User talk:SlimVirgin/archive28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Vrba 2 You may want to look at 3 You just deleted important paragraph 3.1 Ethnic Romanians 4 Our disagreements 5 HK 6 Image:Monkey5.jpg 7 Optimal Talk thread organization 8 RFA Thanks 9 transference 10 Sundry matters 11 E-mail 12 My RfA 13 history 14 RFCU 15 Wikipedia review 16 Fixing refs 17 Reverting my talk page 18 Question for a trusted editor/friend 19 Another question 20 If you are still online 21 Promising threads of discussion 22 Yet another original research discussion 23 WP:V, blogs in general and The Panda's Thumb. 24 Encouragement 25 My Talk Page 26 Authorized Reverting of Martin Kramer Link Spam 27 Sorry, need more help 28 Death in Gaza 29 Ultramarine, again 30 Appreciated 31 AIPAC 32 good day 33 Admin nom 34 Australia at the Winter Olympics 35 Primo Levi 36 Image 37 Moving broke history of Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view 38 Animal Rights 39 Admins willing to make difficult blocks 40 New anti-Semitism page 41 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowbox 42 OR/Norman Finkelstein 43 Myths and Facts 44 Israeli settlement 45 Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy 46 Please take a look 47 RFC 48 Lauren Slater 49 to advance a new idea 50 NOR 51 On a completely different matter 52 Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick 52.1 Also What Do you Advise on this? 52.2 On the Above again, More Egg 53 Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp PR 54 Now this is a fun user talk page! 55 User:LoveMonkey 56 user lovemonkey 57 What a mess on WP:NOR 58 LoveMonkey & plotinus 59 Please be reasonable 60 If I can trouble you for a little feedback 61 NPOV 62 New Anti Semitism 63 *gentle prod* 64 RE:Query 65 Cambridge University 66 Regarding WP:CONTEXT and its talk page 67 IRmep 68 Schmelz 69 Alexander_007 70 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 71 Michel Aoun 72 Re: your comments on RfA for CTSWyneken 73 Cognition 74 Vilifying Luther all over again 75 No violation of the 3RR rule 76 Please do not Pick Fights 77 Thank you for your kind warning 78 User:Judah haNasi vs. Judah haNasi 79 Vincent Cannistraro 80 Primitive Yahwism 81 Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Humus_sapiens 82 Jack Sarfatti 83 3rr/vandalism 84 User:EKN 85 Stubhub 86 Ok 87 A little help needed 88 Citing an encyclopedia 89 Hamas 90 What do you mean? 91 ZS 92 infidel 93 Talk pages

[edit] Vrba

I've read it through. It looks great; clearly superior to the current version. Do you mind if I make some minor fixes, then pop it in in place of the current article? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of it is quite good. There are a few errors that need fixing, including one or two in critical places. --Zero^talk 07:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You may want to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Khaybar&oldid=45493088

and what took place since. This revision above seems like the last "complete" version although it is totaly antisemitic and seems fictional at best. best, Zeq 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You just deleted important paragraph

Why have you deleted? I need some good references and sources.

The Romanians, (Romanian: români), or the Romanian people, are a nation in the meaning an ethnos (in romanian: popor), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Romanian culture and having a Romanian mother tongue, than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country.

The concept of who is a Romanian has varied. Until the 19th century, it denoted the speakers of Romanian, and was a much more distinct concept than that of Romania, the land of the Romanians. In the last two centuries, Romanian and Romania have more and more come to be connected with a succession of Romanian states -- but the borders of those states have fluctuated so widely during that time that the language-based definition of Romanianess remains perhaps the most useful. While there are approximately 40 million native Romanian speakers in the world, only about 35 million considers themselves to be Romanian.

[edit] Ethnic Romanians

The term Ethnic Romanians may be used in several ways. It may serve to distinguish Romanian citizens of "foreign" immigrant heritage, or it may indicate members of the Romanian culture living as minorities in other nations. In English usage, but less often in Romanian, Ethnic Romanians may be used for assimilated descendents of Romanian emmigrants. A today more controversial usage of the term Ethnic Romanians refer to people with Romanian mother tongue and culture but citizens of other countries than the Romania, as for instance Moldova.

Ethnic Romanianss form an important minority group in several countries in central and eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania) as well as in Spain and in southern Brazil....

For different reasons, some groups may be noted as "Ethnic Romanians" despite no longer having Romanian mothertongue or a distinct Romanian culture. Until the 1990s two million Ethnic Romanians lived throughout the former Soviet Union, especially in Russia and Kazakhstan. In the United States 1990 census, 3 million people are fully or partly of Romanian ancestry, forming one of the largest single ethnic group in the country. Most Americans of Romanian descent live in the Mid-Atlantic states (especially Pennsylvania) and the northern Midwest (especially in Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern Missouri.)

"I assure you will pay for what you and the stupid Jayig did on the article about Romanains. I will contact all the Romanain users and you will be "charged" because you supported that user for his lies and because you blocked me for nothing. You we'll see what we're to do, and if you hate so much the Romanians, your account will have to suffer. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Aha, now you're accusing me of threating 'cause I'm telling you the truth, and you say that you will block me. Listen, I can easily create in few day an another username, you cannot stop an entire community, and you're abusing of you administratorship. If you will tell me that I'll be block block, I will contact for sure Mr. Adrian Pingstone.

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Ok if you find this funny, it's your problem, but I dont' accept that "somebody" blocks because I'm sayng the truth. Tell me what you want anymore? We gave you the sources of the figures, and that's all. You want as Mr. G.W. Bush does a special declaration to you because you cannot understand?

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Is that I did now, but why you blocked me then???????

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Aha, now you're like you don't remember when you blocked blocked me 'cause I dared to modify what Jayig wrote. I wrote all that on the Romanians discuss page.

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Ok, here I agree with you, I will calm down. Actually, My objections to you is just because you blocked for almost nothing. I mean about the personal attacks, a wrote the word stupud, stupidities and lies. You also blocked for reverting Jayig lies, and you see now where we arrived. That f***** of user:Jmabel is again there, and I don't know if you saw what he did there, actually, on the all articles about Romania or Romanians. Jayig put there the lowest and impossible figures, I mean 23-24 mil. He deleted the sources we had for the figures there, and I cannot find them again. And yeah, I have a guestion: you know when we wqant to specify the reliable source of our information to the figure, for example at Usa, how we proceding?

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Yes, my question was how do we cite the sources on the figures table , if you understand what I mean. It's because I think I'm able to find the websites that Jayig removed, and I want to write the previous estimations there, but of course I need the citation, so is for that I'm needing this. If I was not very clear, reply me. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Yes, but about that sources everybody agreed them when we all decided that in the month of January. It's just Jayig that doesn't "like" them because they are confirming the truth.

