User talk:SlimVirgin/archive29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Move

I suppose that discussion is in the archive, it is not on the talk page. There is a note from someone who did the same thing as me though, at On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)#Title. Maybe there should be a comment there, with link to the prior discussion. // Habj 13:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: batting averages

I respectfully disagree. I know of a user who (as of last week or so when the tool server stopped updating) has made 891 edits to the same article, but somehow only averages 2.20 edits per page overall. Incredible, I know, but this user (you may know whom I'm talking about, so I don't have to mention his name) obviously does enough other work here to offset his apparent obsession. Also, he very rarely uses his admin tools at all, and never in matters where he's personally involved. For what it's worth, my edits/page is 1.39, so I guess I'm sort of useless. Will we be able to say that much for the present candidate in a few months? If I was more confident in that, I might support. Knowing the details of the 3RR block would also be helpful. — Apr. 20, '06 [16:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Thank you for your prompt reply. And thank you for the links regarding the incident. Here's some links for you as well [1][2]. Feel free to remove them at your discretion. I'll take a look at the 3RR thing. — Apr. 20, '06 [16:48] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Dershowitz

Please stop removing material from Alan Dershowitz. - Xed 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

stop your thuggery. - Xed 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What was that all about [3] ? Jkelly 17:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I owe an apology

Slim Virgin, I owe you an apology, and with this post I am offering one to you. I am glad that we have administrators as well versed in WP policies as you are. I want to be constructive, not destructive. I will try to be more helpful to Wikipedia. Drboisclair 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP using talk pages as soap box

Hi Slim,

Anon IP 195.70.32.136 (talk · contribs) has had a history of making inflammatory comments in talk pages (out of the last 50 contributions, only 2 have been to non-talk pages). Several users have commented on this on the IP's talk page, but the anon hasn't got into too much trouble as (s)he only comments once in any given page. It seems like the anon knows a bit about the rules, as POV is expressed in talk rather than main articles. Is a user-conduct RFC a good idea, or could it make things worse? Thanks, Andjam 12:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PTMccain

Since this is a new user, I suggest you try talking to him, rather than threatening him. Also, since this is on a page you are editing, I want it on record that you have a conflict of interest as far as admin duties go. If you do not like what he is doing, call in another admin. --CTSWyneken 13:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, and here's an interesting thought. I was reading a certain person's user page and notice that she lists these two principles first as how to behave on Wikipedia. Maybe you ought to listen to this advice from a certain person I think you know:

  1. Be nice. Praise people when you see things being done well. Write personal notes to people on their talk pages saying what a good edit such-and-such was. You can make someone's day with some positive feedback.
  2. Don't engage in unnecessary personal criticism or personal attacks. At the same time, let people know that you're able and willing to stand up for yourself and your edits, but not to the point of being obnoxious. -PTmccain

[edit] Lumiere RfC

May I ask why you reverted MonkeySage's removal of Askolnick's comment? It seems close enough to a personal attack to merit removal. JoshuaZ

[edit] from the wolfstar

Hey SlimVirgin, an editor, Merecat, recommended you to me as a leader and good wikicitizen. I just visited your page. You have a quote from a Rumi poem on top of your page. Just wanted to say thanks for that. Rumi is my favorite poet and the quote is from my favorite Rumi poem. May God keep you in Wikipedia! best regards from Maggiethewolfstar 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to add that I read much of what you say on your user page. I fully support your stance and your courage against an endeless tirade of opinionated articles on Wikipedia, and the ugly tactical manuevering done by not only single editors, but by large bands of them. Maggiethewolfstar 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution to Michel Aoun article

Dear SlimVirgin,

I just wanted to praise the efforts that you are deploying to develop the Michel Aoun article in a professional manner.

I appreciate your contribution, and all the enhancements that you have introduced.

Regards, Seli(m)

[edit] The quote

"Beyond ideas of right and wrong, there is a field. I'll meet you there. — Rumi"

Thats very beautiful. Do you know the Persian wording of it by any chance? Thanks -- - K a s h Talk | email 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of sources of information

Hello, I notice you have edited for some while and involved yourself in discussion at WP:RS. An issue has been present for some while in the articles I'm editing in and I wish to ask a disinterested third party. Is xenu which can also be accessed as clambake a personal website? At the bottom of its first page it states its disclaimer. If it is a personal website, does it fall under the guideline which WP:RS means to address when stating, "Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources"? Thank you for your attention this difficult area. I understand your response, if you make one, to be your personal opinion and not the WORD or anything extreme like that. Terryeo 00:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While I can only speak for myself, I thank you for your continued good work. I viewed the recent history of WP:RS since making the request. Terryeo 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation databases and source quality

I was thinking of appealing to citations in Romila Thapar, where people keep making claims about the book Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud providing "documented proofs" of various things. The merits of that particular case aside, how does one distinguish scholarly work from (say) political tracts? -- Danny Yee 07:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your editing of Wikipedia:Reliable sources

SlimVirgin, I object to the specific policy-like wording you have used in the forementioned article. As it is a Guideline and not Policy, it should be devoid of "never" "must never" "must not" etc. There is no pat policy that does justice to the veracity of personal websites. They need to be evaluated individually. I intend to ensure the wording remains in the spirit of a guideline article and not anything that could be construed as a policy. Fahrenheit451 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experienced admin needed

I think some of the more experienced admins should take a look at this weird threat posted to another veteran user. [4] I also informed Snowpinner. Regards. 172 | Talk 01:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. The matter has been taken care of. [5] Best regards. 172 | Talk 03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Carol Kaye and Carol Kaye

Hi Slim. Can you tell me why you reverted just now my reversion of vandalism to one of my posts there. A vandal has been changing the talk page and the article page for the past few days now. Im just trying to keep things as they were--Light current 01:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I see whats happened. But the vandal has been altering the talk page also. What can be done there?--Light current 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is linking unknown words defined as editing?--Light current 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK It would have been nice if youd linked these terms then!--Light current 04:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel (Mega Man)

Hi Slim. Could you take a gander at this article's talkpage...? I'd would like to gain a concensus on this dispute prior to unprotection, and the trolling of this user is quite unconstructive. -ZeroTalk 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

"We need to introduce a culture of respect for each other's admin actions, and when we disagree with something, try to argue and persuade, instead of rushing in to undo."

