User talk:SlimVirgin/archive25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request concerning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

I'd like to ask a favour: that you help try to find a suitable principle that can be used in this RfAr case. Two things that you should read:

1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop#Remedies
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop#Motion by Charles Stewart concerning citations

Do you think you might be able to help with this? --- Charles Stewart 20:41, 12 January 2006 (TC)

Great, thanks. --- Charles Stewart 05:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Postscript - Just to say that, unless you are interested anyway, don't bother mastering the RfAr, I'm just interested in what kind of wording might be useful for #2 given a person who had difficulties along the lines of #1: really, I thought of you mainly because of your work on WP:V and WP:CITE, and only peripherally because of your RfAr experience. The RfAr will take its time, but it would be great if you had some sort of suggestion by the beginning of next week. I'll say you said you might be able to think of something on the talk page. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 05:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Ames Article

Dear SlimVirgin,

There is an anonymous IP (technically two of them) from Central European University that is very insistent on reverting the Mark Ames article to a version you made last November. This user keeps breaking 3RR and won't bothering explaining his reasons, but he seems to be quite fond of you. Could you talk to this user and encourage him to engage in a meaningful debate rather than a revert war? --Ryan Utt 03:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I'm almost positive the anon IP is Peter Ekman. That's why he's so insistent on deferring towards you as an authoritative source.

[edit] Belated thanks

I now have a few extra tabs at the top of my Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your comments on my RfA. One needs critics as well as friends, but better still, one needs a critical friend. To that end, if I come across a sticky situation, I hope you will not mind if I ask your advice; and if you see me do something questionable, I would appreciate your letting me know. Banno 08:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, SlimVirgin! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

Hello Slim, I am still open to debate and discussion on the issue if you are interested. See here and Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

What does one do with a biographical article for a person who seems notable but the article itself is a mess? EG: Homeyra who according to Google is an Iranian singer of some renown. Sumergocognito 09:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that looks vastly better. I suspect a stage name is acceptable if it is how she is generally known Cf. Madonna.

[edit] New "conspiracy theory titles" discussion and proposal area

Hello Slim, the new conspiracy theory titles proposal and discussion area can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory titles, if you want me to I can copy over the old counter argument from Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory or Wikipedia:Title Neutrality (the later was moved to my userspace) but for now I left a space for an updated counter argument to go underneath version 2.0 of the proposal at: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles. zen master T 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal request

Dear SlimVirgin: Hello, I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. A user, Gmaxwell has named you as a party in a mediation request; I would be most exceptionally grateful if you would review the request and present your perspective of the issue, indicating whether or not you would be prepared to enter mediation. The mediation request is here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-13_User:SlimVirgin

Remember, if you don't want to participate in the mediation, you don't have to, and you won't be subject to any disciplinary action as a result of either participating in the mediation or refusing to take part. If you need any help or assistance relating to either this conflict or the mediation case, please feel free to contact me; I am entirely at your service. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Hi Sarah. I just wanted to clarify a few things. Firstly, I can assure you that I did not intend to hide anything by discussing anything on IRC, and I apologize. I also think that we (and everyone) can come to a reasonable agreement. So, no bad blood between us, I hope?--Sean|Black 09:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good! I just wanted to make sure everything was okay. ***hugs*** --Sean|Black 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I love you like a brother from another mother, but would it kill you to use the talk page there as well as editing the policy page? If for no other reason than that it makes us look less like the people contributing are squabbling and more like they are discussing. I'm fairly sure that we want the same thing in the end, but I don't understand the rush. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bah! I realised after I posted that that your prefered version was up... cheeky monkey, "Sure, let's all use the talk page now." I've got to work on my timing. ^_^ My urge is always to make policy a concise as possible, but I'm in total agreement with you about the application.

<rant>

Adding yet another couple of lines saying "don't do that" won't stop anyone who knows that the tacit bit is "or we'll complain and nothing will happen". I haven't been around for long, but Wikipedia has gotten very ill since I've arrived. The atmosphere is bloody poisonious. Normal users {like SPUI, brenneman, or Netaholic) can be difficult and disruptive, but they seem, if approached in the correct manner, to be able to be engaged. Plus there are limits to the amount of damage that they can do. Some admins (like Snowspinner, SlimVirgin, or Tony) don't ever seem to engage with another's point of view, and can cause a lot of damage. Either the ArbCom needs to grow a bloody spine, or some other avenue needs to be created for the unwashed masses (oh, and reasonable admins) to stick a fork in bad-mins.
I'm always nervous about people who think that they are never wrong.

</rant>

brenneman(t)(c) 03:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah hah! My evil minions have now placed my preferred version up! Check, mein frau. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Warning! Warning! Danger SlimVirgin! (flailing tubular arms) Don't engage. It's like quicksand with sharks in it. Focus on the policy, on getting it right. Trust me, there is a black hole of text there, where everything you say just falls in and vanishes without a trace. Work on the policy, use dispassionate language, learn from my mistakes. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe take this page off your watchlist for a couple of days? We've got your back, and anything you say is going to be dimissed as "personal". - brenneman(t)(c) 23:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Hi, looks like you protected your page two months ago but forgot to check to see if the vandal had gone away. I've taken the liberty of unprotecting. Please restore protection if the vandal returns. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh you restored protection, but I see no vandalism. Why did you protect your user page? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope you are well

Please check out the discussion at Talk:Islamofascism (term); proposal is to redirect to Neofascism and religion. Any insights or opinions you feel like sharing would be welcome. BYT 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouida

