User talk:SlimVirgin/archive23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Neonazi watch

Two pages you might want to add to your watchlist:

Homey 22:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Islamonazism

Hmm, I recommended it be sent to deletion review.... but, deletion review is not for articles that were voted to be redirected? Hmm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamonazism never seems to be closed... but at this point I'm not sure why the page has been protected and CltFn hasn't been allowed to challenge a year old consensus for redirect. FCYTravis' actions of protecting it and saying that it would be figured out at Deletion Review and the fact that most people on Deletion Review say it doesn't belong there has me a bit miffed. I agree with travis because the vote seemed to be for deletion. However, since people don't want it on deletion review what is the proper course of action to be taken? I see no problem with ClfFn challenging the status quo after a year... but it now appears he has no avenue to do that. gren ÉOÉåÉì 02:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You are a wonderful human being.

Eat donuts, friend. unsigned edit by User:70.189.120.44

[edit] Disputed Changes

Dear Slim, Would you have time to look at this edit [1] and let me know if you think it could be characterised as vandalism? I explained my reasoning on the user's talk page at [2], but he just deleted and ignored it. With this and the edit warring over articles on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus I'm beginning to wonder whether it's actually feasible to improve Wikipedia. Is there any mechanism at all to make sure that editors do have to use reliable sources, or do editors have to sacrifice a chunk of their lives to continuous monitoring of specific articles? --Ian Pitchford 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Thank you. That couldn't be clearer. --Ian Pitchford 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High ground, as requested.

  • Okay. I'm coming to you with this, rather than howling about it on talk pages.
  • We've done a lot of talking recently about WP:Point, Slim, so I hesitate to bring this up, but this is one of the clearest examples of it I've ever seen. Does it seem worthy of administrative action to you? BYT 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quote added by Ian Pitchford

Here is the quote that he added that I have now deleted twice, which he complains about above:

Following the the war (and most notably during and after the trial of Adolf Eichmann) the mufti's role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated in what historian Idith Zertal describes as "a landmark in the process of the organized, explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy, especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict". Zertal continues: "The transference of the Holocaust situation on to the Middle East reality, which harsh and hostile to Israel as it was, was of a totally different kind, not only created a false sense of the imminent danger of mass destruction. It also immensely distorted the image of the Holocaust, dwarfing the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, trivializing the unique agony of the victims and the survivors, and utterly demonizing the Arabs and their leaders."

  • I pointed out to him that this is predicated on three unverified premises:
    • a) The Mufti's Nazi-ties were exaggerated after the war.
    • b) This was done by Jews/Zionists to further their malign aims, by gaining sympathy.
    • c) There is a campaign to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy."
  • I put it to him that before he can add such a POV quote to the article he must provide the writers answers to how, where and when this was done and not just the why (to gain sympathy by abusing the memory of the holocaust. jucifer 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden's RfAr against you

Marsden talks about an article RfC as evidence of good faith. Only I arrived at the article as a result of the RfC, and he subsequently made personal attacks on me! If the RfAr goes ahead, I'll happily add my testimony. Andjam 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civility policy

You wouldn't believe this, but the reason I came to your talk page in the first place was to have a look at changes to Wikipedia:Civility that I've proposed in the talk page. If you're a bit too busy to have a look, that's fine. Andjam 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Sorry, i did not mean to violate policy I thought that one may revert simple vandalism more than 3R times but I will take a break anyway. Did you also warn User:69.253.195.228(talk) who made 3 or more reverts too? Because he is the one who keeps reverting without fair discussion in discussion page of The eXile and Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames, I try to have discussions but he will not, it seems to me vandalism and bad faith. Thank you SlimVirgin. User:Tictoc 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Jayg

Lets just ask the question and stop the bickering. A one word answer should put this all to bed. Unbehagen 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont think he is either. But then why not just let him say "no - dont be silly". By hiding the question you're causing a level of doubt that doesn't need to be there. I tried to put it in a very neutral open way that's easy to rebut. Unbehagen 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I pretty much do assume good faith. But then I saw just how much he supported Guy Montag in his little "jihad" of rightwing POV pushing way past the point that it could be described as any sort of neutrality and it called some of jayg's motives into doubt. It's interesting that both you and he seem to assert that I sould assume good faith whilst trying to deny that I am myself ascting in that way. Perhaps what I want is a good well referenced neutral work too? Unbehagen 20:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no actual evidence behind the claim other than "Gee, you sure do edit a lot," which, frankly, is true of many editors. Without an actual factual underpinning, it is simply a variant of "When did you stop beating your wife?" Nandesuka 20:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly it seems to have become an issue. Lets just put it out of its misery once and for all. I actually dont think it's a big thing one way or the other (personal opinion). Unbehagen 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Then why ask the question on behalf of someone who is only here to cause trouble? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It denies him a platform - and hopefully allows us to ask some of the other questions which I think are more relevant. And thanks for your comment btw. Unbehagen 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit history

On my RFA, you said: "Also, his very first edit shows prior knowledge of Wikipedia". That is because (A) I had been editing anonymously for a period of time before registering an account, and (B) as a programmer and experienced HTML user, I pick up on coding syntax easily. As for my absence for a couple of months, it's quite simple: I was about to get sucked into yet another undesired conflict (this one with User:Heegoop about whether articles should replace "American" with some neologism like "United Statian") and I decided to take a wikivacation to head off this nonsense. As for my past interactions with you, I had expressed concern regarding what I saw as overly broad use of administrative powers. As expressed in my RFA, I believe in administrative restraint, with admin powers being used to ward off obvious vandalism and to carry out expressed community consensus. Firebug 06:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


I took the liberty of removing personal attacks and transmogrifying them to something nicer, and of giving 70.189.120.44 an extended vacation. Nandesuka 03:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patching up edit history

In need of some admin mojo :-). Short story, the page List of dictators had been recently moved from List of modern day dictators. That was by consensus (no disagreement expressed), and the move carried the edit history with it. The page itself recently survived a very extensively argued AfD, and I know some editors still want to kill it "by any means necessary".

Unfortunately, a user (Sterling Newberry) today moved the article over to a brand new (slightly different) title List of modern era dictators. No one else likes that title, and there was no discussion of such a move. I attempted to move the page back where it came from, but I got a message that I couldn't move to an existing page. So as a hack, I redirected (and copied the content of) both the article and its talk page from List of modern era dictators to the desired List of dictators. You can see where this is going: doing this unfortunately kills the edit history of List of dictators.

I've heard rumor that you powerful admins are able to patch together edit histories to make it all happy. The silly, messy changes of today are not much important, but all the other stuff going back several years would be nice to have presented nicely. Is this doable? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. I present you with this yellow rose of friendship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris2

Would you please compare Dunc's contribs to mine, and indicate whether I have a right to better treatment than I've been getting? Uncle Ed 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Deletions

What do you think about putting List of Jewish historians up for deletion? It seems to me like another extraneous list started on a whim a while ago. I have already decided to put up List of Jewish inventors after being ignored on the talk page. Antidote 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden's Block

I'm starting to get ever more concerned that your blocking of Marsden is starting to look like a personal dispute between the two of you. Doubtless you do not see it this way and I will not comment on whether it is or not - but it could easily be percieved as such. Would now be a good time to ask an admin who is not habitually involved in editing the set of articles over which the two of you seem to disagree so often to look at this? Note that I'm not pleading his case, I am just suggesting that a fresh pair of eyes here might be in order. I think you have both lost your tempers here - irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the case. Unbehagen 22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"I asked three other admins to review the extension of his block, so I've had the fresh pair of eyes, and if you check the block log, you'll see he'd been blocked six times by five different admins" Fair enough. Many thanks both for looking at this and the speedy reply. Unbehagen 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Clarkson edits

Thanks so much for your help in cleaning up that article. It reads much more professionally now, I think. Nandesuka 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr

As discussed, I've filed an RfAr against you: [3]

Marsden 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Brown's user page

Please stop messing around with Rachel's user page. You've nearly given the poor girl a nervous breakdown and you've made her quit as a Wikipedia editor - now please stop it. - Poetlister 14:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your excellent feature article Bernard Williams

I took the liberty of using a copy of your excellent article, placed in my own subpage User:For7thGen/subpage 2, as my guinea pig for my ongoing work on coexistence of automatic numbering for both eLinks (= embedded external links) and footnotes. Have you seen this straightforward approach before? Please look at it and let me know what you find wrong with it. That subpage 2 just has the referrings in your text, now parallel-numbered in the References section. It seems to me this gives our readers the best of both worlds: They can still click on eLinks immediately, and return, without any extra clicks to get to the References section. But if they do get to the References section, they get a nicer overview of the references, don't you agree? Readers can easily find a particular reference if desired, and they get cross-links and brief comments to help them navigate multiple uses of the same source.