I recall that I have tried this with you about a number of different issues, and not had the slightest bit of success with it. It's a tactic that gives you a huge inherent advantage. If you choose to not concede, you automatically win. If you choose to not respond, you automatically win. All the burden is on the opponent of the action to persuade you; if you are not going to be reasonable, then the opponent of the action automatically loses. How do you think you'd feel if you were on the other side: if you were trying to persuade me of something, and I chose not to concede, thus putting you in an impossible position where I have all the power? If you think it through, it doesn't make very much sense. Much more sensible is the idea of discussing controversial actions before they are done, and if they are done without a preexisting consensus, giving one admin as much right to undo it as the other admin had to do it. Our problem is that we give too much power to the individual admin; I shudder to think what would happen if we gave them even more power. Everyking 11:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never undone an admin action of yours, James, with or without discussion, but you have undone mine without discussion. Try to bear facts in mind, as awkward as they are. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of any examples of me undoing any admin action of yours, except for that business about protecting that user's talk page so he couldn't defend himself. But what's that got to do with anything? It doesn't seem like an actual response to anything I said. Everyking 12:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You quote me as saying "when we disagree with something, try to argue and persuade, instead of rushing in to undo." That is precisely what I do. I very rarely undo another admin's action, even with discussion. I know that you do, or certainly used to. As for your attempts to persuade others, the reason you're often unsuccessful is that you comment on issues without knowing anything about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Clambake and "personal websites" controversy

Hi Slim Virgin, I'm posting this to you here because things are frenzied to the point of unreadability on the Reliable Sources talk area. Firstly, Regarding xenu.net, you commented: "On the issue of the website itself, it clearly is a personal website. The author uses the first personal singular throughout and says that he pays all the website costs himself." This isn't exactly true. Mr. Heldal-Lund, the site's webmaster, does not use first person singular throughout, only on that small percentage of the site that are comments from himself. The vast majority of the site consists of material from other sources and contributors. Secondly, although Fahrenheit451 may be a hothead, his essential point is correct: the idea that an investigative website can't be used as sources if they're "run by one man" is preposterous. "One man" ultimately runs everything. Les Moonves runs CBS, so is CBS News ineligible as a source? Books are permitted as sources, yet doesn't "one man" write a book, more often than not? If Mr. Heidal-Lund were to present his website as an e-book rather than an investigative website, would it suddenly magically pass muster? In the final analysis, the information is out there, and the information is crucial to literally dozens of Wikipedia articles (one of which was a Featured Article). It really seems detrimental to Wikipedia to treat xenu.net as one would a blog or other "personal website" over such a technicality that goes against the spirit of the guideline. (And it IS only a guideline.) wikipediatrix 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Just thought I'd quote something for you

Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place. Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. Jbolden1517 06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did my best...

I hope it was of some help. I left a big list of links to help the newer wikipedian out. Peace, Kukini 06:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I was hoping to help him/her understand that the edit war was based on a desire to maintain a great encyclopedia. I think that is the intention on both parts. Keep up the great work! Kukini 06:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

The sockpuppet coming for the Cuba article you mentioned... it isn't supposed to be me, is it? If it is, thats okay! Common mistake it seems! I've been editing wikipedia anonymously for a while now, ran into you back when you were standing up for user:sansvoix--I should take lessons from you! Mystork 08:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sekret Kabal message - use decoder ring setting 7

Sparrow to Eagle - the chicken is in the pot. Raul654 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember to use the paprika. --maru (talk) contribs 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Gobble gobble. Serve with gravy. And don't forget the sekret cranberry sauce that everyone always forgets. JusticeGuy 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Regarding your comment on Talk:Anarchism that "the geocities site" isn't reliable; that document is An Anarchist FAQ which is a widely-acclaimed document on anarchism. It isn't a personal site, but a resource maintained and edited by many notable anarchists. That people can add things to it is because the editors want the document to be as wide as possible; this is explained in its introduction. -- infinity0 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, it wasn't on Talk:Anarchism, but RJII just c+p'd it there. -- infinity0 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judenhass

You beat me to exactly that point; I was reminding myself how to make umlauts on my Mac so I could write the word Jüdenhass in response... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's all your fault!

Dear Slim, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slippage

I fear that the line between clerk busywork/vanilla user/junior arbom is being blurred, and would appreciate your comments here.
brenneman{L} 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

I have started a discussion about the external links for individuals on PETA's talk page. PLease care to comment. Thank you. Joelito 04:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Lists

Hello. I just added a question over at the Villiage Pump related to ethnic lists. It seems that you are quite knowledgeable and reasonable about this subject. I am more concerned with "standard" biographical format when it comes to ethnicity if their is such a thing. This came to my attention awhile back when a feature article was about a famous Polish born Physist of Jewish decent. After some discussion, the man's "decent" was moved to maybe the 3rd line of the article. Should the term Jewish-American be used in biographies of American BORN people? Thanks for your thoughts!Backroomlaptop 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A cookie for you

A WikiCookie
For your marvelous articulate assistance recently at that article which will remain unnamed that you brought up to standard... --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi SlimVirgin!