Hi, I know you had other stuff going on so it's OK. Cheers Arniep 03:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Would you please take a look at User talk:IanDavies, sections LSHTM and Personal attacks. There's a good bit more, but basically I would like a non-involved admin to take a look and see if anything can be done. He's not happy about the sources for an article, started an edit war, I was pulled in and stated they look fine to me and to stop the edit war. He has given no specifics on content he feels may be inaccurate, although he has been asked repeatedly to do so. I suggested if he still had an issue, to try WP:DR or put it on Article Rfc. He seems to have confused Article Rfc with User Rfc, which I have not mentioned, and is making some rude comments about me, to put it blandly. He also directly implied the other editor of the page is a "spotty little network zit". Thaks for your assistance - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to go History now, he's reverted Personal attacks section. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've taken to ANI. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User Page

Thanks! It is my wish that perhaps someone can be shown the way of Wikipedia through the basic philosophies of the Wikipedian community, all nicely packaged in an attractive userpage :). Cheers, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking users over fair-use image disputes

Aw, thanks! Heh...for the most part, I've tried to stay out of the fair use controversy—I'm not sure I understand all the subtleties of it and I don't want to get too stressed =) That said, looking at the discussion, it looks like you have good support for your proposal—hope it works out! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dominion of Melchizedek

Hi SV, long time no see. Well I have contacted you because I need your help. The DOM article is once again being reverted by Johnski and his marry band of twits. As you probably know, right now that the arbitration committee is in flux. Therefore, the arbitration case is stalled and it may be awhile until something is done. I was hoping you could protect this page, at least for awhile. I've also asked Fred if there is any way to get an injunction, but there might not be enough arbitrators to do this. I would appreciate it if you could let me know. Thanks.. Davidpdx 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamist terrorism

Hey could you read this discussion[1] and give your two cents? If you think its appropriate, I would suggest making a protected move, as there is no question that policy dictates this move based on the discussion[2].--Urthogie 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help tracking down some changes to Ashton-Tate

Quadell suggested I write to you about this.

A while back I basically re-wrote the entire Ashton-Tate article. Following a lead from another editor, I bought a copy of In Search of Stupidity, which has a chapter of the decline and fall of this company during the 1980s. I then used that information to dramatically expand the "middle section" of the article, in particular outlining the famed behaviour of Ed Esber Jr. that made users adbandon the company in droves.

I recently re-visited the article and noted it had been heavily edited by a series of three anonymous editors, all over a short period, all changing all mention of Esber to something that is, well, glowing. All of the company's problems are smoothed over, and some of the more amusing antedotes (like the power being cut) were removed outright.

I have a feeling these three people are in fact one person, and that that person is either Esber, or someone closely related (either via blood or job). However I have no idea what to do next to try to find out who this was. I wrote to Quadell, and he sent me here. Is there a wiki-cabal for tracking down this sort of thing?

Maury 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great ape logo

Really? Drat. I was clearing out WP:IFD from the 13th. The image was listed there as "not a logo" with no comments, it certainly didn't look like a logo, and neither article I removed it from identified it as a logo. My bad. I'll replace it. Jkelly 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries about the "abrupt" thing. Jkelly 01:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Jkelly 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if the organization specified an image that they would like to be identified by. I leave the matter in your capable hands. Jkelly 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Will Mcwhinney

Read tthe article, and tell me if it's got too much personal info, I never outed anyhone, simply addressed the issues the subject works with. you guys can try and delete it, but i donj't think it warrants that. I think that you and the admin both abuse your power here, i'll not get into that, i saw the case with rangerdude, and you both had action taken against you. this article is very different, it's a biographical stub, and it deals with a community activist, as well as someone who was invovlved in a public battle in the leadership of the sierra club, all of these tenets warrant an article on the subnject. by implying that I harrassed anyone in the creation of said article is tantamount to harrassment on your behalf. I suggest you drop the matter. the article stays.Jonah Ayers 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] we can talk here

the details are familiar to you I believe, because i've followed your discussions with willmcw aka Will Beback about the biff rose article, you haven't done a lot over there, but you've posted enough thati m well aware that you are familiar with that particular case. i don't have time to email back and forth about this.... we can talk here fine.. i believe that Will McWhinney is a great community activist, and that an article about him, will help the Sierra club entry, which I intend to address, but without the minor biogrpahical stub, it won't read right ,adressing the jackass immigrationo reforrm movement. So that biogrpahical stub will work in relation to the sierra club piece. i'm not going to say anything about the subject's perciecvced relation to wikipedia because apparently that's a no no. I've worked very hard on the biff rose piece, and the first people to do sock puppets were actually the people that beback is supporting, and I feel pretty aggravatged about that, but in turn, I have no intention of extending that aggravation into the mcWhinney article. they are as unconnected as can be, in my mind, i have postive things to say about mcWhinney, not so postive things to say about the admins and editors at the biff rose page. thanks for looking out. good luckJonah Ayers


Cheers!! And while you're cheering, please stop removing things from my discussion page archive and replacing them on the talk page, I archive things for a reasojn, to reduce conversations that are misleading, and put them into the whole scope of which they are referring too, which is just too big for one discussion page. To recap, PLEASE STOP MOving ThiNgS AROUND ON MY TALK PAGE!!!Jonah Ayers

[edit] Question about fr and de coding added to articles

Hi, Slim. We haven't spoken to each other for a while, so hello! I noticed that you endorsed Robert McClenon's comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Katefan0. I deleted that page this evening. I thought I'd let you know. (See my message to her and hers to me for reason why.) I'm sorry I haven't been able to give you more support recently. I've been trying to take a Wiki-break. However, I have seen messages on your talk page, as it's on my watchlist, and I haven't liked all of them, starting on 9 January. You've probably seen the discussion at WP:RFP, which has just been removed by Katefan0.

