[edit] Request

[edit] Email

[edit] Is this a personal attack?

[edit] Important AfD

[edit] Check user request

[edit] Jewish list

[edit] Rollback?

[edit] Email

[edit] British Jews List

[edit] censoring the sources

[edit] Question for you

[edit] Official warning

[edit] Talk:Animal rights

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

[edit] censoring the sources

[edit] Question for you

[edit] Official warning

[edit] Talk:Animal rights

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

[edit] Chaosfeary

[edit] Circumcision advocacy

[edit] disruption

[edit] personal attacks

[edit] People can judge for themselves

[edit] questions for jayg

[edit] question to jayg

[edit] Jewish votes

[edit] Point Made

[edit] Elie Weisel

[edit] 20,000 edits!

[edit] Hi User In Question, this is for you too

[edit] CheckUser request

[edit] Pub Pic

[edit] Automatically numbered footnotes

[edit] Thanks Slim!

[edit] blocking User:Chaosfeary

[edit] Please help

[edit] Reliable sources

[edit] Disruption

[edit] Confused