Can you give an example how I have to do, please? I saw there it's something like ^[1]
. That's it? By the way I emailed to Pingstone and explained the situation. Let's see what he can do with this. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

[edit] Our disagreements

Thank you for your comment on the Israeli settlement talk page. I don't feel happy replying, at the moment anyway, but I will think about it. Palmiro | Talk 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HK

Herschel has posted what seems like a reasonable response to his situation on his talk page. Have you read it? I suggest that, since HK has served out almost all of his 3 days now, that as a conciliatory gesture this shouldn't reset his one-year ban on LaRouche related articles. You must acknowledge that the circumstances are difficult for him. If you are wrong about anything in your treatment towards him, what recourse does he have? Everyking 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the above. Very well stated. See my talk page for a proposal to resolve these types of situations. I am assuming Slimvirgin feels she is acting in good faith and I accept that. But the very Arbcom rulings need to be reconsidered in their finality to conclude by not targeting any individual group or persons (per Jimbo) but to do as I propose on my talk page. I am asking Everyking and Slimvirgin to look into this and work out a solution to keep propaganda out of wikipedia without targeting single groups or persons based on political affiliation. --Northmeister 01:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Like all users, HK can appeal to the ArbCom and to Jimbo Wales. HK's circumstances are of his own making, as is their difficulty. His response has been just to make incorrect accusations. I think that under the circumstances SV acting with restraint. -Will Beback 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, SV is simply enacting the ArbCom mandated ban- No one but Jimbo or the ArbCom, should they accept an appeal, has the authority to "reset" HK's ban on LaRouche related articles, that's just the way it is.--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is rather poor logic. Not everyone agrees that SV's action was legit; HK makes some arguments, as I pointed out, which would need to be addressed. Therefore the idea that SV is enacting an ArbCom mandated ban is a highly questionable assertion. If we could agree that HK was indeed in violation, then you would have an argument, but as it stands we are just trying to reach a pragmatic arrangement with someone who has taken the power of interpretation into her own hands. Everyking 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading over what I assume is the response mentioned by Everyking as a otherwise (AFAIK) uninvolved party, I do not consider the response "reasonable" nor do I consider there to be justified dispute over the facts of the case. HK makes no credible answer to the claim of sockpupetry except to say "it didn't happen", and the rest of his "response" is unrelated to the matter at hand. I find SlimVirgin's actions quite justifiable. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that until some evidence of sockpuppetry is presented, there is not much to which I may respond. --HK 14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What evidence has been provided to indicate HK is using sock-puppets? I would like to see it listed. HK, is being accused and an accused person has the right to be presented with the evidence against him, if any. He then has the right of rebuttal presenting his defense against accusations. He by all standards of English and American judicial procedure ought to have the right to be Innocent until proven guilty. That is only right in any situation. I have not seen the evidence of his guilt, unless the above user is privy to material I am not. --Northmeister 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. The purpose here is to write an encyclopedia; everything else is secondary, including people's "rights" in "judicial procedures". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is convienant. You are right, this is an encyclopedia. Tell that to this administrator, and to Arbcom then, not me. They have made it a Court of Inquisition. --Northmeister 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So by that logic HK's restrictions should be removed so he can improve articles? Come on. Everyking 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, ascribing a position to somebody else and then criticizing it! Can you say straw man? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to point out the flaw in you logic. Whenever people say "we're here to write an encyclopedia", they are implying that their opponent does not think writing an encyclopedia is primary. But of course I think it's primary. The thing is, writing the encyclopedia goes hand in hand with having fair processes and treating volunteers properly. To make the division between the two is unrealistic—if the division is made, then what you get is actually an outcome harmful to the encyclopedia. What you're trying to say, I suppose, is that writing the encyclopedia and letting SV have her way with this or that admin issue or ArbCom interpretation are the same thing (straw man again? as far as I know this is truly what you think). But of course I don't agree with that.

Here's reality: SV made this decision based on her interpretation of the ruling and of HK's actions. HK has no practical alternative but to accept her decision; if she is wrong, he just has to deal with it. The same goes for the rest of us: if someone, like me, disagrees with SV about this, there is basically nothing we can do. If she chooses to ignore us, as she is doing now, that's it. All she has to do is not respond and she automatically gets her way. The only way she could not get her way is if we somehow managed to convince her to reverse herself. But this is impossible; SV's feelings on this issue are hardline and aren't going to change. I boldly suggest that this situation I'm describing is bad. Everyking 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Monkey5.jpg

Hi.

I'm not at all disputing that it's non-reproducable. I disagree, however, with it being a "unique photograph" of a "historic event". Animals are shipped in crates all the time, there's nothing particularly special with this specific image per se. The tag is intended for images like Image:Tianasquare.jpg and Image:Nguyen.jpg. —Gabbe 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any discussion on the {{HistoricPhotoRationale}} tag. I think there should be one though. The template needs some sort of elucidation as it currently stands. I have realised now that Quadell not only created the template in the first place, but has included it in several images by the BUAV and others. Since I'm not a lawyer, I have no way of determining by myself whether the images would qualify as "unique" and "historic" with regards to the Fair Use doctrine in United States copyright jurisprudence. In the case of animals in cages, I don't think there could possibly be a problem though, as "in order to have a copyright violation you need an upset copyright holder" - and the people who took these photos most likely want the whole world to see them. But I remain cautious and vigilant to frivolous use of fairuse-templates in general. —Gabbe 08:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optimal Talk thread organization

Slim, I meant no disrespect or purpose of obstruction when I grouped your comments together in Talk:Israeli settlement in order to restore the contiguity of my posts. Quite the reverse. I have had experience before where breaking up someone's posts into points/paragrasphs he did not himself formulate and replying to them one by one causes untold confusion in the organization of a discussion. I would then have to reply to those points and you in turn reply to those and soon we'll have a dickens of a time keeping track of the thread while at the same time continuing with other new paragraphs. If you did not like how I grouped your responses (which were all signed at the same time) under mine as I restored my original unified paragraph formatting, then by all means organize them as you wish, as long as you do not disrupt my own style and formatting. I hope this is fair?--AladdinSE 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are continuing to revert blindly, and in the process removed new posts about the example you wanted me to consider, in addition to the sub-header I created regarding thread-response style. You seem to be highly agitated. Please calm down, and try to understand that in order for me to carry on a rational discussion with you, I cannot have my posts cut into in this manner. Experience has taught me that it is unmanageable. This may be a failing on my part, and if you consider it so, please help me out by obliging me. Thank you.--AladdinSE 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] transference

I just wanted to tell you I thought your comment was really on the mark and funny. And your dogs are adorable! elizmr 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: (smaller!) elizmr 23:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sundry matters

Hi SV. We're hoping you will explain yourself here [1]

I have also posted some comments at Arniep's talk page re: animal activism[2]. Please feel free to continue that discussion on Arniep's page.

Thank you. --Cyberboomer 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Okay I confirmed my email, you could send the message now if you want.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi SlimVirgin. Just a quick note to thank you for voting on my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I want to let you know that I will do my best to address all concerns that were raised during the RfA. I will also do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history

maybe this historical prespective is of interst to you: [3]. Zeq 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU

The evidence you have provided, and other evidence, indicates that it is very likely that BJB is MSK. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia review

I think they are notable enough, if not credible enough, to have on Criticisms of Wikipedia. Why don't you feel they are notable enough? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing refs

Hey, I noticed your fixes to the references on Hamas, but I still had to go through and further fix some things. Proper Cite.php doesn't use {{ref label}} or {{note label}} at all. Also, there's an automated way to do this conversion now that's a lot neater; you might want to check out User:Cyde/Ref converter. --Cyde Weys 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting my talk page

Thanks for looking after my talk page, but I don't really consider the edit you reverted vandalism. I'm sure you had some reason for reverting it, but as I do not find the comment unacceptable or in violation of Wikipedia policies, I've decided to let it stay. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for a trusted editor/friend

Hello Slim! Long time no see, I guess! I was wondering if you might take a minute or two to read this post [4] and perhaps make any suggestions you think might be applicable, either here or on my own talk page. Thanks in advance, SlimVirgin! Hamster Sandwich 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another question

Is this [5] too close to this [6]--Dakota ~ ° 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC) So do we block it as too close ? I just reverted a removed speedy by it.--Dakota ~ ° 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did it for the username and vandalism.--Dakota ~ ° 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you are still online

Who is this one. [7]. I think it's this one.[8]. Too knowledgeable it is to be just a newbie vandal. It wants to be unblocked or have the block shortened but I think a week is reasonable in this particular case.--Dakota ~ ° 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not too familiar with that one only seen a little of it's work. Would an indefinite be out of order? --Dakota ~ ° 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A week is good enough then. Thanks and I have to get some sleep. Tommorrow (evening) is a long work day. Take care good person.--Dakota ~ ° 09:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promising threads of discussion

I urge you once again to rejoin the discussion regarding Israeli settlement. There are 2 distinct threads of discussion which you have abandoned which were very promising for the prospects of resolution. One was a set of bullet points to you, where the last one was a pivotal answer to a very pertinent question of yours, and I'm still waiting for a response there. The other was where you asked me a question about Chomsky, but then refused to carry on despite my enthusiastic engagement in your own thread. The material (from April 3rd) I refer to can be found here. If anyone had told me that SlimVirgin would continue to revert without participation in Talk, refusing even to carry on with her own threads, I would never have believed it, not of you. Please reconsider. My very faith in Wikipedia is at stake.--AladdinSE 10:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another original research discussion

I've become embroiled in yet another original research discussion. Would you mind taking a look at it here? Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V, blogs in general and The Panda's Thumb.