Then I went further and inserted two f-words (just kidding, I mean footnotes) so you can see how that looks too. You can see that result at User:For7thGen/subpage 4, and I hope you'll agree that the readers get even more capability at no extra cost to them. As I stated there, automatic numbering of eLinks and footnotes mixed together does work. I'm not sure if I pointed out there that the multiple uses of both sources and footnotes is coded without any numbers hardcoded in, just letters -- so inserting more automatically numbered eLinks or footnotes does not require any maintenance work! Anyway I myself like it fine and I wonder -- well, I myself am not likely to ever feel a need to convert an article from only eLink auto-numbering to mixed eLink and footnote autonumbering anyhow. I trust I could always get along quite well with hardcoding the footnotes that I felt that readers absolutely needed. I guess my point is, with such a system for coexisting of both eLinks and footnotes as I just did, above, I just wonder why the two user groups have so much trouble coexisting in the same article??
That difficulty is what's driving me to work on coexistence, when I'd really rather be doing my own thing and especially living life including family life.
By logic, or reasoning, I guess the answer must be that the pure eLink users put a higher value on not taking the slight extra time to add their new reference at a certain point in the References list, compared to adding it in alphabetical order; and they place a lower value on making things easy for the reader. That must be it. So, until we do get decent software for automatic numbering separately for footnotes and for eLinks in the text, we'll just have miserable arguments about it, and I'll just do it my way (whille leaving others free to do it their way) by hardcoding in whatever footnotes I feel readers must have... Bottom line: Frank, finish up your crummy proposal on coexistence SW and get on with your real life...

Now to the main topic of this comment: This time I looked at the content of your article, and you can really write! Better than I can, for sure, but I've only lived in the technical world and haven't had much practice. And I really like what I noticed of Bernard Williams, both his life and his views, and am envious that you get to spend your time on such things. But I do claim to have a good feel for excellent writing, and your article does qualify.
Oh yes, a little bad news -- the one eLink I happened to try gave me the Error 404(?), for a dead link I think, but anyway it was the 1st external link in the article and it happened both from the text and from the reference. And should I instead have put this on the actual article's talk page? I am sorry to mix it in here... and probably when you try it again it will be fine again anyway.

 For7thGen 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy

Could you help me? Explain why it is not relevant that Andrew Meier, when he praised The eXile, worked as foreign correspondent for Time? He may have said this quote not in Time Magazine, but obviously quote is relevant because of his Time expertise and credibilty. And you raised the issue to prove that The eXile is relevant or credible. Now that I provide a clear source, you say it's not relevent. Very confused! Thank you SlimVirgin. User:Tictoc 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand, but it seems wrong to me. So if Andrew Meiers work at Time was not relevent to the quote about the eXile, then it is obviously not worth including in the eXile article. Does your policy apply across-the-board? Anytime if someone notable says something positive or negative about something else, the opinion-maker's notable position can not be mentioned unless he said it in the capacity of that job? For example if a former 5-Star general praised a book on war, we could only cite that former 5-star general's name, but not the fact that he was a 5-Star General because he didn't give his opinion on official duty? Thanks! User:Tictoc 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Andrew Meier was not a free lancer as you suggest, he was the Time correspondent from 1996 to 2001[4]. In the journalism world this is pretty close in terms of giving credibility to the perception of another media outlet in Russia as to a 5-star general commenting on a war book. If it is not, please explain why. Thank you! User:Tictoc 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Grove/Atlantic Monthly Credible?

SlimVirgin, I saw your delete of the CNN quote on the eXile, so I have to ask you once again, is Grove Press/Atlantic Monthly a credible source according to wikipedia policy? Yes or no? Thank you SlimVirgin! User:Tictoc 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, your position is that according to wikipedia policy, Grove/Atlantic Monthly is not a credible source? Are you sure this is wikipedia policy? Please read wikipedia's entries on Grove Press and the Atlantic Monthly. Also, you made a mistake - Grove attributed the quote to "Andrew Meier, Time," which refer to his place of work and therefore his credibility. They did not say the quote, then, "Time" as if "Time" said it. Thank you! User:Tictoc 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A true friend!

Hi, Slim! That was very quick, and very helpful (which of course is exactly what I'd expect from you). I'm very happy with it now. I did make some minor changes just to have the text aligned on the left instead of the centre, and to have the leave-me-a-message box all on one line. Thanks again. AnnH (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Hi SlimVirgin, I read the wikipedia entry on Verifiability like you suggested. But it seems from my reading that you violating policy in The eXile edit. Specifically, you take the position that Grove Press/Atlantic Monthly Press, publisher of their book and the web site, is NOT a credible source, but it is according to the policy page. Moreover, you questioned Grove/Atlantic Monthly's reliability based on Peter Ekman's original research, which is explicity banned in the Verifiability page and I quote: ""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia." It also says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material as true or false." Yet you wrote that Grove/Atlantic Monthly is not credible - an argument which puts you way out of mainstream thinking - because, you said, "given that they attributed a quote to Time that wasn't published by Time." In other words you violated the rule that a source is verifiable "regardless of whether individual editors regard that material as true or false." To continue quote the policy you asked me to read, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You have to come up with much more substantial reason why Grove/Atlantic Monthly is not credible, as I read it, especially because only fringe thinkers will agree with your position. Thank you! User:Tictoc 10 December 2005

[edit] message

Hi, thanks for your note, I've already contacted the people concerned. Regards Arniep 17:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, could you advise me on this, I just noticed this (under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Description): "Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them." So, have I broken a rule? What should I do? Arniep 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, could you check your email, Thanks. Arniep 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr vio

I think I may have mislead you into blocking User:24.147.103.146 for a 3RR vio-- he did do four reverts, but I reported three more by misreading the edit history times, which I have since deleted. Very sorry. Mwanner | Talk 19:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Wikipedia:Title Neutrality argument

Hello Slim, I've been cleaning up version 2.0 of my "conspiracy theory" in titles removal proposal over at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality and I have some clarity questions for you if you have a moment.

Please correct me if I am interpreting your argument incorrectly, it seems you are arguing that because the disproven rumor or theory that 4,000 Israeli's were warned not to go to work on 9/11 still exists we must present it dismissively? Aren't these sorts of rumors common in the immediate aftermath of a major event? Shouldn't we move beyond the immediate aftermath climate of 9/11 and reduce fear, calm people down and point them at facts and present subjects, including controversial rumors, neutrally? That rumor did exist, we should acknowledge that fact and instead of discouraging an investigation we should show people the facts, right? Wouldn't it be better, in the long run, if all facts were presented and readers understood why a particular theory is false, rather than categorize it so dismissively to the point where people won't even learn the facts of the issue? I think the Flat Earth article is a good example of how something can be titled neutrally yet on the inside of the article all facts and arguments are presented that conclude that theory has been disproven. That example is also a good analogy, if someone only has a limited amount of information isn't it reasonable to conclude/believe the earth is flat? I think your argument in favor of "conspiracy theory" needlessly politicizes and adds fear to the issue by bringing up rumors and 9/11. The way I look at it the more controversial a subject or group of intertwined subjects get the more relevant wikipedia's NPOV policy and presentation neutrality becomes. Is it possible for you to argue "conspiracy theory" is ok in descriptive titles without mentioning 9/11 and rumors, if only for my benefit and understanding? Please take a look at my updated argument and your old argument over at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality and let me know either way, thx. zen master T 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Slim, have you had a chance to look at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality? zen master T 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Sure, although there isn't too much to blush about, that barnstar was just a copy and paste of a few different pictures.