I know that you have been often been quite critical of unblocking users without prior discussion with the blocking admin, something I can understand although I can think of several exceptions (e.g. Grutness' unblockings of his shared IP here). I'm just wondering, in the case of a block made by an admin wo has been in previous conflict with the blockee, do you think there is an other exception? I am thinking about Dmcdevit's unblocking of Aaron. (And for the record, I think your lifting of the autoblocker was entirely justified). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply on JPGordon

I have replied in kind. --CTSWyneken 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have your will of me

I quote St. Thomas More via Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons to Cromwell and the court trying him, "You have your will of me." Drboisclair 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] So what do you want to do?

I'm at a loss. I

  • surrendered once I knew who you were
  • pulled my complaint
  • left a clean slate for the next person with comments about how to follow up.

But then you end up putting the old debate back. OK lets start over. What do you want to have happen with this article? Jbolden1517 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (regarding Talk:Michael_Neumann restore)

[edit] Clambake.org

Myself, I am fully in agreement with what I have seen you state at WP:RS and some other experienced editors are fully in agreement with you about that site as well, I observe. However, because it was I who brought this subject up, and because it is pretty clear the arbitration committee is making a ruling on it a my arbitration, I present you with that information. I do not wish to encourage a fruitful wikipedic memeber from coming into conflict with other wikipedic groups. In short, they are voting that Clambake.org be used as a secondary source in Wikipedia articles. This of course means that Chris Owen (140 + personal articles + on Clambake.org) may, under Wikipedic user name, quote and cite his own, created words. It is beyond me SimVirgin, I haven't seen a word you typed that I was in disagreement with. Nice page, too ! Terryeo 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for blocking "Neztielz", Slimvirgin. And for protecting the Cuba page, which needed to be done to help consensus. Hopefully everyone'll be able to work it out and move on sooner rather than later! (hopefully!) --Zleitzen 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas

Hi Slim :) Why did you remove 'militant' from the intro? I think the absence of 'terrorist' is quite strange, not to mention 'militant' which it most obviously is. If Irgun's introduction says "militant Zionist group", as well as "British authorities and mainstream Jewish organizations as a terrorist organization" (and they were infinitely more humane than Hamas), I see no reason on this Green Earth why Hamas, which targets civilians almost exclusively, should not be labeled in the same language, at the least. Regards -Sangil 01:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish American

Hi SlimVirgin. Do you feel that the term "Jewish-American" is appropriate for biographies? I saw this discussed by another user and was curious about your thoughts. It seems that 95% of the bios say American and then discuss ethnicity further into the article rather than "labeling" the individual as Jewish. Thanks.Backroomlaptop 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I invite you cordially to participate in the Band Baja Do event on my talk page. Please come there and enlighten and enliven the show. Thanks. --Bhadani 08:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#BAND_BAJO_DO --Bhadani 08:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article Suicide attack rev

Would you kindly show reason why last edits were reverted, thank you.--83.244.76.201 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

in reply to:

I reverted because it doesn't say anything not already stated or implied, and it contains spelling errors. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
sorry for the spelling errors, im not a native english speaker, regarding that "it doesn't say anything not already stated or implied", my edit was trying to show that "causing innocent lives to perish" is not implicit, or please define innocent, in my humble poeint of view, solders in combat are not considered innocent. --83.244.76.201 13:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
PS. please note that the article is about suicide attack and not terrorist suiside attack.--83.244.76.201 13:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubhub, again

He's back. Any suggestions on what to do? Ben-w 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Icke Article

Why did you revert my edit:

Last but not least it is important to take note of the fact that David Icke strongly emphasizes extending unconditional love to all people on this planet without giving regard to race, gender, nationality or religious affiliation. In fact, even though Icke fingers a faction of an advanced reptilian species as agents of control and manipulation to the detriment of humanity, Icke advocates extending love and forgiveness even to the reptilian entities thought to be responsible for human plight. A consistent love that completely disregards not only categories such as race but also extends across to a presumed, alien species can only be regarded as completely incompatible with the common perception of a racist, Neonazi or antisemite he is pointed out to be by individuals and interest factions. 84.160.247.104 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm expecting you to take up discussion of this matter within a reasonable amount of time. If I don't hear from you in 24 hours from now I'm going to assume your revert is unfounded and I will repost the information to the article. Should you consistently choose not to discuss this matter with me as can be reasonable expected, or consistently hinder me from making this factual addition to the article without good reason, then I will escalate this matter through Wikipedia's arbitration processes.

Regards 84.160.247.104 03:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of issue taken up by User:SlimVirgin on David Icke Talkpage 84.160.247.104 04:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.0

Feedback please. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WW I

Thanks for semiprotecting World War I. I think it will be helpful. I had considered asking for sprotection myself, but it wasn't clear to me if the level of vandalism on that article was normal or not. Ragout 04:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning Revert

A small while ago, my edits to the Animal testing article were reverted. According to [6], I made valid improvements to the article. For example; In the article on Supply and demand, you should:

  • almost certainly link microeconomic theory and general equilibrium—these are technical terms that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight;
  • consider linking price and goods, which, although common words, have technical dimensions that are relevant to the article and that link to explanations that are specifically in relation to supply and demand;
  • probably not link to the United States because that is a very large article with no particular connection to supply and demand. On the other hand, if there were a relevant discussion in the sub-section on Economy of the United States, it may be appropriate to make a piped section-link using the format [[article#section|section]]. (When you name a piped link, think about what the reader will believe the link is about; in this example, the piped section-link should not be named "United States", because the reader will think that link goes to the general article United States.)
  • definitely not link potato, because it is a common term with no particular relationship to the article on Supply and demand, beyond its currently arbitrary use as an example of traded goods in that article.