I have a quick question. I notice when looking at the source of articles, rather than the articles as they appear to readers, that quite often some things beginning with "de" or "fr" are added. For example, at the end of the article on Therese Neumann, if I click on "edit", I see [[de:Therese Neumann]]. But if I look at the article itself, I don't see anything. I presume it has something to do with the fact that there's an article on Therese Neumann at the German Wikipedia, but that article would be linked to by use of the coding [[:de:Therese Neumann]]. So what's the purpose of putting all the fr and de things at the end of articles, among categories? Cheers. AnnH (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Depending on what skin one is using, the interlanguage links show up as a separate "In other languages" field on the interface. Jkelly 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. Thank you. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help me understand

The problem, Greg, is that you're one of the people who edit wars over copyright, rather than discussing it, ... SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Link, please, to this edit war? The only time I've ever in my time at Wikipedia been in an edit war over anything is with you. --Gmaxwell 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to personalize this in order to undermine it. Please concentrate on the general point, ... SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your actions in the above quoted case, and several others similar to it recently, have pretty much left me speechless. From where I sit it appears that you have embarked on a relentless campaign to attack, discredit, defame, disrespect, and generally...well... treat me like crap. I can't even begin to imagine what would motivate someone to act in this way... How can you make such a character assault which appears to be unsupportable by fact, and then respond to my request that you substantiate your words by criticizing me for making it personal. Is it really your expectation that I would sit quietly while you make all sorts of untrue statements about me? Do you really think that I should be considered at fault for defending myself? Especially I've already learned that if I don't dispute the untrue claims you will report them as true and others will assume them to be true [3]. I must be misunderstanding you because I see how hard you've worked to improve things here, but if I am then I have no idea at all what you are trying to accomplish. Please keep your response here with my query. --Gmaxwell 02:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Antisemitism (People)

Please review problem here. [[4]] Also, please note that 100% of all entries into this category have been deleted, including Martin Luther.Doright 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Now without notice, admin mushroom blanked out the page, but the talk page is still there [[5]]. Also, Please see this [[6]].
arf arf, doggie needs another bone.Doright 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi!!!

how are you today? I've been looking over your fetal alcohol work, and it's pretty sharp. my dad's a doc, and he did a lot of work at johns hokins with that, he looked at it too. good work.

so, yeah the will mcwhinney article certainly has you all in a tizzy. I'm not looking to out anyone or anyhting, it's just gotten to the point that well, i think there's a reason, and other people too, to read about this fascinating community activist. I was telling Will beback, i've been a memebr of Sierra club since i was akid, my parents enlisted me and made some rather large donations in my name throughout my life, and i've done the same wiht my own children. It's a cool way to move things forward, like that movie, but hoefulyl much less trite. Anyhow.. what's the good word with you today? I think of our battles more like the old warner brothers cartoon with the coyote and the sheepdog, punching in before they set out to undermine one another. Because that's whats happening here, I'm actualyl writing some pretty solid stuff here, and you and will beback are bending over backwards to break rules and uphold them agaijnst me. Look, over at biff rose, there was a flargrant violation of the 3rr standard, and I pointed out that to Will beback that each time i made that violation, i was blocked and banned. i see that the person who did it this time was not blocked or banned. so you know, I've got a whole list of these that is being sandboxed by another ip, to follow up on, as i told will, you need to play fair for me to adhere to any standards you want to uphold. you can't just block an article, because true information is being disseminated through it. Well you can, but it's against the wiki rules, and so you are in violation, though i don't really think you care, anyhow, hope you keep your head above water, and I'l lsee you at the fights, so to speak. Have a good day, Ill remain civil, as long as you do.. but you 've got to remain civil in your actions too, ok? Ok. Jonah Ayers 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!!!

how are you doing? How's the old block scenario working out? look i've, under another name reported you, and well i thin kthis is going ot end badly for you, so quit blocking the jonah acocunt, and we can go from there, email me if you must at the jvsanborn@gmail account.. okey dokey slim and pokey11 yo uare so fun!!!!!! by now Fred jones 01:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking him. --Sojambi Pinola 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this you?

Just to be safe, is Wikinews:User:SlimVirgin you? Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good :).--Sean|Black 22:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your posts at WP:AN/3RR and WP:AN/I

Hi, Slim. I think you've given the wrong link for this. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you've fixed it! AnnH (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tim Buckley cleanup

I noticed this one's had a cleanup tag for a long time. I made a few minor edits and removed the cleanup tag. Do you think there are any areas that still need attention? OhnoitsJamieTalk 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move of Qana

Hi SlimVirgin. I have proposed moving Qana to Shelling of Qana. I am notifying people who were engaged in the earlier talk page discussion. Palmiro | Talk 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Your views on the ongoing deletion of good sourced content, references and footnotes and the addition of dubious material and original research to this article would be much appreciated if you have time. --Ian Pitchford 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Oops, sorry; I did check the "what links here", and somehow missed Black September (group); all that I could see was a template, and the copyright status of the image seemed pretty dubious to say the least, so I dealt with it. I'll have to be more careful in future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

Frankly, I'm probably more put off by the style thing than you are. My utmost desire, really, is that the matter be settled, because it excites so much passion and emotion and distracts from actually writing articles. My concern was to try and prevent a recurrence of the Style Wars from last summer. I suppose I took a hard line, but I felt that the two users who kept removing the styles were being needlessly provocative, especially towards the end. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counter color change