The first thing to do when making this is asking yourself -- what picture comes to mind when you think of citation? I can't think of one off the top of my head, and that's probably the hardest part.

You might be able to help me in return if you know anybody that is good at Tables or Excel. I'm so-so at the first, and fairly good at the second, but i'm still having an issue trying to combine the two -- I want to make it easier to input data into tables somehow. If you don't know anybody, it's not a big deal, it feels cool that you asked me for "expertise" in the first place ;-) karmafist 20:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'd love to teach you whatever I know as long as you do the same if there's something you can do well that I don't quite get, like having patience with the arbcom people or trying to figure out the seeming void of trying to get policy creation/reform done at the pillage pump or elsewhere or wherever. karmafist 20:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Rights References

Hey SlimVirgin. Couldn't find discussion regarding external links on the talk page. Won't it be nice to cite all the references in the article using the {{ref}} template in the References section rather than having external links all over the article? I was told to do so in an article for which I requested Peer Review. I was planning to do so for this article especially because, for example, the article The Case for Animal Rights is also listed under the References section. Let me know from your experience what works better. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info SlimVirgin. I hardly had any idea about the three styles. deeptrivia (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Charming

Done. BYT 21:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User:Mulla Nasruddin

This person just complained about you to the Help Desk mailing list: From: <NAME REMOVED> <EMAIL REMOVED> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org Reply-To: Help desk for questions about Wikimedia projects <helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org> To: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.orgMUNG Date: Dec 10, 2005 9:45 AM Subject: [HelpDesk-l] blocked by another member

Log in name:


Mulla Nasruddin I have been blocked by another member who was posting persistent lies and disinformation on Ari Ben-Menashe. Nearly everything posted by this person is inaccurate and now he has managed to block me so that I can't challenge him.

Saadi

_______________________________________________ HelpDesk-l mailing list HelpDesk-l@Wikimedia.orgMUNG To unsubscribe from this list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l

WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 05:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Can you please review the behaviour of Robert I particularly on Monday Club and Talk:Monday Club (particularly (Talk:Monday_Club#Accurate_quoting)and see if a tempban is in order and for how long. He deliberately added an altered quotation and misrepresented its meaning and, when caught, seemed quite proud of himself. He's also made legal threats at various points. I banned him for two weeks in the heat of the moment due to the flagrancy of his action but since I am involved it's probably better to have another admin review his situation. I lifted the tempban after about 18 hours for review. Homey 19:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Falsifying_quotationsHomey 19:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blanking by 24.147.103.146

Per SCZenz's request, I have listed the blanking/copyright events involving 24.147.103.146 (and later 204.169.116.1 at WP:AN/I. If theres anything i've missed about these events please feel free to add. Thanks again for your help. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Edit war at Zatanna

I've been watching this from the sidelines.. and from what I see 65.110.6.40 has been particularly obnoxious to editors. If you look at history, you will see particularly rude words being bandied about. Theres no attempt at compromise or civility in resolving the problem. Sunburst 03:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SEWilcoBot

SEWilcoBot is changing links to more complete citations under Wikipedia policy WP:V. More complete information is preferred over minimal information. And the conversion of George Galloway was requested [5]. (SEWilco 14:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

I suspect that SEWilco has been hit by the autoblocker, since he edits from the same computer (and hence IP address) as SEWilcoBot. I've offered to unblock him as long as he agrees not to make further footnote changes until the matter is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the notification.

The biggest problem with this, in my mind, is that it gives the appearance of being a "last gasp" attempt to get in as many changes as possible before the Arbcom decision comes down.

Why anyone sensible would think that is a good idea is, frankly, beyond me. Nandesuka 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] message

Hi. I emailed you. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Thanks, Slim!

Image:Azaleas.jpg

Hey SlimVirgin/archive23! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tomertalk

[edit] List of British people of Jewish descent - converts

Hi SlimVirgin! I understand the principle of the list as being geared towards ethnic information (though I do disagree with it). However, seeing as it is the closest thing to a List of British Jews (most of the links are to that redirect), I feel there should be some allowance to mention converts to Judaism such as Elizabeth Taylor. Perhaps a separate section, though that wouldn't be my first choice. Would that be OK by you? RMoloney (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It should just be changed back and people who only have one grandparent who is Jewish (not in the maternal line) should be listed in a sub section of that list. Arniep 00:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anittas

It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Anittas that you might be the person who I should approach about co-signing an RfC I have started. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with your RfC. This is a non-sense you know perfectly well. He has is not anti-semitic. In fact I am wondering why not you start an RfC against the vandal who has been extremely extremist saying Moldovan is not Moldavians. I am starting to think what's your aim Jmabel, and how much objective you are! -- Bonaparte talk 11:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] George Galloway

The guy (SEWilco) is trying to tidy up references, you two (you and Nandesuka) are reverting, and between you all there is now a right dogs-dinner of mixed styles on the page. Please go and sort out one style or the other, probably the first that was invoked as suggested in the guidelines. Thanks. --81.77.46.30 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

I truly am in debt for your support. Looks like the problem is solved on their end. I got two very nice letters from the admins of both sites and they've fixed the mistake. Jeez, now I know how John Seigenthaler feels!  :) - Lucky 6.9 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome at Prime Minister. One user, without even bothering to go through the proper procedures, wants to rename the article Prime minister and keeps moving it to push that version!!! While there is an article for all uppercasing or all lowercasing, half-casing (which is all WP allows, as all lowercasing is not possible in article titles) would produce a semi-literate mess that would make WP a laughing stock. A student who writes the title that way in an essay earns an instant fail because it is seen as such a monumental clanger. With all the attacks WP is under right now, the last thing WP needs is to make it look as though it does not know how to write the title of the office of premier correctly. What next? Lord mayor? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarkhan

Could use your special brand of common sense at this article. Dealing with a very angry anon who insists on posting very odd and grammatically improper statements, and then accused me of having a "big nose"... --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Freud removal

Have you looked at the talk page? I opined, and Jeremy Shapiro concurred, that the added paragraphs/bullets have some value, though need improvement. I don't think the chracterization as personal essay is fair, nor that these paragraphs have greater specific citation requirements than do many of the other generalizations stated. What is your reason for think these additions are especially suspect? (beyond being posted by an anon: I'd rather a named user wrote them too). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Would you be willing to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which is in need of some idea of Wikipedia's concept of NPOV ? --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow - I didn't realise we had WikiProjects dedicated to opposing the election of Muslim editors and to doing things like de-capitalising "Companions". Is there also a WikiProject dedicated to de-capitalising "Apostles" and opposing the election of Christian or Jewish or Hindu editors? Now I see where all the organised opposition to Anonyme's RFA came from. Terribly disturbing. Guettarda 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Not only that but several of its editors were blocked for openly vandalizing articles and sockpuppetry. Many of them are probably still sockpuppets. And it's probably the only group in which 90% of it's members have been blocked at least once. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal is back

129.7.35.102 (talk · contribs). See [6] and other attacks in article edit history. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

User whose second edit was a vote is spamming people to vote oppose. Over 50 spams now - look at contribs. Clearly you should mention this on the afd. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only that but he is trying to get editors on other religious articles to vote oppose. He is clearly a sockpuppet of an editor who already voted oppose. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[7]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm, I just got this (spam?) message. Do you know what all this is about? Usually, I like to investigate any "complaints" that someone sends me on my talk page, but this one's ArbCom evidence is really long. Thanks so much. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wee Kim Wee/temp