Hey, there have been some issues recently about the use of blogs as sources which are generally considered unreliable. A discussion has occured on Talk:Eric Pianka about when they are acceptable. In particulr, editors there seem to have arrived at a consensus that at least in the current case The Panda's Thumb is an acceptable source. In this case, the blog is a collection of various biology and bio-related writers, some professors at major universities. The author relevant in this case is Nick Matzke who is a higher up in the NCSE and presumably reliable while PT was named one of the top 25 Science and Technology websites by Scientific American last year. However, Guettarda thought that we should discuss this with you, especially using PT as a source in general, since you seem like a reasonable independent party and also because you rewrote WP:V. JoshuaZ 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encouragement

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Talk Page

What exactly are you doing screwing around on my Talk pages????? -- Gnetwerker 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That information was gathered legitimately from the web, and if you didn't notice, covered more than one person. How in the world are you authorized to delete information from my personal pages without even asking me first!!!!???? -- Gnetwerker 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please direct me to the policy to which you refer. The items you deleted did not include any user's name, address, or other identifiable information. It did contain the IP address of a previously suspected vandal (an IP address easily recovered by a look through the user in question's edit history). I am also unaware of any claim of harrassment by the user in question. I would think that in the absence of actual harassment, a notification to me would have been in order. -- Gnetwerker 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add to this that the user who requested this action has threatened to post personally-identifiable information about me, and has posted information about my identity. I am flabbergasted that you have targeted me for his offense. -- Gnetwerker 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You said "If there are other details elsewhere you feel should be removed, by all means let me know, and I'll delete them too". I will take you at your word. There are numerous references to my affiliation with Reed College on the (now archived) page: Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute, and these charges were repeated in the ArbCom case: here (in his opening statement) and elsewhere in the evidence, etc. This information (because of the small size of the Reed community) goes much farther toward identifying me than an IP address buried on a personal notes page. I requested that ArbCom rule on this harassment, but they did not address it. I look forward to your removal of this information from these pages. -- Gnetwerker 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the edits in which IronDuke threatens to disclose personal information about me or refers to such: [9] [10] (See "Fourth assertion") [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] -- Gnetwerker 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So you refuse to delete these because "they were from January" (actually, also February), but the page of mine you deleted was also from the same time, and also contained no personal information. Why the double-standard? Because IronDuke asked first? -- Gnetwerker 02:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The first one I listed is the most direct [20]. I have also posted a request on WP:ANI. I have happily edited WP on an off since it was first created, and this one miscreant picks a ridiculous fight with me, and tries to make me leave Wikipedia. He loses his ArbCom case, but in the process revealed that much of the rest of WP has the same teenage level of maturity as he, and there are no real checks on admin power (hence the periodic "wheel wars", I suppose). I am still stunned that you would take such an action without the courtesy of a note to me first, and threaten to block me for complaining about it. No policy, no procedures, a single admin is DA, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, but when equal treatment is requested, there are "technical reasons, which I'm not prepared to go into". Yeesh. -- Gnetwerker 02:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authorized Reverting of Martin Kramer Link Spam

(copied from User:70.48.241.41)

Please don't delete any more links to scholarly articles. I have restored the ones I've seen so far. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi SM, can you please read Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F. I brought up the matter with the vandalism unit and it was agree that it was link spam and that I can go ahead and remove it. Martin Kramer has since admitted that he was behind the mass additions. If you disagree that is a different matter. Thx. --70.48.241.41 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we need to take this to mediation. I strongly feel that his mass additions were both significant POV and it drives traffic to his personal website. This doesn't seem right and it would encourage other scholars of all sorts to do the same thing. --70.48.241.41 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn my statement calling the links spam, and it was on this advice that the IP was working- so please do not be too hard on them for that. Whilst you and another editor have said the links are ok, they certainly set off the 'spam radar' (see Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer) by following the pattern of spammers. Thanks for you input. Petros471 10:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, need more help

I'm not sure what this is about, but could you make it stop? [[21]] Also, as far as the arbcom case goes, I think it would be tricky to remove what G wants removed without making the case very difficult to follow. Also, arbcom seemed to have no problem with my making the connection, they just didn't think it was worth sanctioning someone over. But if it does get removed, I guess I wouldn't put up too much of a fuss. IronDuke 01:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have this: [[22]]. I honestly don't know what to make of it, but I believe it must be one of two things; it is 1) an attempt to replace the deleted information with the same information, except in some sort of code or 2) deliberate gibberish (but with an internet address implied) meant to bait you into deleting it so he can cry "Aha! So now I'm not even allowed to post gibberish on my user page????!!!!!" Then he can formally accuse you of outrageous administrative overreach. Ultimately, I feel I'm so close to this subject that I don't even want to make a suggestion as to what the best move is here, but I'd be highly inclined to go with whatever you think is right. IronDuke 23:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death in Gaza

Being Scottish, I really should know better. There is indeed no such thing as UK Law. Ooops.

As for my source, it was the BBC News article that I linked to in my edit. The jury was directed to pass a verdict of unlawful killing, and had to decide whether this was murder or manslaughter.

The article as it stands is now more accurate, so I don't see any need to edit it further for now.

I hope I have answered your question Lurker 09:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultramarine, again

I would like your opinion of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ultramarine. This is the same editor who tries to make R. J. Rummel into panegyric. Here he is attempting to remove mention of the others who formed the democratic peace theory, and suppress mention of the large number of researchers who support the democratic peace but oppose Rummel's theory. Thanks. Septentrionalis 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciated

I appreciate your keeping my personal entry clear, and your action to keep intact links to my scholarly work. Martin Kramer

[edit] AIPAC

Hi. I noticed after a volley of vandalism and counter-vandalism that you reverted to a version without some of my edits. Would you care to explain why you feel the following uncited passage, which reads like promotional material, is NPOV?

AIPAC was early to recognize the dangers that extremist groups and rhetoric in the Middle East pose to American citizens and interests. AIPAC has played a key role in educating members of Congress about the issues that face today's Middle East.

Are there problems with my version:

AIPAC advises members of Congress about the issues that face today's Middle East, including the perceived dangers of extremism and terrorism.

Also, I appreciate that you did eventually restore the AIPAC espionage scandal wikilink after your initial reverts. Regards, Deuterium 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and I have no problem with removing the "perceived" part. Deuterium 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good day

I'd like your opinion on something. I've sent you an e-mail explaining it. — Apr. 9, '06 [04:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Admin nom

Calton, are you interested in becoming an admin? It would be my pleasure to nominate you.

Considering how rude I've been to you in the past, I have to say I'm astonished -- pleasantly, I hasten to add.

Let me think about it: practically speaking, I'm likely to run into opposition from some editors due to my, er, straight-forwardness, but also, I'd have to consider the implications of taking on the responsibility. Yes, it's supposed to be only a form of digital janitorship, but I consider it much more, believe me. This is not something I'd take on lightly if it were available.