Sure, I've put a version that does this here. Before it goes live, would it be possible for you to look at multiple accounts with it, and see if the new information answers the questions you were hoping it would? I think the reason I left this off originally was that most users, even experienced ones, don't rack up the kinds of edits on img/cat/tmpl/portals that they do on main articles, because there's no stub sorting, there's less vandalism on those, etc. But that's all subjective, so let me know what you think. Also, an alternative I've been pondering is adding overlib tooltips to each bar, and each tooltip would list the exact numbers for each namespace. Eg:

January 2005
Mainspace: 1024 (42%)    Talk: 240 (10%)        Template: 3 (1%)   Template talk: 0 (0%)
Category: 10 (1%)        Category talk: 1 (1%)  ...
...

If that would fulfill your original need, then I can instead go ahead and implement that sooner. Let me know what you think... --Interiot 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely doing the popups, since they're out of the way and are something users can ignore if they want to. Regarding the chart though... do you think that adding a new color to separate off articles would be more informative than other alternatives like adding new color bars to separate the mainspace from Talk:, or breaking "Project" out into separate "Wikipedia:", "Portal:", and "MediaWiki:" colors? There are 18 different namespaces, and I have to pick and choose carefully, especially because I think it takes new users some time to grok how even just the four colors correspond to editors' priorities. I want to make feature requests easy and painless, but any sort of "I think this feature would be the most beneficial because ..." explanation that you might be able to articulate more would be very helpful. --Interiot 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Right. Is the concern that categories, images, and templates may be more indicative of userboxing? If so, if I moved all those over into the "Project" group, would that be satisfactory? Again, I think cats/imgs/tmplts are almost always a pretty small percentage of one's edits. But I could make a fifth color grouping.
About the colors, yeah, I spent some amount of time trying to pick a combination. I'll try to find a brighter one, I guess. As an aside, do you know anyone who's colorblind, who can confirm that my next color combination is legible to everyone? --Interiot 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Okay, I agree then, I'll make the proposed changes permanent. --Interiot 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the color schemes a bit, compare the original to the new. --Interiot 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahaha. Okay, users like this and this convince me your grouping is much better than what I had.  :) --Interiot 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidentally Misleading Edit

Your current edit of the now-frozen User_talk:Jonah_Ayers/archive_1 is accidentally problematic. It misattributes an unsigned comment by Jonah Ayers to a user named Francs2000. The latter did leave a message on User:Jonah Ayers' talk page, but it was certainly not that comment; it was, rather, a brief comment below the unsigned one. I understand why you deleted the text in-between, but you should probably fix that edit for the sake of the innocent third party.

Thanks again for all your work on the harrassment issue!  :) --Sojambi Pinola 01:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Rumi rocks. --Sojambi Pinola 01:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If... (film)

Hi SlimVirgin; I've seen your edits on the WP:MOS pages and I wonder if you might be kind enough to look at Talk:If... (film) and comment if you feel so moved? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most Noble

For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1948 Arab-Israeli War 2

If I can poke my nose in here- if you would be so kind as to look over Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War and archives to ensure that I'm not being a really terrible mediator and making this dispute worse. Thanks.--Sean|Black 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:WieselChlomo.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:WieselChlomo.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 believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. 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. Thank you. --OrphanBot 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion

Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion [[7]] and will be deleted unless interested editors vote.

[edit] Imstillhere

Rather colourful violation of No Personal Attacks at Talk:James Scott Richardson:

The writers of the article have political motives for writing it. It's what they do when they aren't panhandling or huffing gas. Imstillhere 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Homey 07:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartesian materialism

Alienus has started a section called "Why Alienus' changes are completely unacceptable" and asked me to complete it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cartesian_materialism#Why_Alienus.27_changes_are_completely_unacceptable

This is a bit strange.

My interest is in the article, if only he would start to negotiate... loxley 09:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of a peek at Talk:Cartesian materialism? loxley 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mao: the unknown story

Hi, Slim. Repeated edits have been made to put in large chunks of copyrighted material in this page. This is illegal, and as the links to the articles are there can you please stop whoever is doing it? I'm getting tired of having to delete them. John Smith's 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ... and silver linings Thank you for your support on my RfA.
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

[edit] ArbCom elections

Thank you for your kind words, and for your support! Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User freedom

Slim, as you know, I entirely agree with you on the issue of bullying on the wiki, and you were involved in the discussion on Jimbo's page about Userboxes in a general sense, so you know that I don't oppose them on principle. However, I have voted to delete this userbox and I invite you to revisit the vote to have a look at my reasoning. I think that a consensus can be built around the idea that userboxes are a harmless bit of silliness, which we can disapprove of if it's our wont without feeling the need to purge them, so long as they are positive and kind. I feel that this particular userbox has the aim of goading "the other side", and consequently has no place in Wikipedia. Grace Note 23:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be violating WP:AGF, as this template does not seem to be goading anyone into anything. It is an expression of opinion, which is quite appropriate in User space. It is not a threat to anyone, or even an invitation. --Dschor 02:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bully vs bullied

As you know I'm somewhat specialized in behaviour.

The behaviour you pointed out on Jwales' talk page just now is pretty stereotypically that of someone who has been the victim of bullying, I note.