Wee Kim Wee/temp, which is in the article namespace, contains a link (a sig) into the userspace. This isn't ideal, as it shows up on Special:CrossNamespaceLinks, which makes insert sympathetic figure here cry. Is there a way to have the page you want there, but without a link to userspace (heck, there's a template for this, if only I could remember what it's called)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HLSCass.jpg

Please provide a fair use rationale for the use of this image in the articles you've added it to. Merely slapping {{fairuse}} on it is not sufficient. Thanks. 86.133.53.111 10:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:OceanSplash

This is going to sound odd, but I actually think this person is OK. I have been reviewing their edits and the conclusion I come to is that they are quite new to editing and probably just need a few pointers. You may think otherwise, I'm certainly all ears if you disagree. Anyway, I was going to have a chat with them and see if I can give them a few tips about editing articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu, I am not sure to whom your are refering as involved parties or which edits you have reviewed. If you are basing the above opinion on what you have read at Talk:Ali Sina than fair enough. If not, than I think that would maybe explain to you what's going on. According to his/her insertions, one can understand that the user is a big admirer of a few vero POV Anti-Islamic forums and blogs and many times the stuff is reverted for including anonymous statements by participants on those blogs. Everytime reverted, we have to hear all the accusations that nobody can withstand and accept (from jihadits, islamists, terrorists, etc...). If that still sounds as an ok behaviour, (while being considered as personal attacks), than this post at Jimbo's talk page is simply considered as hate speech and irrelevant to Wikipedia. The message was soon reverted by the user himself for unknown reasons. Cheers -- Svest 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

[edit] Your link to the picture of the Slim Virgin statue on your user page

...appears to be broken (http://www.kbrimanila.org.ph/tourism/images/prambanan.jpg). At least it doesn't load when it click it. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New evidence posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2

Hi - I have added new evidence to the case. SEWilco and his bot is currently modifying a climate article Sea level change [8] to his footnote style without discussion. Seems to be a bit contemptuous to me in view of the ongoing proceedings and his knowledge that the editors of climate articles are opposed. Thanks, Vsmith 18:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti-archive

Hey. I've got a stupid idea. Let's not archive our talk pages and see what happens. Spread the word! All the best, El_C 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering...

Hello, SlimVirgin. Don't you think it would be more fitting if a non-biased editor protected Daniel Brandt, if it needs protection at all? (Not accusing you of anything, of course!) The current history doesn't look much like an edit war to me, and I've seen pages with more reverts remain unprotected. :/ Other than that, I would say redirecting a well-written and researched article to a stub without clear concensus -- not because of a policy, but simply because the article's subject is going to throw a hissy fit if we don't -- almost qualifies as vandalism. Kinda sorta, at least, certainly well-intentioned vandalism, I suppose. Just my thoughts. --Nymph 02:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (aka User:EndAnonDiscrimination)

I read on that dreadful website that you volunteered to delete that article the first time around, so I assumed that you would still hold that opinion. Perhaps I was wrong? --Nymph 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


It's a very interesting decision to protect the page, then revert the page to another version while keeping it protected. The redirecting is controversial and clearly not a result of consenus. I hope you realize your actions could indicate a preference for the earlier version and thus a possible abuse of powers. --C S (Talk) 03:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you had no opinion, then you would have simply reapplied the protection without the revert. The protection is meant to stop reverts, and not reinforce either version of the page (assuming the protector is impartial, of course). --Nymph 03:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The revert was not made while the page was protected. What version you decided to protect it on before should not matter, so actually reverting back to the useless broken redirect suggests that you would perhaps prefer the useless broken redirect to the content page. Obviously I can not read your mind, and I would assume good faith, but my concerns are not simply accusatory, they are that you have maintained the protection of a specific version of the Daniel Brandt page by reverting to it and then preventing further edits, which is contrary to Wikipedia protection guidelines. :( --Nymph 03:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt

I do not intend to engage unprotect again for now; there appear to be other admins around. However, I do reject the notion that I have somehow abused my unprotect button without having ever edited the article and without touching the redirect with which I disagree. (The protection policy says nothing about unprotection, incidentally.) -Splashtalk 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ughhhhhh

Hi SlimVirgin..

For now, can we revert everything back, with the intention to revisit it tomorrow? Everything is going boom... Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Since our discussions don't seem to be going anywhere, I filed an RfC asking for community input on whether or not your actions violate WP:PPol. Your response is welcome at [9]. I hope that you will view this as an opportunity for the community to clarify when an Admin's use of page protection is appropriate and when it is not, since you apparently interpret this rule very differently from me. Rangerdude 08:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image:PALockerbievictim2.jpg

[edit] Image Tagging Image:PALockerbievictim2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PALockerbievictim2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much.

I tagged this image as no source and believe it should be removed. I tried to locate the source of the image and couldn't find it anywhere. The site referenced as the source doesn't exist. This appears to be a scan of a newspaper photo and almost certainly is a non-free image. "It was everywhere" is not an adequate fair use claim. It's not everywhere now that I can find.

--Wgfinley 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

Slim, I haven't contacted you in about a year—I was the fellow who praised your Bernard Williams article and also got Equal Protection Clause elevated to FA status. I've been "dormant" for a little while, and am now getting back into the swing of things here at Wikipedia. I've got one concern, though: is it just me, or is there a much, much greater incidence of vandalism than there was a year ago, or even a few months ago? I must say, it's extraordinarily frustrating to me and I'm not sure what to do about it; it almost makes me not want to participate in Wikipedia at all. Any suggestions? Or perhaps I'm just blowing a few isolated anecdotes out of proportion? Hydriotaphia 06:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with some vandal at Azad Kashmir article

Hey Slim. Happy holidays and all that. Anyway, this guy who keeps editing the Azad Kashmir article keeps claiming that it's POV bias to call it Azad Kashmir even though most of the planet outside of India refers to it as what the locals call it. I posted two links to US government sources in the Talkback section of the article and Idleguy, another somewhat casual observor, agrees with me as there is already an article on Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Basically, he's pushing for an Indian government perspective and so can you look into and judge for yourself? I don't think I'm wrong to say that what countries call the areas they control generally has to be what we go by and we can mention what other countries call them as well without problem. The article already states that it is Pakistan administered Kashmir. The guy just wants his way, so your help would be cool. Thanks and adios. Tombseye 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radhanite

I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need advice?

I have this new editor who denies that articles on fan culture need sources to back them up (see Lucas bashing and the talk page and [10] in particular) How do you explain nicely to a new editor why sourcing is important? I ask because you're a respected editor who seems to have to tackle verifiability issues a lot dealing with fringe political views-Borisblue 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi SlimVirgin. User:129.70.124.4's vandalism of Animal rights has resumed. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supicious user page

If you're in take a look at this on the Babel list[11]found just now, and didn't see that name in the list. It's a new user page.--Dakota ? e 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:ApeAndPig

I unblocked after a long mini-mediation session with the user over IRC, because I believed he'd been blocked out of order. If he's now causing problems, please reblock - but is he causing them? 86.133.53.111 02:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

(Sigh) Do what you like. Rob Church Talk 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden

What I want is for Snowspinner to provide some sort of reasonable condition Marsden can agree to, and then Marsden could return to editing. That would be the best, least confrontation way to resolve it. But if he refuses to engage in dialogue about it I will feel free to exercise my discretion as a sysop, which Snowspinner certainly has no hesitation about exercising, to unblock him. I'd expect him to reblock, unfortunately, but maybe then he would at least start discussing the issue. Everyking 07:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If he is such a problem, then he can go to arbitration. A unilateral indefinite block is wrong, wrong, wrong. There has to be process if he's going to be banned. Everyking 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
But the community didn't ban him. Snowspinner did. Everyking 07:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If Snowspinner hadn't, quite a few others would have - he just got there first. Marsden is a particularly odious troll - David Gerard 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Felix Navidad