Give me a day or two to think about, and to review and think about the nomination questions before you act. But thank you for the vote of confidence, regardess of my decision. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia at the Winter Olympics

Hi Slim,

Australia at the Winter Olympics is now a featured article! Andjam 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primo Levi

I have added a comment to the Talk/discussion page of this article, Please read.

Thanks

--Paw42 09:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I want to add bike image to the article Kawasaki Ninja ZX-10R , it is an image used for promotional purpose and is available for download from a website, but I am not sure if that image can be used or how to tag it? and what catagory does it fall in! Can you help please? (Fireblade)

[edit] Moving broke history of Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

A user recently tried to archive Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view by moving the talk page to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17. This disrupted the history dating back to 2002 for the page. I would like to move it back, keep the subsequent talk, and archive it properly, but I can't move a page over top of an existing page according to the error I'm getting. Could you take care of this? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks anyhow! — Saxifrage ✎ 08:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Rights

Since it was your request to protect the Animal Rights page and it is protected at your preferred version I believe you have an obligation to WP community to attempt resolution expeditiously. It appears you have been avoiding adding to the discussion even though you have time to make other edits. Mccready 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins willing to make difficult blocks

Just wanted to say I think this page is a great idea. It drives me nuts the things vandals get away with sometimes, but this situation with Gator needs to be something that we all rally around as 'the last time that ever happens'. So, here's a pat on the back for doing what needs to be done. :) --InShaneee 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New anti-Semitism page

Hello,

I've explained the rationale for my changes on the talk page, and would ask you to comment. CJCurrie 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion for compromise:

The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism.

Would you agree to the insertion of the word "often" after the second comma? CJCurrie 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think I've found the source you requested to back up the different ways the term "new anti-semitism" is used. I'd also be very grateful if you could respond to my comments in the section you started entitled "TreveX's edits". Cheers! TreveX^talk 13:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowbox

* 2006-04-10 19:19:06 SlimVirgin deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowbox" (AfD, non-notable)

Are you sure you meant to delete the AfD discussion and not the article being discussed? Shadowbox itself which indeed seems non-notable, is still there. Henning Makholm 22:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR/Norman Finkelstein

If I understand you correctly, you believe that citing the definition of plagiarism and attributing to a reputable source amount to "Original Research." In the Norman Finkelstein article I tried to describe the definition, and you deleted it on the grounds that it's OR. I don't see your logic here.

Your "example" of OR is wildly out of step with the actual definition:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

You claim:

For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.

You provided a citation of a third party argument (Freedman's) to satisfy this requirement in the Dershowitz/Finkelstein entry. But the source you link is Dershowitz himself! Dersh does not provide the source of his quote of Freedman, and neither does Freedman provide a source for his CMS quote. Is this a "reliable source"? Is this "verifiable"?

In fact as the actual OR definition shows, it is not necessary to find a third party citation of CMS to include it, since it is published and verifiable.

[edit] Myths and Facts

Academic sources do not consider Myths and Facts to be a history book and completely ignore it with very few exceptions. They certainly don't cite it as a source, because they don't want their colleagues to laugh at them. The only possibility for a mention would an article on the topic of propaganda (I found none), or a book review (but most history journals have not considered it worth reviewing either). I found very hostile reviews of the 1987, 1993 and 2002 editions, the latter two by Donald Neff (author of "Warriors at Suez") who called it a "propaganda pamphlet" and similar things. Of course there is no way to search exhaustively so it's not possible to say for sure that there isn't a positive review somewhere. As for Mitchell Bard, he is not the author of it. He is just the editor who inherited it from his predecessors; the actual author or authors are unknown. Also, it correct that it is my opinion (but not only my opinion) that it is "junk", but it is not just my opinion that it is "controversial". The latter is obviously true, not least because it is associated with a controversial organization. Incidentally, many of the articles at jewishvirtuallibrary.org are very good and obviously written by people who know their stuff; it's a pity that junk like Myths and Facts was added there. Finally, I don't think you really believe that it is ok to silently quote "references" from Myths and Facts as if they are verified by the editor quoting them. Whatever sources are cited have to be verifiable, not some secret third party. --Zero^talk 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't state an opinion of Donald Neff and you have no idea what my opinion is. You asked if there are hostile reviews by academics of Myths and Facts, and the answer is that they ignore it completely and don't even bother reviewing it. For a book that claims to be an accurate history book to be treated in such a uniformly dismissive fashion by the whole community of historians is highly unusual and says more than a single hostile review could. And stop this incessant going on about bias; you are one of the most obviously biased editors in the middle-east section. --Zero^talk 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the onus on those who want to use it. You know that. --Zero^talk 01:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli settlement

Hello SV. I just wanted to point out a minor oversight in your recent revert. You left my Stone comments untouched. As you have not indicated that you have changed your mind regarding our disagreement about the biographical quotation or the peer-reviews of the books, I am assuming that you did not notice that I returned the material (and made further comments in Talk). Thanks.--AladdinSE 18:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I must point out a further oversight: your edit summary said "rv per talk", yet you did not discuss it on the talk page, where plentiful arguments had been made as to the existence of settlements in the Golan (something I am honestly surprised you are unaware of; here is an article from BBC News about them, which may be of interest) and nobody had disputed their presence in East Jerusalem. Palmiro | Talk 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

I've just blocked the anon for 3RR on Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy; do you still want the protect? William M. Connolley 20:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't fair. My last was not a revert anyways, but an edit. SlimVirgin is of the same ideological bent at this other editor, Moshe and Moshe was revered my changes three times as well. --64.230.120.237 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been through this before, so let me explain briefly. When it's convenient, admins will say that a new edit that incidentally restores part of the text to a previous state counts as a revert for the purposes of WP:3RR violation. So, for example, if you insert "He ate the apple", someone changes it to "She ate an apple", and then you change it to "She ate the apple", this can be considered a revert because you are restoring the "an" to a "the". This is a contrived example, of course, and the "reverted" text in question is often somewhat longer, but the point remains. In short, either you're being unfairly punished for not understanding an ambiguous rule and acting in good faith or an ambiguous rule is being abused to punish you in bad faith. You decide. Alienus 21:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look

Pro-lick never stops with his childishness. Please take a look. ____G_o_o_d____ 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière FeloniousMonk 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Slater

Please see my talk. agapetos_angel 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to advance a new idea

Hi could you please comment on our proposal to substitute your(?) "to advance a position by "to advance a new idea"? I think it's more rapidly understood and helps to focus on NOR. Harald88 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