Kim Bruning 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He was helping me on some work I considered fairly important before he left. You are both important important to me, so I'm somewhat annoyed that you've been fighting each other. I may actually literally have to go to him and physically beg on my knees now. Something I do not relish. Kim Bruning 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image

I stated the image was a Reuters image. Aiden 23:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim,

Can you please take a look at Image:Persian art collage.jpg

Im using it as a backgroud for the Template:Persian arts

Im not sure of what tag it gets. Considering that the faded painting in the background is not mine, but that it is a small part of the painting, and (I intentionally faded it) and is being depicted at 200 pixels, i.e. its pretty small.

Thanx?

Here's a technical one:

Im trying to use Image:Farsh1.jpg as a background for the bottom grey part of the template. (i.e. instead of that dull #fff7f8 background. Where do I paste the [ [Image:Farsh1.jpg] ] into?--Zereshk 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I dont think it can be done. I'll just work on what I have. Thanx:) --Zereshk 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for main page

Hello! Are you a sysop? If so, please change the main page to show wiki-pt with more than 100,00 articles. We did it last night and we are very happy! :)) Thanks, muriel@pt 10:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas

SlimVirgin, I accidentally reverted edits made by you to this article; this was unintentional. Apologies. LordViD 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber

Hi Sarah. Someone asked me to look over Yuber (talk · contribs)'s contribs lately, this person feeling that Yuber's recent edits, specifically to Islamic extremist terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) were a violation of the parole in his Arbitration case. In looking, I'm not really seeing this, although many of Yuber's recent edits are reverts and I'm seeing some disruptiveness. However, I'm not comfortable banning him from any article, because it's a wide ranging problem, and I'm not comfortable leaving him a note about obeying the remedies in his case, discussing instead of reverting, etc., so I was wondering if you could look over it, and take action, or tell me what you think. Thanks, Sean Black 02:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, tell me what you think when you get the time, no rush.--Sean Black 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I placed the ban for a week, and may even lift early for good behavior, but he's under Arbcom restriction, which I think he should take seriously. We can continue on WP:ANI--Tznkai 04:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

Please take a look over at Talk:Evolution? It's getting kind of hot headed there in the "Evolution is not fully accepted fact" section. Swatjester 10:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Dropping one by, as you deserve it.

Image:Society barnstar 2.png

Take care, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinals

Re your comments on using 'cardinal' in the names of cardinals, this was discussed before. It is actually impossible not to use it. The reason is that the first name of many mediaeval cardinals have long since been forgotten and they are only known as Cardinal <surname>. In addition many mediaeval cardinals using different cardinate names to their birth names. Their birth names are rarely known and they never adopted a first name as part of their cardinal name. So they are only recognisable as Cardinal <surname>. If we did not use 'cardinal' in their name, hundreds of mediaeval cardinals could not be entered on Wikipedia (we can hardly have an article on a person simply called Lyon!) , while those with full names would be in a form that is unrecognisable to 99.9% of people. (I'm a historian and write about Church history. I don't even know the first names of many famous mediaeval cardinals.) 'Cardinal' is included because it is impossible not to. The only issue was whether to use the traditional format <firstname> Cardinal <surname> or the more modern Cardinal <firstname> <surname>. That was explored and the former was chosen for four reasons:

  • The former is still the official form and so technically more correct;
  • The modern form only originated in post 1965. Using the latter would involve renaming hundreds of cardinals to a form of name that they never used and which is never used when referring to them.
  • Using Cardinal <surname> makes names easier to search on google, as most people will simply search for Cardinal Ó Fiaich, Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin.
  • Using Cardinal <surname> facilitates an easy page move if someone in the future finds a first name of mediaeval cardinals, while keeping the widely recognised form of name, Cardinal <surname> together for google searches.

The use of Cardinal in names was not adopted to show any Catholic bias but simply because it is in practice impossible not to list them without it. The same problem does not arise to the same extent with lower ranks of clergy, because (a) most of them have long since been forgotten, unlike cardinals, and so many not need biographical articles, (b) curiously bishops often were remembered by first name, as in Bishop Michael, whereas cardinals rarely if ever were. So while it is difficult if not impossible to find first names of many mediaeval cardinals, it is relatively easy to find the name of bishops, patriarchs and priests. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi I emailed you. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your question ?

You or someone had inquired as to where the environmental activists get their cash. It comes from donations to organizations such as Earthshare which in turn gives it to different environmental groups. One guy I met Out West commented that donating to these (expletives) is like hiring someone to burn your house down. Martial Law 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Only answering a question, NOT violating any Wikipedian protocol. Martial Law 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The guy was a prospector who had a run-in with environmentalists, thus explains his commentary, which I had made "Wiki-polite". Martial Law 23:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trude Weiss-Rosmarin

Hi, quite by chance I random-articled this and recognised your name. You probably don't remember me but I thought I would drop you a note and compliment you on an excellent article. I also followed the link to Blu Greenberg, which could almost be a model of a short biographical article. If I could find an appropriate barnstar for lucid, encyclopaedic writing, I would be handing it out, but I don't have one to hand, so these words of appreciation will have to suffice. James James 05:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you suck! Blu(e) greenberg? How far fetched. [citation needed] At least pretend to try. El_C 11:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MunichBlackSeptember.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MunichBlackSeptember.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Abu Badali 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garbage

(removed clutter) -ZeroTalk 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Christofidou

The terms "Senior Lecturer" and "Lecturer" are titles, not descriptive (in Oxford, College Lecturers rarely lecture, they give tutorials – lectures are mostly given by College Tutors... sorry, but there it is). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

Greeting, Sarah. How's life treating you? Well, I seem to have gotten myself in the middle of some more controversy regarding my wife, the Noble Qur'an, Jimbo, and more! There was even an RFC filed against me - my first! I just thought you might be interested, although it seems to have calmed down a bit now. Anyway, all the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FYI

Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth vanity?