I suggest that United States is to Supply and demand as United States is to Animal Testing. The same goes for all the other countries and dates as well as commonly known animals such as mice. I think the clutter that cross-referencing links cause needs to be offset against their usefulness. Besides, all those useless links are in contravention to policy? --Username132 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If i may offer a justification for SV's actions; i think there are very strong arguments for linking the words experiment, pain, animal and human in the context they were linked in animal testing. Understanding the precise definition of those words in this context is important for comprehending the concepts behind testing. For example, the difference between pain perception and nociception is fundamental in the rationale behind testing on 'lower animals' and embryos. I don't have strong feelings about the linking of countries or specific experimental animals and can see both side of that particular argument. Without speaking for SV, there is warning on the top of the page that wholesale reverts are likely to occur - with it being such a controversial article - and that editors should discuss such changes on the talk page first. I would suggest you put forward you proposals there and, at least some of them, may be reinstated. Best. Rockpocket (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hi,

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#BAND_BAJO_DO

    • Kindly note: In view of the mental stress under which one of the invitees is presumed to be under, I have decided to indefinitely postpone the event named Band Baja Do. Thank you!
    • The next event to be organized shall be “Adhajal Gagari Chalakat Jaye”” (a proverb of Hindustan, meaning that the half-filled pot spills more fluid) that is, Empty vessel sounds much!! [7]. The time and venue shall be notified in due course. Thank you.

Regards. --Bhadani 13:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Much appreciated

Hello SlimVirgin. Thank you for showing me where I needed to look. Your help is much appreciated. --Nikitchenko 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy guidelines for biographies of living public figures

First, thanks for giving a reason for your revert at Natalie Merchant, which is more than any previous editor did. That said, there's no mention at WP:BLP of ignoring marital status, especially when the public figure has publicized the marriage in a source. Please discuss at Talk:Natalie Merchant. Thanks! --Jeffrey Henning 19:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations and article stuffing by User:Dhwani1989

Please help. This user appears to be a sock or political operative. A review of Dhwani1989's edits makes clear a pattern of CopyVio issues. See User:Dhwani1989 talk page history - deleting warnings left and right. What can be done? Merecat 20:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU!


Thank you for your patience in my situation regarding the Cuba article! I'm sure it all gets very tiring! I am sure our next encounters will be in much better circumstances.
Keep up the good work, Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk 21:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check your email

Hello SV : ) Could you check your email and follow up for me? If you have any questions I will be around. FloNight talk 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Robin Hood 7000

I believe this blocked user has re-registered as User:Robin Hood 1212. —Aiden 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

[edit] I undid your block

Hiya, Slim. I undid your block of 70.189.120.44 and imposed a block of a month instead. The IP has been blocked for that long before, apparently without any collateral damage. Please ponder my unblock reason: "Don't be silly, SlimVirgin". ;-) Hey, I see you have the rotating tulip! (Refer to my userpage to see what it originally, and too daintily, represents, and the more realistic alternative.) Bishonen | talk 08:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

"Too daintily?" Harrumph. Geogre 10:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do think the blinking Bishzilla represents me more faithfully. Happy 30,000 jubilee, Slim!! And get a load of the extension to 2050 that hit your gentleman caller four minutes later, heh heh. Freakofnurture is apparently more sure of the static IP business than I was. :-) Bishonen | talk 10:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC).
By the looks of it, he'll be back on January 1, 2051 with the same message. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I protest. This block is entirely too long. It should expire in 2041. -Will Beback 11:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Vrba

Could you please explain why there have to be two identical pages on Rudolf Vrba ? Travelbird 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

Hi Slim. I am having a problem over at Media Matters for America, and I was wondering if you could have a look at it and inject some perspective.

Stanley011 (talk · contribs) added the following (the portion lower down the page). The non-neutral language aside, it looked to me like original research, and I added a {{fact}} which he has repeatedly removed.

In essence, the addition says that MMFA isn't holding true to their mission statement when they post Olbermann's criticisms of O'Reilly, and the like, and believes that links to a few of these posts counts as support for his assertion. I have, with no success, asked him to provide his source for the information, but all he has done is add more links to MMFA posts.

IMO, this isn't enough to support the assertion. To begin with, it's OR, since he appears to have come to his conclusion that they are not true to their mission statement by looking at the clips they post. While the OR problem associated with posting a non-controvertial synopsis of a TV episode or movie is trivial, I believe this is a bigger problem because it requires analysis (analysis of their posting history in the context of their mission statement) and it asserts a notability based on a handful of anecdotes. This should be left to an external source, not done by an editor (especially one who doesn't realise that calling things "rants" isn't exactly using neutral language).