Let's not be revisionist here. I and others have attempted to get legitimate discussion on two sections of contestation on that page. Not only were personal insults lodged against us and our number edits; but there was a general silence regarding reasoning for the changes. A change without proper consensus is not appropriate. Let's do a straw poll and ferret this out. My proposal from the beginning. Further, I have not seen any credible reason given by Slimvirgin regarding her rewording of the first section of contention; other than 'clarity'. What she and those she supports fail to realize is that changing words changes policy; which is what she did on April 10th, and then based on this added the other section of contention on April 11/12th. That is the debate ongoing. If civil discourse from the beginning had been undertaken by Slimvirgin fully explaining the reasons for her edits and soliciting opinion from editors prior to her changes on April 10th - this would of cemented her cause for change with general agreement then and on April 11th and 12th. However, this was not done. If the same said thing had occured when I and others prior to and after me raised objections - whereas she answered our concerns (mine is about abuse stemming from her rewording and her definition of synthesis) then in a civil manner things could of been worked out. I generally support her changes, with the exception that there needs to be a method of prood of NOR beyond One editor claiming this - I chose with my edit Consensus of editors at a page. Had Slimvirgin engaged me here after I changed this in a civil manner by contesting my changes and posing questions to me about them; I could of stated my reasons and would of worked with her and others to ferret out differences and we all could of arrived at a point of agreement without all this bickering. The bickering is occuring then and therefore in the main because of the refusal to collaborate on this; and the original manner of editing done by Slimvirgin. As to your proposal on policy editing - I feel that this is the very elitist notion that I strongly object to in the personal insults lodged when editors were merely posing questions and objections trying to get an answer to the changes. What I propose is this: That a statement be added at the end of disputed section one that indicates "Whenever a dispute shall arise concerning NOR by one editor to anothers edit; that same said editor shall raise the objection in Talk and give the editor of the disputed edit a three day chance for rebuttal. If that said editor shall not respond, then the editor that shall have made the charge of NOR shall have all rights to remove the edit. If a response shall be made in the timeframe allotted, other editors at that page shall have a right to comment and the overall consensus (by plurality) of NOR violation shall be reached." or something akin to this - this would address my concern over editorial abuse. Further, I do propose this for policy editing: "That all edits to policy pages shall be valid only if approved by general consensus in talk. If editors concerned shall by consensus object, then such said changes shall be reversed. If no objection shall be lodged to the edit within 24hrs or a consensus shall be reached of approval within same said timeframe, the edit shall be considered approved. Whenever a consensus shall not be reached between two parties in a dispute (our case at the moment) after the expiration of three days; then that dispute shall be presented to Arbcom. Arbcom shall consider both sides, and shall make a decision by plurality on the final inclusion or deletion of the edit." I also favor Arbcom having final say over any edits made or a committee chosen in some manner - whereas an editor new or old may propose a change (of words or substance - not punction etc.) to that Committee for approval or rejection. We need to work this out in a civil manner and with respect for everyone and their ideas - reaching consensus. --Northmeister 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If consensus forming was followed in the first place on April 10th by this user Slimvirigin, there wouldn't have been a problem. The point is really moot. Limiting this to admins is interesting but also wrong. Policy is not set in stone; it changes with Wikipedia and consensus. However it should not change on the whim of the few and changes should not occur without proper procedure. Procedure was not followed, people objected, they were called names and mistreated rather than have their objections treated in good faith. My proposal, for Arbcom to decide disputes or for a special committee to be electd by the community to decide them when they arise was removed by Slimvirgin to her archives. I think that is far better than allow any admin to edit policy changing it at their whim to suit their needs as this user here has be charged as doing by other editors. --Northmeister 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On a completely different matter

what is your view on the use of the words "lager" vs. "camp" or "death camp" (I believe the lagers included both concentration camps strictly speaking as well as death camps) on the Primo Levi article? As far as I recall, lager is the term used in all the English translations of Levi's work. Someone changed all the references to "camp" or "death camp" and I changed them back, but now I'm not sure and would like a second opinion.

I haven't forgotten your request for sources for my remarks on Talk:Palestine; Ian has already provided one of the two sources I had in mind, Yehoshua Porath's review of the Peters book From Time Immemorial; the other is Rashid Khalidi's Palestinian Identity, p. 92, where he states that demographic studies all show that there was no massive Arab immigration, but I left the house in a hurry this morning and didn't have time to note the exact quote; I'll get back to you with it. There are also a number of works which go into the economy of Mandate Palestine and indicate very different economic consequences for the native population from Jewish immigration than some of the quotes being bandied around on various internet sites would lead one to imagine. Palmiro | Talk 13:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick

• Long time, no say Hi, so Hi again!
• I kicked over the barrell boldly here in defence of guidelines, and will spam notify a few others in that debate as well.
• I wonder if you will consider dropping me an email detailing some tips on what methods you use to keep up and track all this hurly-burly, as I am daunted by discovering just how many policy proposals are on the listing category, and frankly, 'Frank' doesn't quite know how anyone gets enough WikiTime to both spend time tracking and commenting on such as well as creating things added to wikipedia, much less keeps up with all that! Shudder!
• btw -- contrary to your stance in this matter -- IMHO, related 'Slap users in the face' (Editors not equated with Users) templates like CLEAN, COPYEDIT, GCHECK, belong in Talk as well, as they should be drawing patroling people in, not diminishing Wiki's appearance. However, that's a philosophical aside, and my real problem with those is no documented reasons for posting same in talk pages added to persons not checking back to see if article state had improved enough to clear their 'gripe'... I've seen a lot of cleans go over a year without being cleared, despite good article advancement.
• It brings me to wonder whether such templates could be modified to auto-annote a user subpage special category things I've tagged and should check back on periodically, and which by posting in talks, vice article space, create a one line Editor Flag notice, that one of these beasts is posted in the talk. That removes the Slap in the Face to the customer, with a discrete message to the browsing editor, plus tracks responsibility, plus puts such in same categories for listing to patrols as now. I wouldn't know who to ask, but I would certainly prefer it aesthetically.

Best regards,FrankB 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also What Do you Advise on this?

(Wow- twice in one day!)

What would you think about the wisdom of posting a discrete link to this notice at the very page top Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals, and how do you like the concept? Something in a box saying See this New Notice (Flashing lights and sirens wouldn't be enough as far as I can see!)

• What other actions might be in order- RFC, VP, Adds at head ends of CAT:CAT and key children cats 'top down'...? The utility and desirability seems self-evident. Can't figure out why it wasn't part of the system from day one.

Sigh! Back to content edits! Best regards, FrankB 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• You can forget this last one. I was missing info, which I've annoted there. But give no priority. Best regards, FrankB 04:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Above again, More Egg

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just(belatedly-system access problems) posted:

I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Thanks and Apologies FrankB 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• just noticed that this above post got snarled up in the system problem this late afternoon/evening. I had to steal this off Mel's page.
• I've apologized to Kate, but the speed of the deletion is really sticking in my craw. I think I voted yeah on the looser lattitude for speedy-deletes too last summer. Irony there. Also left you a note somewhere (?my talk?) to your concerns. I don't really see what triggered your WP:NPA caution, save perhaps using 'lightweight'. That was ill-advised, but the whole affair reminds me of something we used to say in the service: 'BOHICA' - Bend over, here it comes again! I'd had better experiences with admins heretofore. All I can say.
• Maybe I need a wikibreak -- I can't find my earlier post back to you.

Puzzled FrankB 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp PR

Hello there! I remember seeing you contribute to various Holocaust-related articles. I have recently expanded the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp and asked for a peer review. I thought you might want to take a look at the article and perhaps improve it or tell me what's missing. //Halibutt 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now this is a fun user talk page!

Just wanted to tell you. I love the pictures! Kukini 05:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Much more fun if they were cats, though :) Joe 06:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:LoveMonkey

Slim, could you help me with or give me your opinion on a problematic editor?

Please see here.

DanielCD's response here.

Current discussion here. — goethean ॐ 15:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user lovemonkey

I apologize. It will not happen again. Yes goethean, and other editors were insistent in keeping visualerrors original research under plotinus. A revert war started when I wanted to know what scholars work Visual error was basing his claim the Plotinus' Against the gnostics was not really the gnostic but early christianity. Visualerror refused as did goethan, shtove to even let the record state the plotinus knew his target. Of the sources named none of visualerror's sources stated what visualerror put in the article and none were plotinus/neoplatonic scholars. I had to point out that a close to, but different theory had been discarded by the pre eminent scholar of plotinus AH Armstrong but this was removed as well.