If you don't mind, could you check out the image uploads by User:Free Will Productions? Three seemingly identical images, one with a LONG Summary that looked like vanity article text (I took the liberty of deleting the text). I notice that the user has 5 deleted edits -- which as a non-admin I can't look at but suspect they're earlier attempts at placing vanity articles.

And as long as I'm here, I'd like to apologize for my abrasive and confrontational tone in our earlier interactions. I'm sorry. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonah Ayers

so, you said that Jonah could email you, which he did, and that you would respond, and clear the issue up. How come you didn't keep your end of the bargain? I think it's very disingenuous to imply you are willing to have a discussion, then block someone indefinitely, and write that you are willing to address the issues, after the person has been blocked, and his user page has been locked, so he can not respond to you on that page. this leads me to believe you never had any intention of listening to what his beef was. no, you blindly trust your friendly administrators, and block together to form a unified front, it sounds fmailiar doesn't it? How can this place grow and truly be the well of information so many hope it to be, when you can't even have an honest discourse. you behave knee jerk, in the name of free information and that reeks of censorship. you get away with it, under the auspices of controlling vandalism, which certainly needs ot be quelled, but there was no vandalism, and nothing spread negatively about the admin who's aid you came to. so in no way was jonah ayers commiting harrassment. when daniel brandt sought to remove his biographical article, it seems you were one who fought ot keep it, and yet when another activist in the southern california area, and is mentioned in articles in major publications, you still listen to complaints, which are as far as I can tell, not related to the issue of the information, but fear that someone may deduce something, that surely isn't included in the article, i'm trying hard here not to be explicit as this seems to be a delicate issue. i think it's important that the information be included here on Wikipedia because they both have become important part of the fabric of life here in the united states and more accutely, in southern california. you have thusly joined up wiht a long line of fascists, and book burners- people whose sole activity in life was to quell the spread of information. when you publish books, and when you interact within your community you become, whether you like it or not, a public persona, and allowing someone to control an entry of your life is wrong and for lack of a better word, fascistic- it's a word, look it up... i know you will simply erase this post, and block the poster, so I've saved the post, and created a new identity solely for this posting, because I want2 you to read it and understand it, rather than to run off and quickly ban the poster, and erase the message. the argument is that there is no information to link anyone to anyone else and the people being written about are actually public persons... good luck, i really like your work here, so am a bit shocked at this behavior.Protopunx


And so of course rather than discuss this topic with anyone, you've just gone and blocked another person, attempting a discourse. this is really rather disturbing. i don't think anyone likes being called fascist. But then to act with such disregard to your own words. You did write this on jonah's page... ' Hi again, as you've continued posting personal details, this account has been blocked indefinitely. I'm very willing to unblock if we can come to an agreement that you will stop harassing this user (or doing anything to make him feel he's being harassed). You're welcome to contact me by e-mail if you would like to discuss it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"

and yet you seem to have had no intention of discussing anything with anyone about the situation. What's that say about you? That you're a LIAR? I'm questioning that, but all data seems to head in that direction. Would you care to respond? Again, by blocking my identity here, and addressing it as one of a sockpuppet of jonah Ayers, as you did with protopunx, is not the case at all. i'll post under another name when you block that. I've sandboxed this discussion on another spot, another name, so when you erase it, I can bring it up again. let's have that dialogue now. I've got as many IP's as you cna shake a stick at, and now i've created a few more identities in case you keep avoiding the subject. All you have to do is respond to this, that's all. Just explain your actions. That shouldn't be too difficult if there is really a method to your.... ok. Wesleynaylorididntnail 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gmaxwell

I removed a personal attack against you from this editor's talkpage. Frankly, I think he's in serious need of banning and would already have been if he were just User:Joe User. However, I'm asking you not to do anything further that can be seen in any way as provoking him. There will, one of these days, likely be an RfAr in re Gmaxwell, and I would hate for it to be made out to be a personal issue between him and you, particularly given that his partisans have the ear of the arbcom and are able to "summarise" the evidence as they please. Grace Note 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Wikipedia:Divisiveness WAS 4.250 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. Your support means a lot to me. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

[edit] I think perhaps you should review the article

entitled assume good faith. You have made several slanderous comments about me, and when questioned directly you simply deleated them. Im sure that by saying I was a role account you probably didnt mean anything negative, but in the context it was used, it would have been possible for someone to assume you were simply being a cunt. Again I'm sure that was not the case. I should also point to the fact that I havent been able to get much done in wikipedia as a result of user:Pamento repeatedly calling me an ass-hole or a homosexual, or a panty waste and while you threaten to bar me, nothing has been done to prevent him from uttering this nonscence. Also I would like to inform you that from time to time my nephews come over and play with my computor, and it results in me typing in all capital letters.. no disrespect was meant by this, but somebody forgot to assume good faith and barred me because of it, even though i plainly stated I was having trouble. Please respond on my discussion page as its a pain in the ass for me to have to keep going to everbody elses home page and write and prevents me from getting any real editting done, as you have noted.pickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 19:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you should ban that jackass forever!--Pamento 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Sarah, you must be some sweet honey to attract so many flies! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 11:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A flower