Image:Santa.jpg
Tony the Marine

O.K. SlimVirgin, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized discussion about certain popular references

Using the article Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as an example, I wonder whether whether it is a good idea to have a list of sources that mentions for each their strengths and weaknesses? There is no large source impeccable, I believe, but it will help avoiding the same discussion and disputes in a number of articles. By the way, I do not believe that the website is a very reliable source and it is certainly quite often one-sided, but to ban it from being referenced always goes a bit too far, I believe. Andries 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Edit Warring

Why are you accusing me of edit warring? To the best of my knowledge, my edits have been consistent with the policies of wikipedia - I don't change something unless I believe that it is incorrect and I back up those changes with commentary and links. Now, do you have any evidence to back up your allegation, or do you wish to retract it? --SpinyNorman 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti-archive

Hey. I've got a stupid idea (still!). Let's not archive our talk pages and see what happens. Spread the word! All the best, El_C 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heya Slim

I commented on that RFC going on you. Dunno about the page protections (always a tricky thing!), but I largely support you as an administrator. My only advise is to be really careful that you don't protect pages you are involved in (or appear to be involved in... which I suspect is the issue here, though haven't really dug around too deeply!) Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bat Ye'or

Hi, I noticed you have been editing the Bat Ye'or page. I'm having a conflict with an editor there, User:CltFn, and I wonder if you as an administrator could come over and have a look. (Also, check out Steadfastness and Confrontation Front, about what we discussed on Talk:Rejectionist Front. Arre 12:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp

I've done a draft rewrite at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp - feel free to hack away - David Gerard 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SEW/SLR

I've made Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Workshop#Requested_temporary_injunction William M. Connolley 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Use of Holocaust Museum images

I noticed that you uploaded one related to death marches. Can I assume that images from there are generally in the public domain? Just want to make sure. --Leifern 16:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi! I emailed you. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mellonscaife2.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Mellonscaife2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] User:Poetlister block

Hi. Please can you revert the block on Poetlister post-haste. She is clearly not a sock puppet of User:RachelBrown and this block has interfered with due process. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

this is pretty unfair imo, while it may be true that these people are friends that have occasionally supported each other in disputes or voted the same way in some vfds, isn't that a pretty normal thing for friends to do? I don't see that they have ever acted dishonestly, they have made it clear they are different people. Arniep 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi I replied to your post on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_check. Arniep 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A thumbs up

Hi there. I thought I should come over and say hello.

I read about you on Daniel Brandt's page and no, I didn't take it as gospel truth, since we differ a fair about things. He also seemed to suggest that you might be okay, but he's not quite sure. So that's really how I first knew about you. I know that that's probably not ideal, but I thought I would say that.

As you probably know, I had been (not anymore) trying to get people to make peace with Daniel Brandt, and this has included conversations with User:Linuxbeak via various user pages. He then advised me that he had apologised to Brandt. Whilst I don't know for sure if that was directly because of our conversations, I imagine that it was at least partially related. Apparently you were also involved in this.

I have said it elsewhere, but I would like to say that I very much approve of the intention of what you and Linuxbeak did (especially you) in relation to sorting things out with Daniel Brandt. Whilst Linuxbeak's motivation may have been partially motivated to my vote on his RfB, you jumped in in what must have been very difficult for you, and stuck your neck out, and I commend that. Whilst your actions were against the rules, I would rather see someone do the right thing which is technically against the rules than for someone to follow the rules whilst doing something morally irresponsible. So I commend you for this.

This was the reason why User:Poetlister wrote to me requesting for my opinion with regards to her complaint against Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, because she felt that I would be able to provide a neutral point of view, since I had at various points expressed both positive and negative views of you and by association also of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters.

I reviewed the edits made, and in my opinion the primary issue is that of verifiability. RachelBrown made additions suggesting reference from a book source, one which is a reputable, noted and valid source, and yet Lulu of the Lotus Eaters reverted these corrections, which was the incorrect judgement call. You then approved of Lulu's changes, which may have been just a simple matter of backing up your friend. I don't know. Thus, my opinion is that your actions were merely supportive of Lulu's in a similar way to how Poetlister et al were supportive of RachelBrown and essentially it is a RachelBrown vs Lulu issue.

Looking at the edit summaries, I think that there must be some serious question marks made about the nature and edit summaries of Lulu's edits, which were clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, not to mention WP:3RR. I note that you threatened to ban Poetlister for 3RR violations when you were involved in your own edit war with her, which as you know makes you an inappropriate person to be making such suggestions.

My suggestion to Poetlister was that it should be enhanced to a Request for Comment, if she was interested in doing so, but realistically I suggested to her to just stay away from it, even stay away from Wikipedia if she wanted to, because this was just too nasty, and admins can basically do whatever they like and its just not worth it to take them on. I suggested to her that if she pursued it, unless she was prepared to really fight it out strongly, she'd likely get herself banned just for daring to make a complaint against an admin.

Then just as I sent that e-mail, I checked her user as I was going to send her a message to advise her that I'd sent the e-mail when I found that she had been blocked, supposedly for being a sock puppet. Assuming good faith on this one is an enormous stretch. There was no RfC against Poetlister nor was there an RfAr, so I can't see how there can be any way that that ban was valid. Its also totally against normal process to do it. Not to mention that there's no way that they could be the same person, giving dates/times etc, and the fact that RachelBrown hadn't made an edit for 2 weeks (3 weeks, if we don't count 1 minor edit) and each of the supposed sock puppets wrote on different topics and didn't collaborate at all. The suggestion of sock puppetry is as valid as the suggestion that yourself and Lulu are the same person, or that me and Brandt are the same person. We happened to agree on a few things, but suggesting that that makes you a sock puppet is somewhat silly. Needs to go through an ArbCom for such a thing anyway, which didn't happen in this case.

So anyway, I don't know your involvement in this, and I am going to assume that you were just supporting your friend. Whilst I know that you have a lot of RfCs etc out in relation to you, I am not going to hold that against you.

As for Lulu, well, especially the trolling, and harassment of me via other people's talk pages, my opinion is growing lower all the while. The only question is whether its worth it to go through ArbCom for something which I am neutral about and ultimately don't care about one way or the other. Should you get yourself involved in disputes where an injustice has prevailed but you personally don't care about?

In the end, Poetlister wasn't happy here, nor RachelBrown, and hence banning them makes next to no difference. It probably improves their lives actually, given the amount of stress they got from being here. The others who were banned though looked to be quite happy here.

So I don't know what to do.

Anyway, I thought that I'd let you know that I am on your side. And I am not anti-Lulu either. I am just anti-injustice that's all. I want things to be sorted out. Similar deal with Brandt. And I hope that we end up with a similarly good result. And maybe this time one where it doesn't end up going backwards later on after the issue was resolved. :( Mind you, I think that that was more Brandt's fault than anything. Putting people's names up on a page shouldn't be a bargaining chip. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finally found out who did the check user thing

Turns out it was you. User_talk:Kelly_Martin#User-check_request And it turns out that you asked Kelly Martin. I couldn't find anything else that links it, but it looks like this was all your doing. How that ended up with Mindspillage I don't know. And why you asked them to ban Poetlister et al is beyond me.