Our converation on the matter is here and here (I believe that everything of importance is crossposted to both talk pages). Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Guettarda 15:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A token of my respect

SlimVirgin whom I had always endeavored to emulate, is the ideal Wikipedian beyond any iota of doubt. I present her the Upholder of Wiki award as a mark of my respect to her and her contributions to building the sum total of human knowledge. --Bhadani 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin whom I had always endeavored to emulate, is the ideal Wikipedian beyond any iota of doubt. I present her the Upholder of Wiki award as a mark of my respect to her and her contributions to building the sum total of human knowledge. --Bhadani 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes SV, this is as a mark of my respect to you, and on account of your work here - absolute respect! I know you are a self-motivated lady, and do not require any present or award to continue your work here. But, you will have to accept this, as this is a token of my respect to you and your contributions in building the Project, Better than the Best. I joined wikipedia on 24th March 2004 as Bhadani and had registered for fun as Mahuri and Bhadani@bhadani.com, and on 23rd March 2005, you had become an administrator to administer me. Image:Tongue.png Regards. --Bhadani 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation is too big perhaps, but smaller than your contributions to the Project. --Bhadani 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passover and Christianity

Hi SlimVirgin, I hope you had a great Pesach!: Please see the new discussions, and add your views, at Talk:Passover#Passover in the Christian tradition, again. Thank you. IZAK 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EK

Could you look at Cognition's talk page? It seems to me like EK just injected himself into a situation I was involved in. Phil Sandifer 06:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This has all already been worked out and determined by other situations: the existence of a comment on the situation does not prohibit me from commenting as well; a reply to said comment, or response to an actual action, would be prohibited. Otherwise the implications are clear: I would be barred from participation in a vast number of issues simply because of the existence of one other unrelated comment in the discussion's history. (And it was ridiculously difficult for me to figure out how to word that while staying within the lines; you should not be putting me in these situations where I have to be so careful.) And no, I'm not going to be grateful for what you're presenting as a mercy. The ruling and all established precedent is on my side here. Everyking 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you want me to not respond to you? I assumed you expected me to respond. And no, I don't have any more "excuses"; I already explained the situation to you as well as I can. So I'm happy to forget either of us said anything and go back to what I was doing, if that's all right. Everyking 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You reverted my reply? Everyking 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what to say. Nothing I have said or done corresponds to your accusations and threats. Are you even aware of who actually did the initial admin action? Everyking 05:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for other admins looking at this situation, the problem is with Everyking offering to remove a block immediately after I, in my capacity as an admin, declined a request to remove it and took down the notice asking admins to look at it. This constitutes a reversal of my upholding of the block. Phil Sandifer 06:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your comments wanted

Please go here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) right aways and add your input. Merecat 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Brian02139

He is clearly not going to stop what he's doing until he is compelled to stop. Ben-w 16:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Since you seem to do a fair amount of protection work, may I recommend (if I have not already done so) this. It avoids a lot of the wasteful time spent on manual "paperwork".Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

heh...go to this link[8] and copy the lines between the --- marks into your monobook. Then press cntrl-F5. After that, new tabs will appear for pages in edit mode, like (fp)--fully protect.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Two different versions of the sam func. where running with the same name. Press cntrl-F5 and try it now (hope its fixed).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Myciconia

This user is likely a sockpuppet of Mystork. Interestingly enough, he/she has already made friends with Cognition. [9] 172 | Talk 09:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No Original Research"

Dear SlimVirgin:

I appreciate your kind response to my commentary on this article. You wrote: "Also, please sign your posts on talk pages". Gee, I was in the process of re-editing my post to add a signature and got an "edit conflict" - you were just too fast for me!! Hee, Hee!! Being a Wikipedian apparently includes the ability to type/edit really quick!! About my question, it could be summarized as: "To create or to take from others - which way to choose?". But thanks to your answer, as well as others', it's getting more clear now.

Thanks again! (and I might add: you've sure got a nice personal webpage!)

AVM 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User CBD

(posted here since page was archived while saving)If an admin said "you should probably get consensus before adding that kind of change to policy instead of just revert warring, since it is fairly substancial and seems to be disputed" and protected later, I highly doubt anyone would accuse the admin of any wrongdoing. If "expressing opinions" is taken literally, then, yes it is a violation. This is what I was getting at when saying "formally". For example, people can revert very blatant POV (i.e. "he is responsable for the horrific slaughter in croatia") more than 3 times and be fine, since, it is just WP:IAR and common sense that it is OK, even though only "self-reverts, correction of simple vandalism, and removing posts made by a banned or blocked user" are technically allowed. If you want to be completely strict on the syntax here, then you'll likely end up with problems elsewhere. This was a borderline case, I'll admit, but I would rather not be heavy handed with technicallities for good contributors that have done nothing to prove bad faith.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

For your note and welcome... the thesis isn't going to be particularly amazing — really I was mentally done with school almost 18 months ago — but it has been interesting to research. If it feels not too terribly embarassing when it's done I'll send you a copy.

Take care, Zach 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Templates

You've just protected two templates that we reached an agreement about a few minutes ago, so one of us needs to make an edit to add the agreed text to the pages. Please let me know if you have a problem with that; if not, I'll go ahead, or you may prefer to do it yourself. The agreed text of the third sentence (the one that was in dispute) is: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." See Template talk:Policy#Suggestions. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem at all, I protected them because of WP:HRT and the general high visibility rule, I was surprised they weren't protected already. --bainer (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of 3RR issue

In reference to, "I had agreed not to comment any more, but for the record, there have been no 3RR violations and no violations of any other policy, and this bad mouthing has to stop."

While I have no wish to continue this I'm going to AGF that you believe what you are saying to be true and therefor refer you to WP:3RR. Specifically, "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word."

You removed the words, "but let's centralize the discussion at Template talk:Policy", four times ([10], [11], [12], [13]) in under an hour. I was not attempting to 'falsely accuse' you. To me it seems absolutely clear that you did violate 3RR and your denial of that seemed (in the context of other policy interpretations with which I did not at all agree) like the worst sort of 'wiki-lawyering'. Presumably you were instead just unaware of that aspect of the policy or somehow interpret it differently so I apologize for harping on the issue when I thought you were being dishonest about it. --CBDunkerson 11:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the positive feedback

I appreciate your comments on my work on Dawson's Field hijackings; I'd also love additional contribs to the article if you're inclined. Best, Kaisershatner 11:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Myatt and citation templates

It's not so bad after you've converted a couple hundred references; :-) I think I've gotten the hang of it now. As regards templates, I believe the idea was to create a semi-standardised system of referencing different sources, though there's a large number of citation templates (See Category:Citation templates), and several of them are in different styles (eg. {{Harvard reference}} does books, journals, etc, while there is also {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}, specifically for books/journals). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Carl Kenner

Hi,

Since election in Cuba has been locked. Could you unblock Carl Kenner so that he could at least discuss things at the talk page? I am an wikipedia administrator too and I found locking an article at the same time with blocking editor is redundant over-protection, as well as non constructive.