They refused my SOURCED article and kept removing it. Visualerror also edited the plotinus talk page so the discussion between me and them is unreadable. They as a group have been ignoring and browbeating. Its been dirty pool and I apologize. But it has not been one sided. Goethean is now in an active campaign to remove my contribution to the plotinus article. This after Goethean has requested that my neoplatonism and gnosticism article BE DELETED. This type of personal attack will only run off contributors. Goethan has gotten upset and is now attacking everything I contribute. He has however fallen short of threats so far. LoveMonkey 21:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would hope that Goethean's disruptive behavior would addressed as well. On the edit you note the text is not and I was trying to edit it to remove it propping up Original Research rather then just deleting it. LoveMonkey 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a mess on WP:NOR

The talk page for No Original Research is getting uglier and uglier. I've archived some of the older, inactive discussions, but the bickering keeps growing, with no end in sight. I'm trying to avoid stirring up that pot further, but I can't see that there's much that will satisfy the hoards of neophyte editors that the experienced Wikipedians actually do know "best."

Katefan0 has mentioned something which I'd also hinted at previously: putting forth a proposal that new/recent editors be ineligible from editing policy pages. (Under Reinterpretation of "Directly Related: I categorically reject your changes, Ragout, and furthermore would support policy change requiring a demonstrated level of dedication to Wikipedia's principles as a bar to pass for editing policy pages like these.) Just a small number of disgruntled and/or POV-warring cranks have been able to shut down any discussion of actual improvements, just because they didn't like your responses on a particular article. I experienced something similar recently at a TV show's episode talk page, when pointing out that describing a prop on a TV show as being an actual real-world product would be original research (as trivial a matter as that might be). Imagine if every new editor who goes into a tizzy when told that Wikipedia policy prohibits their personal speculation runs over to the policy page to complain?

In the short-term, to get some level of closer on the ongoing debate, perhaps a straw poll/opinion survey might be run, on whether your examples were appropriate to be added to the policy? Right now, it's hard to argue consensus, as I'd imagine the new editors have difficulty figuring out what "consensus" means. —Leflyman^Talk 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree very much with limiting who can edit policy pages. And remember this has been going on for weeks witih -Lumiere, who basically caused discussion to stop on talk NOR and V, and badly affected it on talk NPOV. We more or less have the straw poll: 16 editors support the current version, and it's not clear how many against because the numbers are dwindling, but it was Northmeister, Herschelkrustofsky, Ragout (but s/he has called Northmeister a vandal so they don't seem to want the same thing), possibly Lumiere, and then the numbered account who has made four edits and who went on a vandalism spree last night as an anon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agreement on all your points above-- sorry that it took me a while to see the Lumiere-paralysis. What might be clear to you, me and many others may be absolutely blurry to those who aren't looking at things the same way. An opinion survey should (one would hope) illuminate where the consensus actually is-- rather than having those on the "experienced" side claiming to have support, while those on not-so-experienced side disbelieving/ignoring them. I'd be willing to write it up; so long as someone can clarify just what the disagreement is actually about. As an aside, I think that some of these new editors may have let the emotional aspects of Wikipedia discussions overcome their sense of reason. (I know I've fallen into that trap before!) Likewise, this has led some of the older editors to get equally frustrated-- thus we have a lot of snippy replies, which are only raising the temperature of the debate. It's too bad that discussions on policy pages can't be called for recess, to let cooler heads prevail. :) —Leflyman^Talk 03:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Recess is a very good idea. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you think of a policy that limited policy edits to admins? This would probably solve most of these problems straight off. JoshuaZ 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for that, but I'm not sure it would fly. A compromise might be a minimum number of edits to articles and a minimum amount of time editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I think it'd be a good idea. I also think there's no way it would ever garner enough support to be implemented. It's taken people Seigenthaler and other things just to realize that the wiki interface is a means to an end and little more. But, maybe I'm just being cynical. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think J-Z's suggestion of setting policy editing (and even discussions) to only admin-level users would make the most sense, from the stand-point of simplicity and explainability-- and I'm not even an admin. The key is retaining the stability of the policies. IMHO, it would be easier to limit the policy pages to a certain class of users (ala admins) than to negotiate just how many edits qualify someone to speak about Wikipedia principles. It's also easier to achieve a quantity of edits in a short time, without being noticed, than to become an admin. Adminship may be claimed to be "no big deal" but it definitely indicates that an exception level of trust has been placed in an individual editor by the community. The difficulty in such a proposal is that some of those non-admins, for their own reasons, are attempting to chip away at the solid foundations of Wikipedia-- and they'd not agree to such an expansive change. For better or worse, Lumiere and the recent batch of new editors have demonstrated how easy it is to sidetrack substantive WP policy discussions by inserting quibbles over nonsense-- because many more-knowledgeable and patient editors will initially aim to clarify, educate and generally convince such new folks that "Wikipedia works because it works." As SV has attempted to point out to them, true understanding of Wikipedia policies comes not just from reading the policies themselves, but from applying them in practice. There's a thought to mull over: "Zen and the art of Wikipedia editing" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leflyman (talk • contribs)

Funny you should point out that you aren't an admin. I'm not an admin either, but I thought it wasn't necessary to play that card. If this many non-admins think its a good idea though...JoshuaZ 05:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm real torn on this. From a practical, expedient point of view, well, yeah, duh. But there's something that rubs me wrong about it...Come to think of it, this is a discussion that us admins should immediately recuse ourselves from. Which I now do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why recuse yourself? Under that logic admins could never take part in any discussion to give more responsibilites to Admins. JoshuaZ 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Very opposed to the idea that only administrators discuss and write policy. Has been proven many times that output is higher quality when workers have higher involvement in decision making. FloNight ^talk 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that administrators should be the only ones able to edit policy pages (I think that suggestion was made mostly because it would be an easier permission to set, without requiring special coding), but I'd support some ratio of length of time to edits made or such as that. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Katefan. Limiting editing to admins I feel would be too restictive as that is too high a barrier to assess responsibility. It also undermines the significance of policies if they are less open to change, as it also allows the possibility of admins as a group having one consensus which is different to other established editors; even if that is not the case it gives the impression of the policies being set by some higher authority, something that is completely against the grain of WP.

However if stability is that much of an issue on policy pages, as NOR is showing, I would agree a higher boundary than normal semi-protection would be a reasonable solution. But as for the reasons above this shouldn't be set too high. |→ Spaully°τ 22:42, 14 April 2006 (GMT)

[edit] LoveMonkey & plotinus

Hey is there a template that shows how to post under fairuse? Thanks LoveMonkey 14:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be reasonable

I've taken note of today's edit warring on New anti-Semitism. Currie and I have provided sources, such as the Jonathan Sacks interviews and the Mearshimer article in LRB but you continue to ignore them and pretend that all we've come up with is The Australian. You may have several books on this topic, but that doesn't mean you can invoke authority over other editors when they are providing sourced edits. Many people (academics, political groups for whom we can source) contend that the body of anti-semitism does not come only from the left wing. Continuing to stand in the way of this angle being represented in the article is only making you look silly. TreveX^talk 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If I can trouble you for a little feedback

re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on a new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

There is a discussion going on regarding Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight. It is unfair that I am unofficially excluded when I have broken no rules nor policy. --Iantresman 00:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course we paraphrase much text from a variety of sources. What we don't do is claim that something is "from" Jimbo Wales when it's not, or without implying that it is paraphrased, and especially when aspects of it are significantly different from the original. --Iantresman 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Anti Semitism

I am simply saying that we should be clear to distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity. "New anti-Semitism" is not an agreed upon fact. It is a theory that originates with one political point of view and it is predominantly that point of view that argues the term is valid. I think that when we are speaking of contestable subjects we are remiss if we pretend that a source is "objective" rather than reflecting one or another of the sides of the dispute. It is important to distinguish between polemics and objective work. That doesn't mean we can't use polemics as sources but we can't use a source as a cover for the fact that an assertion is a POV and not an objective fact.