Why do you think that someone is pulling my strings? I think that that's somewhat ludicruous. Whilst there's obvious evidence that Lulu is getting you to do her bidding, its rather silly to suggest I am doing anyone's bidding. I think you should leave such accusations for the conspiracy theorists out there. If you'll note, Lulu has started stalking me after being asked to do so by the guy who was stalking me out of irrational hatred for Daniel Brandt. So does this mean that Lulu is his meat puppet because they are both wikistalking me? There's irrational and then there's irrational. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations

Please stop accusing me of acting on Poetlister's behalf. It is not helpful. Lulu has been stalking me, which I define as now following me in to 10 user talk pages to harass me and lie about me. I did not attack Lulu, however she threatened me 4 times. I believe that it is correct to refer to this as Wikipedia:Wikistalking. She seems to have done this due to encouragement from User:Antaeus Feldspar who started doing it because of his hatred of User:Daniel Brandt who he felt I was protecting. I am just hoping that Lulu stops this nonsense. I am not petty and don't want to see him get banned for his actions or anything stupid like that - going to ArbCom et al just makes things worse. But his threats are becoming quite serious. I couldn't find anywhere where it says anything to stop users from making threats, other than WP:CIVIL, but IMO that is much, much worse than a breach of WP:NLT.

You are the only person I could find who made a request for CheckUser, and you did make one about the users in question. Nobody else seems to have. Not only is there no evidence that anyone else has, but nobody has come forward to suggest any suspicion. I can see nowhere on any talk pages where anyone else besides yourself and Lulu raised any suspicions of them being the same person.

Besides which, there is hard proof that they are not the same person. I have asked Mindspillage to call the 5 of them. They are 5 different people with very thin connections to each other. There is also no coordination with their actions, other than that they may have asked each other to vote on some AFDs on Lists of Jews. The most ludicruous one is that User:Taxwoman is connected - Taxwoman doesn't even like RachelBrown. Nor does User:Newport, for reference. They aren't even friends.

I am also suggesting for RachelBrown to be banned instead of Poetlister. If they are suspected sock puppets, it shouldn't matter who is the banned user, should it? RachelBrown isn't even using Wikipedia, whilst Poetlister was.

I really think that you'd be better off to back out of this, instead of supporting Lulu. She has obviously done a lot of things that she shouldn't have. You'd be better off to stay out of it.

P.S. May I ask why you deleted my entry? I don't object to you doing so since you already replied etc. Did you find it offensive? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Huh?

What do you mean stop talking about Lulu? I've never attacked her. Oh, and can he get himself a masculine name or at least an ambiguous one? I am offended by someone who is male going around with a feminine name. He/she also lists himself/herself as a "feminist" which is something that you can only be if female. So I am for the moment going to say that I'm not sure of his/her gender, and am going to refer to Lulu as a girl, since its a girl's name. If he is a man and wants to be known as a man, change his name to something like Paul or something.

I am not going around everywhere saying "Lulu is bad". Rather, I am trying to reverse this unjust decision to ban Poetlister and making people aware of this. If this mentions Lulu as part of the problem, then that's not my fault. Lulu shouldn't have acted in the way she did. I am not remotely concerned that Lulu is telling lies about me, as they are pretty obvious lies and just make her look worse, especially because of her involvement with another big time liar and troublemaker with a long history of this kind of thing. But at the same time, I don't appreciate effectively being unable to talk to anyone because of this harassment. I am not harassing Lulu - it is wholly one sided. So if Lulu would stop harassing me, then fine, we are all good and fine. She can go around and make accusations about me if she likes, I don't care. But I just want her to leave me alone and stop stalking me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And obviously if she stops the harassment, I won't have a need for the Wikistalker note (which she vandalised, by the way). Well, I will have a need for Antaeus's stalking. But perhaps, rather than stalking me to support Antaeus, Lulu could instead talk to Antaeus and convince him not to stalk me anymore. The threats are particularly troubling. Bad mouth and rude words and false accusations are one thing, but the threats are the worst part. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fur Farming Article Revert

SlimVirgin: You've reverted the changes I made to the fur farming article, with no explanation. The version you reverted it to is ridiculously biased and additionally is of poor quality for an encyclopedia article. Do you care to explain why you made the revert? Bigj 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey SlimVirgin! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No sourced image alert.

A image you uploaded Image:Horowitz.gif is not sourced and it's about to get deleted in a few days, please place the appropiate tag for it. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] heads up!

im back. I hope you had a nice day, and that it continues to be such.Gimmiet 05:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unprotection of chabad

There are still things remaining to be worked out. I'm sure JFW will unprotect it when things are worked out. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation of User:Antidote

User:Antidote has violated the 3RR on List of Ukrainians. I have posted the details on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Antidote yesterday, but there has been no response so far. Can you look into the matter? Thanks.--Pecher 09:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas/Happy Chanukkah

I would like to wish you all the best for Christmas and Channukkah. Here's hoping for the best in the New Year. Guettarda 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

May the Universe Bless you and yours.--ghost 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays also

The best to you and your family and a happy new year.--Dakota ? e 17:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reachead a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor case. Raul654 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Paul or something

I hope humor and light-heartedness isn't wholly against WP policy :-). Or as my critics would say: humour and lite-heartedness. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

The log [12] says you unprotected the pages. Glitch? -Willmcw 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's great. Much appreciated. It wouldn't be as bad if it were accurate... -Willmcw 00:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI, the username is already blocked, but since its his user page he can still edit it. -Willmcw 00:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you need to choose "block all" from the list of choices on the new screen. -Willmcw 00:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that username should be blocked indefinitely as an abusive sock of user:Jonah Ayers. Unless administrative steps can be taken to stop this editor, it'll have to go to the ArbCom. -Willmcw 00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers!

I just want to say thanks for your edits to List of British people of Jewish descent, in particular for pushing for credible sources, and for seeking to clarify the criteria for inclusion (even if I have disagreed with you on some issues). Have a happy Christmas and/or Chanukah! RMoloney (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:RefBot

Hi, SEWilco created a new bot User:RefBot and is using it [13]. My question: is this a ploy to bypass the recently closed arbcom decision which specifically states that he is not to do this? I ask because I'm uncertain of the implications here. Vsmith 02:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something Zordrac is right about

Given how cantankerous he's been, I can certainly see an appeal for "revert on sight". But browsing around (by way of another comment on your talk page), I saw one thing he actually did right. On the British Jews thing (what's it actually... something long-winded: List of British people of Jewish descent), we had proposed the comment:

Please put in {fact} tags when disputing sources and remain civil. Only remove entries when they are proven to be false. When there is a dispute, a fact tag should be added. Nasty edit summaries are particularly disruptive. Please see WP:CIVIL.

The suggestion to use the {fact} template is quite good. I forget about that, but it's much more narrowly targeted to raising concern about individual names. I'm sure it wouldn't have prevented the obsession of certain Londoners either way, but if I had thought of it, I would have tagged some names that way at the Jewish jurists prior to removal of unevidenced names. I'm going to add something close to Zordrac's suggestion over at List of African American jurists (where he's also been making WP:POINT edits, unfortunately... but where he used the {fact} tag constructively nonetheless... I've since sourced all but one listed name). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi, I uploaded an image of Ari Meyers within the the accordance established by Wikipedia (source and licence) and someone put it up for deletion because "it is unencyclopedic". The image is of good taste and just because it is a wallpaper image I don't think it should be deleted. Please view and if you can, express your opinion. Images and media for deletion/2005 December 24 Thank you, Tony the Marine 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explain reverts

Slim, why didn't you explain your reverts on WP:V sooner? Now you have, it makes sense. Please, please, in future explain, it goes such a long way. And I note that due to my forcing the issue, you've edited the top of WP:CITE which makes the situation much clearer. So you see, some good came of this :-). Have a nice Christmas. Dan100 (Talk) 10:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas and a request