Regards, 193.52.24.125 12:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new opinion poll

Hi. You took previously part in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy. There is a new quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated! See

By the way, the "list of fascists" i wrote about, has been today completed by five other names, see [14], Thx, -jkb- 13:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block on User:Bonnieisrael

I am unblocking User:Bonnieisrael; she wrote Jimbo insisting that she is not a {sock|meat}puppet, and he passed it along to OTRS in ticket #2006050410010238. I've advised her to steer clear of the whole Israelbeach/Woggly bit and work elsewhere for the time being, but you're welcome to keep an eye on her anyway. - jredmond 15:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your help!--Irishpunktom\talk 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On snafus, typos and misspellings

Hi! This 'tough named term' may need a 'speedy delete', though I'm tempted to just not say anything to anyone! Plz see This and the history which may amuse you. Oh, how many ways to waste time there art! ... If you deem keeping it a 'bad idea', take this as a self-nom for speedy-delete. Thanks FrankB 17:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women

Hi, nice Mandelbrot image. It draws me in, like an especially colorful and resplendent mountain lake.

I just created the stub article Women in religion. Do you have any ideas where to take this? --Uncle Ed 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

The arbitration committee has amended this case to add a new remedy. Herschelkrustofsky is now banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

I hope you won't infer from my post to AN/I that I approve of the behavior of Mccready; I was altogether unaware of the history betwixt him and you (and him and sundry other editors) and wrote only apropos of the animal rights page, where one would ascribe the appellative "unfair" to his treatment were one ignorant, as I, of the underlying situation. Having seen that you were interlocutor on the talk page, I assumed that his claims as to personal attacks and the like from you were unfounded (inasmuch as I know you to be an excellent and decorous contributor, notwithstanding your ostensible preference for dogs, even as cats are most obviously superior), but I thought I ought to note for him in any case that the specific edit of which he wrote was, I thought, fine, and to encourage that he take his case to the article's talk page rather than to AN/I. I write only lest you should conclude that, in failing to address his concerns as to the equitability and form of his treatment, I added my imprimatur to his adductions; to the contrary, hoping to turn the user's ire toward positive work, I sought instead to avoid impugning his general allegations and, instead, to offer the suggestion that his content was good. Even a user who acts untowardly is sometimes correct in his editing, but I have no reason to doubt your factual summary; one hopes that, inasmuch as Mccready is a relatively new user who appears to have made a few good contributions, his work here might be turned around and that he might become a valuable editor. Cordially, Joe 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Aldgatetubemap.gif

Howdy! I've recently listed an image you uploaded, Image:Aldgatetubemap.gif, as a Possibly unfree image. The reason I did this was that the site you listed as a source reserves all rights to any images it has created, and has not (to my knowledge) released any of them under Crown Copyright, as you claim. Please note that my nomination was not meant as a personal attack upon yourself or anyone interested in the topic described by the image. If you disagree with my decision, or can provide an alternative acceptable source for the image, feel free to leave a comment at its entry under May 5. If you'd prefer me to do background research on the image myself, or have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page. Happy editing! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's the London Underground. However, as you can see from Template_talk:CrownCopyright, there is a very limited number of sources that provide acceptable terms under crown copyright for use by Wikipedia. In addition, the image isn't actually used in any article, else I'd have just slapped on a rubberstamp fair use rationale and moved on. Crown copyright absolutely demands a source to be applicable, and the one you listed doesn't release its images under such a license. If you can find an identical image from a source listed in the linked talk page, or even add the image to an apporpriate page, I'd heartily drop the dispute. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-hating Jew

Put a complaint on the 3RR page. As I did not add Herzl to the list no other editor will endorse your position. Homey 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quickly doing a partial undeletion