I don't know if every single writer who asserts there is a new Anti Semitism is a "Zionist" per se. However, I think it's valid to say that view that there is a new Anti-Semitism originates with and is predominantly supported by Zionists just as it's fair to say that those who argue there were WMDs in Iraq are predominantly supporters of the Iraq war.

My point isn't so much that "New Anti-Semitism" is a Zionist phrase as it is that it is not an objective fact and should not be treated as such by the article. It is a POV, it is contestable, and should be treated as such. I would make the same arguments if an article on Zionism is racism stated "Zionism is associated with racism", gave a few sources and failed to mention that those sources are all anti-Zionist and that "Zionism is racism" is POV and not a fact and that it is an assertion put forward predominantly by opponents of the state of Israel's right to exist.

My problem is not with the use of "Zionist sources" or "anti-Zionist sources", it's with using a POV source to suggest that an assertion is a fact and NPOV rather than a POV opinion.

I'm a bit suprised that you are disputing that using a term like "associated with" is misleading in the case of new-anti Semitism and "the Left" and does not suggest that the accusation that elements of the Left are anti-Semtic is valid. The use of it in the article is almost a literal example of guilt by association. Homey 01:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've got a couple of new proposals for revision in sections Edit to sentence "Critics of the concept contend that..." and Proposal for sentence on other perspectives on "new anti-semitism" on the talk page. If we keep revising in this fashion then hopefully we can reach a wording we can all live with. TreveX^talk 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *gentle prod*

See User_talk:Nathanrdotcom#E-mail. I really don't know if I should've commented there or here ;) — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have this rare form of edititis (compulsion to keep editing the same comment until it's perfect) but I assure you I've made my final edit :P — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've simply reinserted the Klug quotation, not touched anything else or done an rv. By my count I've inserted the Klug quotation three times. Now it's been removed leaving the opening completely unbalanced and one-sided. Homey 02:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Query

Hello Slim! First of all if you want to believe this liar of Alexander 007, you're free to do it, but I assure you you will not like his kind. First, he messe in all my stuff that I'm doing, you saw very well when you wrote me, and second, I he's terying to do the innocent guy by doing all this things. About the translation, could you tell me please which part you would like to translate? NorbertArthur 14 April 2006

My first encounter with you was a polite one on User talk:Romania (see [23] in fact, I was being extra special nice because I was trying to convince you of something, and I used something I rarely use: [IMHO]; but it didn't work because you assumed I don't know Romanian and I'm a foreigner; "so let me lie blatantly to this foreigner, and protect my comrade"...so transparent of you Norbert, so without character, no wonder I made a PA). My second encounter with you was on my talk page, where you lied to me, then I insulted you. I have not lied in this situation. Translate your crap if you want, I will have other Romanians check your translation if you modify it too much. Alexander 007 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge University

Hi SlimVirgin, FYI - I personally don't have much objection to having the line that goes something like "It is widely regarded that Cambridge University is one of the most respected... blahblah... in the world" in the lead section. I only reverted the recent addition because of the experience of the lengthy battle with User:Courier new over the neutrality of such statements that happened a few months ago or so. He was precisely attracted by such vague boosterish statements to launch a campaign regarding the neutrality of the entire article. In the end, it wasn't so much Courier New on his own that disrupted the page but also the several allies he actively recruited in his campaign who meddled around with the format and content of a page they otherwise may never have visited. You can see the discussion of all this on the talk page here. At some point someone noted that there are Wikipedia guidelines about university articles avoiding vague-sounding statements of boosterism. Anyway, the Reputation section of the current article contains a lot of good statements about the notability of the university which aren't of the vague boosterish kind. I just wanted to avoid another Courier New style episode again (he was motivated by one my arguments in the discussion to launch a campaign against the William Shakespeare page as well - see here and here - so then I had to go help defend that page]]. Anyway, just wanted to note my reasons here. thank you Bwithh 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding WP:CONTEXT and its talk page

May we remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance. (CJ) --Francis Schonken 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, there are two recent edit summaries by you on that page ([24] [25]), I meant both. Especially the second, you repeated a false accusation. Sorry, I didn't make WP:CONTEXT inconsistent with the MoS, as I showed here. I think you're very blunt sometimes. I said "rv SlimVirgin, was a return to inconsistency with the MoS; see also talk page" in my edit summary, instead of even taking the time to see whether I was right or wrong (you could have found that out by yourself too!) you just reverted, and repeated the accusation both in the edit summary, and without a shred of explanation on the talk page too ("Francis, you're deleting what the MoS says. Please leave it in" [26]). Sorry, that style of false accusations, however important you are as an sysop, just doesn't work. A sorry would have suffised. --Francis Schonken 07:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you still don't bother to read what I replied to you at Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Linking of dates?

And sorry, don't use "being dense" as an excuse for two consecutive reverts.

I'm awaiting your answer to what I wrote at Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Linking of dates. If you don't have any, you're just trying to delay, so I won't wait too long to revert. --Francis Schonken 07:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRmep

Please continue to keep an eye on this article regarding unsourced, unrelated, biased information. OTRS has received correspondence of considerable complaint from the organization. Thanks. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schmelz

I replied to your question on my own talk page. --Zero^talk 13:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander_007

Hi SlimVirgin,

I am trying to leave a couple of warnings on this user's talk page but it seems you have protected it. In the meantime, I created a subpage named User_talk:Alexander_007/Talk. Is there any chance you could move the comments or let the user know about this? I do not intent to star an edit war, but considering the mood already going on that article, the last thing we need is Alexander_007's flaming. Regards, --Asterion 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Is it OK to add the interwiki (see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michel Aoun

I would say that I am disappointed in such blatant Stalking behavior, but that is old news so I will limit myself to the following. If you are going to follow articles and Talk pages I contribute to, and revert me whole-sale, as you did in Michel Aoun, kindly do us the courtesy of participating in the Talk discussion that specifically deal with the POV disputes which you have suddenly championed in opposition to me.--AladdinSE 12:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your comments on RfA for CTSWyneken

Dear SlimVirgin, I read your remarks that accompanied your opposition to CTSWyneken for Administratorship, and I see that you are unwilling to let bygones be bygones. You showed your own bias by taking user:Doright's position without even considering the mean spirited things he was doing. CTSWyneken has access to resources that are a goldmine of information, and he is diligent to a fault to being fair and unbiased. His concerns about the copyright violation of those websites that posted copyrighted material are completely valid and protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement. Are you not concerned about protecting Wikipedia from such infringement? You sure do know how to hold a grudge. drboisclair 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cognition

Slim, just wondering if you have looked at Cognition's user page which includes attacks, conspiracy theories, and vulgar language about numerous people, albeit not wikipedia editors. Xtra 03:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that user pages are counted within Larouche 2? (Also if they are, you should remove the whole thing because many of the praises in the praise section are for junk about the American System, while others are praises for the individuals that unique or nearly unique to Larouche). JoshuaZ 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Cognition's userpage is a problem, I'm uncertain that LaRouche 2 can reasonably be taken as extending to userpages, which are not generally treated as "articles." I'd hate to use such a flimsy justification and have it blow up in our faces later.