Hi Sarah. I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas as it is Christmas day here now, and I hope that you have a good one. I hope that you still consider me your friend as well. I would also like to ask that you help to talk to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters to explain that I am not against him at all, and that my entire aim was to help people. I have written it in detail here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister, and that I would like very much to resolve all issues that Lulu might have with me, and hope that he can cease harassing and stalking me, and also ask for his friend Antaeus Feldspar to do the same. I really seriously do not want to see those two banned for their harassment of me, and that is not my intention. I just want them to stop. There is no reason for us to be enemies, and we have a lot in common. Tell Lulu that I am also a philosopher and we could perhaps go over some theories together. Please ask him if he can write to me in a civilised manner without threats or accusations or demands, and just try to be friendly. It is Christmas after all, and we should not be fighting with anyone. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Zordrac insists on violating Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page and Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes, or even allowing mention of those policies (e.g. [14]), perhaps I can comment here without the improper deletions of comments. Here's what I need to happen:
  • Zordrac apologizes for all the scurrilous and false comments placed on many, many user talk and admin pages about me.
  • Zordrac stop violating Wikipedia policies (see, e.g. User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sandbox1) for a partial summary).
  • Zordrac give up all the weird delusions he's promoting, e.g.
    • That I am "friends" or "conspirators" with Antaeus Feldspar (whom I've exchanged all of two user talk messages with, and first heard of yesterday); nor am I Antaeus's enemy or opponent. He's just an editor I know nothing about and have almost no contact with.
    • That I had anything whatsoever to do with the ban of the sockpuppets.
    • I guess the delusion than I am an admin, despite the fact I am obiously not.
    • Ideally, Zordrac would also restore (at least to an archive) some of the improperly deleted content from his user talk page; but that's not crucial.
FWIW, I really seriously do expect that Zordrac will get himself banned before too much longer, given his pattern of behavior. And I suppose WP will be slightly better for the fact. But if he starts obeying policy, this is a fate he is well able to avoid. As with all the stuff improperly deleted by Zordrac, this is of course not a threat, simply an expectation (or prediction).
Sorry to bother you with the digression, SlimVirgin. Feel free to ignore it. But I assume Zordrac will read this page, and hopefully not engage in the same deletion here. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the two of you really need to spend some time apart. Edit different articles; don't check each other's user contributions. Both of you are using somewhat heated, somewhat confrontational, and almost aggresive language, which is such a shame any time but especially at this time of year. Both head for the moral high ground - always assume good faith about the other, never threaten (or imply a threat) in any way, criticize content not commentary - and you'll all gain a lot of respect from everyone, and have a much pleasanter and more constructive time expanding and improving Wikipedia. (Sorry to Slim for a bit of impromptu mediation on her userpage!) Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Mediation is always welcome, Dan. I agree that it'd be better if people could just drop the whole thing and put it down to a misunderstanding. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:CltFn

You seem to be one of the few people who can get through to this user. CltFn has been making some ridiculous edits, most recently at Oriana Fallaci where she changed the section title of "Racism" to "Observations about Muslims". CltFn has just been blocked for the 3RR but continues to use alternate IP addresses to edit and I really don't know what to do about it. Yuber(talk) 17:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, although now I seem to be dealing with a persistent wikistalker. Yuber(talk) 05:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can this edit be considered vandalism [15]? Yuber(talk) 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you ever stop running around getting your supportive clique of users and admins to support your constant blatant POV additions to Wikipedia and telling people to support your revert wars every time someone challenges your POV? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have some sort of past grudge against me? It really seems like we have met before. In any case, I don't care who you are as long as you act respectful. Yuber(talk) 18:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Nope, but: I've seen you call me a) a "vandal" (for not agreeing with your POV: When I didn't agree with you, you do what seems to be your common move which is going to several other supportive users' talk pages and trying to get them to revert war with you) b) "ridiculous" (when you went running to your meatpuppet anonymous editor to support you in adding your POV to create revert wars on Islam in the United States) c) a "sockpuppet", as well as reverting any edit I make on articles you edit on and falsely calling it "vandalism".
You are hardly the one to talk about acting "respectful". --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
♪One-two-three four-five six-seven-eight-nine-ten Eleven-Twelve♪ How about everyone take a step back. El_C 23:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Okay Dan, I'll explain my reverts immediately, but could you also please explain your additions/deletions, then we'll both save a lot of time? Joe Mabel may yet want to make changes, because he feels the current wording is a bit harsh (the bit about any unsourced edit being removable), and although I don't agree with him, I see his point and won't revert him, though if you do, I also won't revert you. Despite our disagreements, I hope you accept that I'm editing in good faith, and being fussy only because I've been up against a thousand POV pushers and their various attempts to squeeze through loopholes. It's WP:FUSSY, not WP:OWN. ;-) I sent you two emails by the way. I hope you got them.

All the best to you, Dan, for Christmas/Hanukkah. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course I know you're acting in good faith! I still have high regard for you, in particular for standing up to PoV pushers (I just can't do that), and that won't change. I honestly thought I had explained my text move, but on checking all I'd said was a short edit summary at WP:CITE. That was a mistake, which I readily admit to making. Have a lovely Christmas, Dan100 (Talk) 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Jews

Hi, I have renamed the article notable British Jews as you suggested. I propose that anyone who has expressed a wish not to be identified as Jewish not be included in the list. Cheers Arniep 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] most recent revert on PETA

Hi SlimVirgin,

Are you sure you reverted what you meant to revert with your last PETA revert? I'm just wondering if you meant to revert the vandalism from the 21st (which apparently was fixed by someone at the same IP address that created it) but ended up reverting the additional quotes and sources that 68.251.190.235 put up on the 23rd. If I'm missing something, please pardon me, and thanks for all your work on this article.

--Allen 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, SlimVirgin. I see what you mean about the quotes. --Allen 01:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, SlimVirgin/archive23! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
MERRY CHRISTMAS, SlimVirgin/archive23! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. I just want to wish you a very, very Happy Christmas. Thanks for all the help you've given me, and I hope you haven't had too much wiki-stress lately. You're one of those who helped to make Wikipedia a much nicer place for me in the last few months, and I hope you'll stay around and be able to offer advice when necessary. Your message just came in as I was writing this to you. Thanks, and all good wishes. AnnH (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas Image:Pressie.gif

Same to you, Slim, I hope you receive many Image:Pressie.gifImage:Pressie.gifImage:Pressie.gifImage:Pressie.gifImage:Pressie.gif with happy thoughts in them, and that you don't let the and trolls wear you down. You're really indispensable here. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Festivus

To my favorite Wiki admin... (secret admirer [don't check the edit history :-)])

Happy Festivus for the restofus! :)

[edit] Thanks Slim

... for the update. Peace, BYT 23:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much.

I found a free source for this image, quality isn't as good but it's free.

--Wgfinley 02:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden again

Hi, if you see the section "Marsden again" on WP:AN, you'll see I'm wondering why User:Marsden was blocked indefnitely. User:snowspinner now says (on my talk page) that this was based on what you said. So what was the reason/evidence? Thanks, Rd232 talk 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Leave Marsden's talk page alone. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FM's Barnstar award

I've added a section to endorse at User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Users_who_endorse_this_award - thought you might like to sign there. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An experiment

Some anon IP yanked out the Brits from the List of Jewish jurists, then pointed readers to List of British Jews#Law. I'm completely indifferent about that change. However, it was an opportunity for a small experiment. I'm certainly going to stay far away from the British Jews list, both because I don't really know most of them, and also because of all the posturing we've seen around these lists. But I did make one edit which I think may prove a good example. I tagged two of the names that had been in question on the former list (which may have eventually been annotated with the somewhat flawed source, Jewish Yearbook, I forget) with the {{fact}}.