A flower for Sarah
A flower for Sarah

Hello Sarah. I hope you're well. Don't let the trolls get you down, and remember - the Wikicommunity loves you! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that. :-) AnnH (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Heck, let's make it a bouquet! -Will Beback 12:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are an asset to the project, and an inspiration to me. I never tire of saying it. Stay strong. Hamster Sandwich 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. "At every instant and from every side, resounds the call of Love: We are going to sky, who wants to come with us?" Grace Note 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Flowers are so cliche. How about, say, a quilt? :)--Sean Black (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Styles clarification

Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please contribute

Slim, I have begun a discussion about a potentially contentious series of edits I am proposing for the Hamas article. Your input would be appreciated. --AladdinSE 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V

An editor has chosen to remove a whole section of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy without seeking consensus first. Could you please take a look and provide some insight on what is the process for changing policy? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Note that there is a very important email waiting for you. Thanks. :)--Sean Black (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobblewik

Bobblewik has been blocked again and I see you intervened before. I'll understand if you don't want to again. There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Can we document scope and duration of suspension of the Manual of Style? and I expect many other places too. (I have no interest in linking years or otherwise: I don't like people being blocked for editing within policy). Thincat 12:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers!

Thanks for the barnstar. 2 in 2 days :) I must be doing something right. -Localzuk (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leave

Just think I should tell you that Brandon has decided to leave because of all the chaos on the cartoon article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Testing

Why did you revert my edits to the intro. I posted the proposed changes in the talk pages, and I never saw you had any comment about them. Finally, the statment I keep deleting about animals not feeling pain is completely unsourced. If you follow the link of the source, it gives you some random piece of legislation that says nothing about whether animals feel less pain or not. Which is why I dleted it. This was also put on the talk page for discussion and you never raised any objections. If you want to r3evert my edits, please state your reasons! thanks, Nrets 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would respond to my questions rather than reverting my edits. The prior sentence says "7 out of the last 10 nobel prizes depended on animal research". The next sentence which questions this has 2 sources, the first [8] refers to insulin and the second [9] is a general statment about animal research and medical advances, specifically mentioning polio vaccine. Neither of these have anything to do with "7 out of the last 10 nobel prizes depended on animal research". It does have to do with the last sentence which specifically mentions insulin and polio. Nrets 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Borges Quote...

...is sad, in a way. I understand what you mean, but I hope you like yourself. --Defenestrate 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Truth!

Hi Slim!, You'll know Ive been having a lively discussion on the Verifibility talk page. Maybe you can explain to me why we dont want truth but only some sort of verification on WP? --Light current 01:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May Balls

Which May Ball offered breakfast in Paris? ed g2s • talk 03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double degree

Actually, the manual of style specifically addresses the question by saying articles particular to a specific nation should use that national variant of English. As British custom is specifically ignored throughout the article, and every other major English-speaking nation is addressed, it is appropriate to do away with British spelling. Further, "most people" did not agree to keep the list. It was split evenly. Since then, external linking guidelines have become policy. When requesting support, there was zero outside help. Also, User:Mel_Etitis is now vandalising the page to keep his spamlist. If you continue to harass me, I will report it. -James Howard (talk/web) 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gmaxwell Mediation

It seems that every problematical editor is quick to accuse others of the same things that they do. I see that Gmaxwell has the temerity to accuse you of trying to intimidate him, when it appears that you were trying to reason with him, and when he really did try to bully a group of users into leaving Wikipedia because each of them had cast a single "outlaw" vote. (That is more or less like FuelWagon's claim that you were wikistalking him.)

By the way, did he ever answer your question as to whether he is an admin? Sympathies. Robert McClenon 20:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:AlexLinder.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexLinder.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. Thank you. SteinbDJ 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Top Trivia Tips about SlimVirgin! [10]

  1. Europe is the only continent that lacks SlimVirgin.
  2. Only one child in twenty will be born on the day predicted by SlimVirgin.
  3. It took SlimVirgin 22 years to build the Taj Mahal.
  4. Ostriches stick their heads in SlimVirgin not to hide but to look for water!
  5. It's bad luck for a flag to touch SlimVirgin.
  6. People used to believe that dressing their male children as SlimVirgin would protect them from evil spirits!
  7. Banging your head against SlimVirgin uses 150 calories an hour.
  8. If you put a drop of liquor on SlimVirgin, she will go mad and sting herself to death.
  9. Research indicates that SlimVirgin will be attracted to people who have recently eaten bananas.
  10. SlimVirgin can drink over 25 gallons of water at a time!
    It's all true, folks. Don't ask how I know, though. I don't kiss and tell. :)--Sean Black (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    Mine are also true, of course. And thanks :).--Sean Black (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patriots

Apparently I am the enemy of all that is Red, White and Blue. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are being drafted, again

Slim, would you please consider looking over this AfD. You haven't been caught up with these particular brand of edit disputes and your comments would be very appreciated. --AladdinSE 10:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

P. S. When I have accumulated 25 archives of User Talk, shoot me! Being only mortal, unlike SlimVirgin, I will be an empty, dry husk. SIGH. --AladdinSE 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissistic personality disorder

Hi Slimvirgin, if you check the discussion on Narcissistic personality disorder you will see that Chad Thompson of the APA refused permission to use the diagnostic criteria (which, in the case of the APA means paraphrasing too, and they get NASTY). To my mind this is completely unreasonable, but it was discussed (On Adminstrator's Noticeboard too) and decided to "let sleeping shrinks lie" on this one to avoid them coming down like a ton of bricks on the entire site.

What I think about the APA in this regard is unprintable in polite society :o(

I HATED reverting that. If you want to try asking them yourself the correct addy is CThompson@psych.org --Zeraeph 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do?