Slim, I was just about to delete something when I saw that you had. Do you know that there's a quick way of checking the thousands of boxes so that you can just uncheck the two or three that you don't want to restore? I discovered it only yesterday, having spent hours at the Easter weekend resortoring pages, at least one of which had thousands of versions. You can see it here. It just takes five seconds. I'm not sure if it would be wise for me to jump in and restore something that you may be in the middle of restoring, but if you see this in the meantime, let me know. Otherwise, it may be useful to know for another occasion. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! It's incredibly quick and easy — it makes me groan to think I didn't know about it when I was doing the Christianity talk page a few weeks ago! AnnH ♫ 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had given the proper link, but now I see that I had only linked to the noticeboard, not the section. I've corrected it now. Basically, it's the information that you get when you go to your watchlist, then to "display and edit the complete list", then to a link on how to check all boxes. I wasn't sure at first how to create a "favourite" without being on an actual website and adding it to my favourites. But eventually, I added a website that had nothing to do with anything to my favourites, and gave it the false name "Check all boxes", and then went to my favourites menu, right-clicked the link, went to "properties", and pasted the code in instead of the existing address. It just took me a few seconds to restore the remaining 12,000 versions. AnnH ♫ 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what a monobook is, and the reason I've never installed any of the code thingies that I read about on Wikipedia pages is that they sound so complicated. I just, as I said, added a website to my "Favourites", giving it the name "Check all boxes". Then I edited the address location for that particular link in my favourites menu. It's odd, because it's not a web address, and when I'm at the "undelete this page" place, and scroll down to that link in my "favourites", I don't get taken to another website, and the URL in the address bar doesn't change. I just see that two seconds later, all the boxes are checked, and then I uncheck the few that I don't want. I thought it would be really complcated, but in fact, it's incredibly simple! AnnH ♫ 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I was just spying on you ;-) to see if you were still online after I sent my last message, and I saw your post to Voice of All. I think the one I was thinking of isn't the same. The one I'm using is this one. I think I saw Voice of All's one, and it sounded far too complicated! :-) AnnH ♫ 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you have the Voice of All script, you don't need the other one, presumably. When I sent you that first message, I hadn't tried the other one out on undeletion. I did a partial resoration of a large page yesterday, but did it by restoring the offending version and moving it to another page, deleting the other page, going back to the original page, and restoring all the good versions. But then I managed to install the Check all boxes thing from the link on my "display the complete watchlist". I played with that for a while. Then I went to Amazon.com, and looked at a book. At the bottom of the page, they have boxes to check for other books in that category — biography, 19th century, French writers, etc. I scrolled down to the new "Check all boxes" link in my Favourites, and instantly, all the Amazon boxes were checked. Even while I'm editing your talk page, I can go to that link, and it checks the two boxes for "minor edit" and "watch this page" (well, that one is already ticked). So I was fairly confident when I offered to do it for the undeletion of that page. I went to "undelete 1200 [or whatever] edits", scrolled down to the "check all boxes" in my Favourites, and immmediately, I was still at the same page, but all the 1200 boxes were checked.
Anyway, if you have a version that works, I suppose it doesn't matter which version it is. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
SlimV, you had an extra "---" that broke the JS. I removed it. Press cntrl-F5. You can also use shift (even withought JS) to select many edits at once.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Lawson

Comments appreciated on this [15] (just found accidently). Arniep 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think it brings up fundemental questions about how WP is currently operating. I think I and many other editors occasionally (maybe quite often) allow edits to stand without citations, maybe thinking that we will find a citation but then forget to do it. So basically maybe we need to start being more brutal about not allowing edits without cites and maybe set a deadline or goal to provide complete citations for all articles. Arniep 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Copyright

You've just archived your talk page, so I'll respond here. The basic Crown Copyright laid out by HMSO is indeed acceptable as a free license. However, it allows for individual departments to place additional requirements in their copyirhgt notices, some of which make media from them clearly non-free. See for example the copyright notice from the National Archives. Its material is protected by Crown Copyright. However, it also requires the payment of a fee for the use of any of its images. Others, such as the Met Office allow for unlimited reproduction only for private study and scientific research, with any other use requiring explicit permission — ie. {{NonCommercial}}. These also aren't acceptable as free images, though most of the time, the image can be kept under terms of fair use. This is why {{CrownCopyright}} includes a <noinclude> section underneath pointing to the list of acceptable sites at Template talk:CrownCopyright. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

No. If you read the comments made on the 3RR page last week you'll see that, in fact, I was blocked for adding the same words more than three times. Your interpretation of the 3RR rule is overly broad and unique. Homey 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hi Slim, Thanks for your note. I understand. best, Zeq

PS

I was actually starting to look forward to this as a way to cure my wikipedia adiction.... I really should take a break for a while. let's see if I can. best.

[edit] FloNight RfA

Wow, I'm altogether stupid (mustn't edit after 1am). Thanks for reverting me; for some reason, I didn't notice that the RfA'd been closed (I'd not been to RfA in the last few days, since there were none that appeared both close (per Dragons flight) and interesting. My bad. (In my defense, I've recently been taking Ambien; perhaps constructive proscriptions against EwI [editing while intoxicated] should be extended to EwTA.) Joe 06:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] who's stated purpose --according to whom? IDF  ?

yes. Zeq 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truthiness

Please use your blocking powers more thoughtfully in the future. Me saying "It's Truthiness that counts" is not a reason to block me. - Xed 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Wales

Hey. Do not remove the expand. Do not be a jerk. Notice that this phrasing does not violate WP:NPA. 4.249.6.72 17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, implying that someone's past behaviour constitutes "being a jerk" does violate WP:NPA. jaco♫plane 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I suggest you reread WP:NPA so as to avoid incompetence. 4.249.6.72 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ohh ok, thanks for the suggestion, I will do that! jaco♫plane 18:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Just as well we have 4.249.6.72 to keep all of us incompetent jerks in line. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LockedandLoaded2

BTW Special:Contributions/144.124.19.33 is a sock puppet of Special:Contributions/Lockedandloaded2 and therefore violated 3RR. Arniep 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok

Ok I applogize, Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Incorrect

Please unprotect this page. I cannot communicate with this user because I am not admin and I want to talk to him. If you intend to unprotect it when his block expires, fair enough, but can you let me know?Grace Note 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- GN.