This is much more moderate than removing the names, or tagging the whole list with {{accuracy}}, or any of those other things that cause conflict. It's just an invitation for editors to provide citational support to those specific names (who are unsupported by their WP articles). If this approach actually produces more positive editing behavior, maybe it's an idea to follow for many other lists. Obviously, there's still some case-by-case judgement needed; some people/things are well evidenced to be such-and-such on their articles, and others are more-or-less absurd to start with. But for those plausible "maybe Foo is a Baz" cases, the {{fact}} tag seems like exactly the right level of request. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:NoSharia

This user is a sockpuppet of User:Absent who you banned earlier, I reported the violation on the Administrator's userboard with the user contribs of both, including NoSharia replying to questions asked to Absent, etcetera, but it seemed to get glossed over and nobody replied. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have another request. Can you ban User:OceanSplash as well? Look at his latest edit [16], and his friend Nosharia's edit [17].Yuber(talk) 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I've supported the idea of banning OceanSplash for a while now, he's part of that WikiProject which is up for deletion for basically just spreading highly POV untruths about Islam - unfortunately he seems to be better entrenched...though that last comment you link to does border on WP:NPA I suppose. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties)

[edit] Why rv Reich, Wilhelm ?

I'm new here, found the article on Reich with some errors (I corrected), some redundant passages (I deleted) and some missing data (I added). What was wrong with it, that you reverted totally to the old version ? Please send a note. <hapax@gmx.de>

I also found that the latest revision of the article on Wilhelm Reich was an improvement in both accuracy and neutrality (unlike James DeMeo's…). —Meidosemme 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Benapgar

Please also block User:Jim62sch for 24 hours, for similar comments - see this diff, for instance. Rob Church Talk 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Concedo. Would you be willing to warn, however? It's not acceptable, whoever does it. Rob Church Talk 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamofascism

I'm willing to look at it, but I might not have time until tomorrow. Is that OK? Nandesuka 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to split 9/11 conspiracy theories

[edit] Proposal to split 9/11 conspiracy theories

User:Blackcats has proposed splitting the 9/11 conspiracy theories article into Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If you're interested, please comment here. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benapgar

SV -- thanks, and you're right. I guess I got a bit perturbed -- not that that's a good excuse as I know better and try to aim much higher than that. I suppose it's all part of being human. Jim62sch 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Going through my edits

I find it rude that you have gone through my edits and reverted me. I reverted Bobblewik's edits because he was using a bot to automate a task which really should be done by hand - as demonstrated by the inappropriate removal of dates in the articles which I reverted. Did I go through and revert all of Bobblewik's "clean up" edits? No, but you reverted all of mine. Please don't do it in future. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi SV,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

Your vote and kind comments meant a great deal to me as I've seen you around and know you're a Wikipedia veteran. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 14:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi

Hi SlimVirgin, I wonder could you take a look at this page again. It is undergoing some turboboosted editing that I really amn't happy about, but I am snowed under with work at the moment and have little time to spare for it. Many thanks, and best wishes for the festive season, if a little late. Palmiro | Talk 16:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't count on it. Yuber is in her little clique, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild along with Anonymous editor who try to censor any possible criticism or revealing truths about Islam from Wikipedia -_- If anything it's most likely she'll support her good friend Yuber in an edit war then block you. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

How do you feel about me being harassed, though? It seems like you have it backwards. Who is the victim here? Everyking 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, SlimVirgin is just one of the many cliqueish admins out there. Wikipedia's corrupted, as is inevitable in any bureaucracy. Of course, none would admit to the blatant nepotism even when it's obvious :/ I'd support a motion for desysopping this admin definitely. Just have a look at User:Zordrac/Poetlister to see how she makes anti-semitic attacks against people editing Jewish articles.
If the harassment was against one of her friends they'd probably be blocked straight away. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It's funny how they manage to marginalize people. I am basically the only admin out there who takes a position against administrative elitism, who tries to argue for more collectively based decision-making and for the idea that everyone needs to stick to process and policy. This has gotten me three ArbCom cases and now a threat of being banned for an entire year. The point is not what I am doing (nothing, aside from uncontroversial encyclopedia work), but what I am saying: they just want me to shut up, and that's the one thing I refuse to do, which exasperates them to no end. None of them complain about my behavior per se; they object to my vocal opposition to some of the things that go on here. They even object to me raising questions about these things. Everyking 06:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't redirect articles without a consensus

Just a note to you that you have violated Wikipedia policy. There was recently a vote on the economic fascism article that revealed no consensus. [18] We have a policy here on Wikipedia that such drastic things shouldn't be done without obtaining a consensus. Please review the policies so you can become more acquainted with the way we do things here. RJII 07:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that. The article was renamed, not redirected, with the strong support of not just the editors involved, but most of those on the AfD who commented as well as voting. The vote was of course on keeping or deleting the article, not on whether it should be called one thing or another. But RJII knows all that. I'm not looking forward to doing any more editing on it. James James 07:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, naturally I feel BorgHunter made a clear error but I understand your position. The result is the same and RJII will repeat the dose tomorrow and get himself blocked then. From what I can see, he can't help it. Anyway, I'm trying to move it forward and get a decent article out of it. Call it my penance for revert-warring, which I really do try to avoid, given what a pointless exercise it is!James James 07:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had to give up. He continued to revert, except now he's doing it bit by bit instead of all in one. I just don't have the staying power to fight someone who's just reverting, reverting, reverting. James James 08:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of British Jews

I just thought that you would want to know that this article is now 100% sourced for every name (with the notable exception of all Rabbis on the list). I also removed every name I couldn't find a source for and placed it under discussion, where they will stay until properly sourced. Cheers Vulturell 07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetlister etc.

Hi, Zordrac was new to this whole situation so there were issues which he got wrong. I know that these users are not sock puppets, they did vote on the same vfds on Jewish lists because I and Rachel asked them to to counter the sock puppeting of User:Antidote. That is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, it is only a violation if you set up an account for the sole purpose of voting. I see many users leaving messages on each others pages relating to vfds without any warning from admins (except in the case of indiscriminate spamming i.e. asking all Catholics to vote on gay and abortion categories). Please have a look at summary of the case at User_talk:Ambi#Edits_to_user_pages and the rfc of the user who started all this mess Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments. It is ironic that the first edit that user made back in March resulted in a warning from you Special:Contributions/65.10.39.165, User talk:65.10.39.165. The user has continued in a similar vein since then avoiding banning by using ips and multiple accounts (I have a whole list of further ips not included on the contribution table above but I'll need to type them up). Arniep 18:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thank you for your interest (no doubt because it's your clique)

I'm sorry, but the fact is that this is enough to make any sane person angry: People are deliberately going around removing NPOV sourced information and relevant links just because the sites or articles linked contain criticism of Islam.

No doubt you will agree with them, from your edits though, with the fact that Yuber, Anonymous editor and Irishpunktom consistently go to you for help with edit wars. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been adding content and trying to NPOV articles, however there's a small group of people who go around reverting and pure edit-war mongering when any articles or links to criticism of Islam are included anywhere in Islamic articles: The small group all appear to be Muslim, it's not hard to see what's going on here. -_-
Another example (no doubt you won't care, as Yuber's your clique-friend): Yuber enlisting other Islamic editors for edit wars yet again --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This person has actually created havoc on a dozen of Islam related articles with in a week . Plz ban him or atleast run an IP chenk on him , he seems to be a sock puppet of previous Sina cult followers . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Another one is just born ,User:Countering Systemic Bias F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
And another one User:Mr Data F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It didn't have to be this way

It's a shame you had to take on such a hostile attitude towards anyone disagreeing with you on Marsden, constantly suggesting we were contacted by him despite numerous denials, as well as refusing to explain why this edit constitutes a personal attack (it looks more like for you harmful evidence you're trying to suppress). Frankly, I can now see what Marsden has been dealing with. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your message was quite insulting

On my RfA nomination page (the wikilink I will not be providing), you posted a comment accusing me of being User:Winnermario. That situation was resolved a long time ago, therefore I found your comment insulting, and very rude. Also, because I have been registered on Wikipedia for merely two months does not deny me the honour of becoming an admin. Some other users achieved the title in two months. Though my RfA failed (based loosely on one occasion), I ask you not to vote at my next RfA, should a future one ever commence. Thank you. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

Funny how some even have to go as far as archiving a message when they are unaware of how to respond. Well... nonetheless, please do not vote next time, in the least. Thanks for your time. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)