What to do about these two editors making a mess and wasting our time royaly in the policy pages. Clearly they are enjoying the attention, being disruptive, and I will not be surprised if they are one and the same. Would it be appropriate to ask for a checkuser in these circumstances? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just get some cement and buckets? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify

Hi SlimVirgin, a recent addition to the NPOV policy page about the three policies being "complementary" was defended with a reference to a similar addition to the WP:V page. It appears that this was done by you, on 29 Sep 2005. That's as far as the trail goes: I can find no comment, nor any discussion around that date about this subject. To me "complementary" is suggestive of equal footing, although perhaps not necessarily. Since NPOV originates with Jimbo and is not decided by us, do you have any sources on the status of NPOV relative to the other two policies? If not, just tell me where you copied that from, and I'll follow the lead from there. Thanks in advance! Harald88 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Philosophy of Mind

You are welcome to join the newly-created WikiProject Philosophy of Mind. Porcher 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senses...

Well, some of your senses. Had you regained all of them I wouldn't like you quite as much. :)--Sean Black (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think I was misunderstood

Hi SlimVirgin. Say, I was a little bit disappointed that you suggested that I was in violation of proper conduct (WP:POINT at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia, by seconding the nomination). I try to follow the codes as well as I can, and although like all I do fail from time to time, in this case I think I might have been misunderstood. No big deal, but I just wanted to explain that, Herostratus 16:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche sock

Northmeister (talk · contribs) has been pushing the LaRouche line in the usual articles. In some cases he's been resurrecting text originally added by Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) a long time ago. [11]/[12], [13]/[14], etc (WP is too slow right now to search for everything). Despite the chatter between them I think there is a high chance that this new account is a sock puppet of HK. There's no rush, but if you thave a chance to take a look I'd be interested in your input. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "queer"?

Hi SlimVirgin: I came across this: List of Jewish American social and political scientists, and I noticed that a couple of people on it are marked as "queer theorist" ... what's that all about? There may be more of this, as someone has created a whole slew of small "lists of American Jews" which I'm now looking over. Is it the way the British refer to homosexuals? I dunno. Is it "politically correct" to call people "queer anything" on Wikipedia ? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)

Queer theory. Jkelly 15:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New users

A couple of days ago, I clicked on "Recent Changes", and noticed a cluster of new users having been created within 1 minute, all in a row. Statistically, clustering is expected, but I made a note of the names and checked back to see what edits they'd made. Answer: none at all, even 2-1/2 days later. So now I'm REALLY suspicsious. Is this normal, creating an account and not editing immediately or even days later?

The list: 00:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There might be others in the same cluster, so if these are suspicious, check other accounts created around 00:32 9 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia edit conflict

rv it is not a "leading link," hardly has anyone posting to it, and is full of libelous, childish, embarassing material I don't want to get into any dispute over the inclusion or non-inclusion of the link (I've already stated that I will not add it, due to my conflict of interest), but I would like to state that we are working on a solution to the "libelous, childish, and embarassing material", which will now be kept off of the main forum and confined solely to a seperate forum, viewable only be logged-in users and with a hefty disclaimer. Just a brief note on the subject. I don't object to the link's inclusion or removal. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania

I'm curious - are you planning to attend Wikimania 2006 (in Boston)? Raul654 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Image:Crystal Clear app staroffice.png
Thanks for the help and all of your good work and it does match your colours--Dakota 06:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three weeks of admin tools

Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:

  • Protections and unprotections: 1
  • Blocks and unblocks: 4
  • Deletions and restorations: 69
  • Rollbacks: 246

I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.

As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.

I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Cohen

Hi there. I'm responsible for the edits of the last couple of days on the Nick Cohen page. I don't particularly want to have an argument with you, but don't you think 'misconstrued' counts as POV in the context of that sentence? The sentence structure does not indicate this is solely the view of his supporters; 'have been misconstrued...' etc appears to be being presented as fact, where in fact it's highly arguable, or at the very least question-begging, statement. Could 'misconstrued' not be replaced with 'interpreted'? It probably shifts the balance a bit in the other direction, but at least it isn't a pejorative word in itself.

--Simon

-- I'd agree with that edit with the caveat that the sentence beginning 'as such...' is now a bit of a run-on sentence, so I'd put a stop after 'Camus', remove the 'and' and begin the next sentence 'As with Orwell...' - in fact I *will* make that edit now, unless you particularly object.

(My reversions weren't intended to be aggressive, btw; I did genuinely think my correction gave the paragraph a better balance and removed possible POV, though I'll happily concede your new redraft is better than my version!)

80.47.135.78 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston

I was checking Raul's talk page for something and I saw that you might be coming to Wikimania this summer, and if so, please let me know, my next door neighbor has season tickets to the Red Sox. Oh yeah, I always thought you were British, but I heard someone say the other day you're from Canada, I was curious which nation was the right one. Also, I was wondering if you had heard of my situation and what you thought.

Thanks again for your friendship in the past, please let me know if I can assist with something. Karmafist 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Philosophy

You might be interested in joing in. I'm trying to get some consensus on improving the Philosophy article. Everyone seems to agree that it's a mess, but no-one seems prepared to get together to improve it; they either tweak it here and there or dive in and start making unilateral wholesale rewrites. I've asked editors to add to and discuss a list of what's wrong with the article now, and another list of suggested improvements. I've made no suggestions myself yet, as I wanted to act as a facilitator. If you can think of other editors knowledgeable about philosophy and geared towards consensus-editing, could you spread the word? Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-offer of assistance

Thanks for your non-offer of assistance; it was very much non-appreciated. :-P Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)