That said, I think the remedies of the first LaRouche case, particularly the instruction that LaRouche supporters are "not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche" apply pretty clearly here. Phil Sandifer 07:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am stunned by the notion that we are now prohibiting someone from expressing political views on his own user page. It has always been understood that users are free to explain their personal views on their user pages. This is genuinely shocking. Everyking 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arb Com seems to be leaning in the clarification that user pages do count, I've removed a bit more of the positive but blatantly Larouchian stuff (such as various claims that certain people were involved in the American System that have nothing to do with it according to any non-Laroucian). Some of the remaining material is borderline and so I will leave it as is. Feel free to revert if you think I was in error. JoshuaZ 14:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vilifying Luther all over again

Once again, you show that you are unfairly biased toward User:Doright in his religious quest to vilify Dr. Martin Luther. I advise you to show restraint and impartiality. Are you aware of the fact that we have hammered this out painstakingly for the last 5 months? I have also seen the ridiculous proposal of naming William Shakespeare as an anti-semite. Why are you starting this up again? Our concern here is not to overly bash someone as User:Doright has been censured in doing. This is totally beyond the pale of NPOV. It is POV that overly vilifies a great man. drboisclair 23:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I retract this statement because it is non NPOV. I am sorry that I got carried away here. drboisclair 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No violation of the 3RR rule

No, Slim, I have not reverted three times in the Martin Luther article. In fact if you take it by days, my first reversion was on April 19th and my second reversion was on April 20th! I only counted 2 in two days. drboisclair 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have reverted three times. See your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but they were on two separate days. Doesn't that mean that they were not 3RRs on the same day? drboisclair 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not Pick Fights

Slim, I would appreciate it if you would not escalate this to a war. Why not try discussing things calmly, rather than acting in ways likely to raise tempers. You should also note that you have now reverted the page three times. This is the last I will say on this matter other than observe that I keep a 2RR rule, which I have reached for today. If I must, I will reach that limit every day to keep the page in comprimise. Convince me and other interested editors with reason, and this can change. But I will simply not put up with strong arm tactics and attempts to anger people you know have short fuses. --CTSWyneken 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your kind warning

Dear, Slim, Thank you for your kind advice. I will not revert anymore. I have only reverted twice which is permitted. I regret that this matter has once again been broached. Perhaps we could have a vote to end at a certain time since there is an impasse here. Cordially, drboisclair 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Judah haNasi vs. Judah haNasi

Hi SlimVirgin: Hope you had a good Yom Tov! Please see User talk:Judah haNasi#Problem with your Judah haNasi user name and add your comments. Thank you. IZAK 05:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Cannistraro

Why have you deleted half the bio? What are you talking about "unsource claims" every claim has a source and every footnote has the full quote right there for you to read. Cannistraro himself refused to enter into any mediation, thereby acknowledging that what I was writing was factually correct. I've been having a huge edit war with him and finally I win, and now suddenly you're attacking my claims too. Why? What have I done to deserve this? Ryan4^Talk 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primitive Yahwism

• I nominated this article for AfD. I chose not to use speedy because of the obvious sensitive nature of the topic, though I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. pm_shef 20:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Humus_sapiens

It's interesting how we have found essentially the same words at the same time [27][28]. I decided not to change anything in my vote despite the edit conflict. Let others think that I stole your thoughts and your words. Pecher ^Talk 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sarfatti

... you're welcome to e-mail me about them, using the link on my user page

Christ no, don't say that! Since March 28th, Sarfatti has flooded my personal inbox with no less than 178 e-mail messages, with content ranging from the abusive to the bat-shit insane. Ask Jimbo about that, whom Jack cc's on all of them. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mail for you, by the way

Thanks. I can't check it remotely, so it'll wait til I get home. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr/vandalism

Hi -- sorry, I'm not quite sure of the protocol (re Stubhub 3RR). Should I not revert in the future now I've opened this channel, or how does it go? Ben-w 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha -- thanks! Ben-w 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:EKN

They deleted the warning from their page which I restored, it seems there is possibly something suspicious going on [29], [30]. Arniep 01:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact they have deleted many other warnings [31], [32], [33]. Arniep 01:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit shows their intentions [34]. With the amount of warnings they have had surely it should be a perma block (the message from the "friend" suggests they are both banned users). Arniep 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[35], [36], [37], [38]. Arniep 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim this guy is a blatant vandal/troll who is obviously intent on causing mischief, see the latest message on his talk User_talk:EKN#Excuse_me.3F and just about every other of their edits

[39] [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Arniep 17:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken this to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:EKN. Arniep 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubhub

Hi-- (re Stubhub 3RR). Ben-w has violated the 3RR.

[edit] Ok

Ok, I won’t sockpuppet anymore, but why can’t I delete the warning? It doesn’t look really nice to people who view my talk page. EKN 02:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

• I sockpuppeted on the nic “MansaMusa.” I used it to vote on a candidate feature picture. I’m sorry, and I promise that won’t happen anymore. EKN 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

• • No that’s the only one. Is there any way I can transfer I my logos and comments on my talk page to a new user and have this one canceled? I don’t particularly like the name “EKN.”EKN 02:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

[edit] A little help needed

I don't think this is good, really [45] but don't know who it is for block criteria.--Dakota ~ 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing an encyclopedia

Do you have any idea how we should cite an encyclopedia article which is signed by its author? We have {{Citeencyclopedia}} template, but it assumes that the article is unsigned. My Keys for Writers by Ann Raimes is also silent on that matter. Many thanks, Pecher ^Talk 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How would you then write a note without giving the full citation: Doe (2006)? Pecher ^Talk 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have several articles from the same encyclopedia among which you must distinguish by naming the articles in question, how would you do it: Encyclopedia Britannica, "Israel" (2006)? Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I knew that only you could help me out :)) Pecher ^Talk 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas

Just what is going on here? I have explained on the talk page why the version you wish to revert to is incorrect, and all you do is keep blindly reverting without explanation (well, this time I see you have added some unhelpful remakrs which do not address any of the substantive points). Is this some kind of personal thing? Palmiro | Talk 23:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you mean?

Grace Note says that original Research policies are violated everywhere when someone is added to an ethnicity list who is not described as exactly that (i.e. "Greek" or "Greek Americans". Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then you're engaging in Original Research by making that decision on the Jewish lists. Your whole argument is supposed to be that we are claiming something that reliable sources don't, i.e. that a person is Irish-Ameican, Jewish, Greek-American, etc. by placing them on a list. This is either true for all the lists or it isn't true at all. You can't just say that originaly research can apply to one group in particular. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's clear to you that if it's a violation of policy on the Jewish lists, it is so everywhere else. My main problem with all of this has been, as you may or may not know, that special, restrictive standards are applied to the Jewish lists that are not applied anywhere else. Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it's not a policy violation? Isn't that what you've been saying from the get-ago? That's certainly what Grace Note says, that putting people on lists of "foos" - without them being described as "foos" - is a violation of Original Research. I thought that was your whole point. I'm checking my e-mail. Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you sent me an e-mail, did you do it through the mikell222 address? Because I haven't gotten anything there. Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it must be slow then. Is the e-mail all about convincing me to drop the subject completely or something like that? Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Three times? Are you sure? I really haven't gotten anything. Are you sure you're e-mailing mikell222@hotmail.com? Mad Jack O'Lantern 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just created a new e-mail address, madjacke@hotmail.com . Maybe that would help? Though I really have no idea why the other one isn't receiving your messages, it's certainly received other messages through the past couple of hours. Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got it over at the original address. Not sure what could be wrong with the preferences... Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZS

Hi Slim, can you ban Zephram's latest sockpuppet Postponed Longhorn (talk · contribs). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I noticed you unblocked User:Pole star? Was he not Zephram? I think Jayjg said he was [46]. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to let you know. Better double-check with Jayjg. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infidel

Pecher has blanket reverted my additions to Infidel complaining that they were "illiterate and unsourced edits"[47]. However, while they were well sourced via the external links (Maybe should be renamed External references) he may have a point in relation to my gramma' and diction, so, was wondering if you could improve on it please?!--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

I don't understand your point. You were the one who had not particpated in the talk page discussion. I had participated in it at length. Palmiro | Talk 11:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, if you so wish. As I didn't know whether you had the article watchlisted, it seemed more sensible to post here. Palmiro | Talk 11:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)