[edit] WP:LIVING

You may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Upgrading_to_policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from thewolfstar

SlimVirgin, I got your comment yesterday. The only problem is I looked at my contributions from the beginning and:
  1. What you say is not true.
  2. What are you calling aggessive?
  3. If this a rule (with obvious subjective interpretation to it), why is it that I have never been informed of it?
  4. What happened to the entire dispute resolution process?
Funny enough I left you one or two comments a while ago, both of them friendly in nature, because my friend Merecat recommended you to me, and I liked your page, and you never returned the favor to me.
Can you please verify your accusations, show me where this rule is, and explain to me why I cannot have the normal dispute resolution that Wiki policy clearly states? thewolfstar 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

You have email :) Terryeo 07:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey, my name is Thetruthbelow. I just wanted to say hi, and that I greatly appreciate your honesty on my comments. While i can identify with CTSWyneken more, I understand your reasoning. What I also wanted to say was that i greatly admire your edits, and i wanted to be friends with you rather than enemies. You seem like a very smart person, and I appreciate your honesty on my writings. Your Friend, Thetruthbelow 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. I'm just starting out on Wikipedia, but if you need any assistance on writing or editing an article, I'd be glad to assist. Mostly, my area of expertise is in World War II and the American Revolution, but I would be happy to help on anything. Thank you again, Thetruthbelow 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther Talk

Hey, I was wondering if you could read my explanation of why CTSWyneken thought you were insulting him or me, just to make sure you agree. I don't want to cause a conflict, so im trying to prevent one. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Tags

Hi! I just stumbled over this:
Shouldn't this page be merged with Moldova ? --Piotrus 14:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On principality of Moldavia.

There was some discussion shooting this enthusiastic idea down, then shortly afterwards, another merger proposal tag was placed on the article trying to merge a geographic region and the article on a defunct political entity with a region that is only half overlapping the old country. There was another move involved too, for the stuff that belonged to the new nation state Moldova. 'Youthful hormones', full moons, or some such, I think. The point is longevity... why the heck don't the templates automatically put a date in them? Three months later, no merger being condoned, any editor can pull them. Then there is this Moldova (Romanian region), which (possibly) ought to be merged with the first, depending on era, transliteration of alphabet, etc. Add in the diambig page: Moldova (and dare I try Moldavia??! Whew! It redirects to the upper link.)

I'm going to ask Mel EtitisT (done) to sort out the geographical articles, as he has some expertise in that region, iirc; can you tell me whether any time-expired policies apply on this issue, and whether there is a log. I'd guess the second merge proposal happened in early-to-mid September. I think I went back sequentially through all of October nearly that far.

Thanks -- I'll pull these two tags now. FrankB 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I gather from the 'silent answer' this somewhat buried 'unrehetorical question' went as 'rehetorical'? (My Bad--I'm just browsing looking for answers on those matters still open, and I'd forgotten whether you came off your page or answered here.) <G>
The point is longevity... why the heck don't the templates automatically put a date in them? — As in, I figured you'd know if that had a proposal history, why it didn't happen, etc. Strikes me as a good idea. Thanks, sorry for the nag! <g> FrankB 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Template

Copy/Pasting Mystic's message:

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me Template:Smiley!!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

  • {{smiley|1}} will produce Template:Smiley (Friendly smile)
  • {{smiley|2}} will produce Template:Smiley (Confident)
  • {{smiley|3}} will produce Template:Smiley (Mocking)
  • {{smiley|4}} will produce Template:Smiley (Hysterical)
  • {{smiley|5}} will produce Template:Smiley (Hurt)
  • {{smiley|6}} will produce Template:Smiley (Very Sorry)
  • {{smiley|7}} will produce Template:Smiley (Sleepy)
  • {{smiley|8}} will produce Template:Smiley (You are Nive)
  • {{smiley|9}} will produce Template:Smiley (I am not happy)
  • {{smiley|0}} will produce Template:Smiley (No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref format again :-(

I don't know if you're still interested, but the reference format is coming up again at Talk:Global_warming#To_ref_or_not_to_ref.3F_.28FA.29 William M. Connolley 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wierd Stuff in 'Partnership Minyan' Page

Hello, the Partnership Minyan article and its talk section seems to be attracting types who are arguing things like women are inherently lewd and they shouldn't be in a synagogue at all, and who keep inserting statements in the article that are pretty close to vandalism. Perhaps you and a few others might want to keep an eye on it? I've taken the view that people can make objections as strong as they want as long as they stay in the 'Objections' section and are sourced. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 14:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Looks like we have what's basically a revert war. Is it possible to lock the article (after making sure it's reverted back) and force a discussion before any changes? Pretty new here, not sure how these things or done or even if I'm able to do them. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise

Hi- your wisdom and experience are needed, this article is chaotic at best: List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise, Thanks FrankB 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tzniut Article

Hello, Thanks so much for all your help. Looked at the Tzniut article and noted that there used to be a section on the Conservative view that was deleted. I had added a reference (sourcing Orthodox but non-Haredi views) and it got deleted. Looks like everything but the Haredi view is getting deleted and there are all these Chabad references popping up. Would you know someone familiar with the subject who might be willing to keep a watch and make sure the content doesn't stay totally one-sided? I don't really feel qualified to present the Conservative view on this particular issue, perhaps somebody can. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 17:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thank you for your vote in my RfA! I appreciate the comments, but you may be under a slight misapprehension: I do not and did not support Cheesedreams, but rather opposed the stalking, intimidation, and admin priv abuse which occurred to oppose Cheesedreams before the user became a vandal. But it's good to know such topics are still discussed here. Thanks again for voting! The RfA did not gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 17:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Font size for references

Hi SlimVirgin. Sorry if this looks like I'm stalking you, but re: [16]. May I ask you to use the class references-small from MediaWiki:Common.css? It is better not to hard-code font-sizes in article text. I'm currently converting these to use references-small. Example edit: [17]. See also the talk on MediaWiki talk:Common.css where this has been discussed. references-small is intended for articles where the per article consensus is to use smaller font on the references. --Ligulem 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, thanks for your note. I deliberately increased the Joel Brand footnote size slightly because they were hard to read otherwise. What difference does it make if font sizes are written as percentages within texts? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to maintain and is harder to keep a common style. And, most important, it cannot be overriden by a local CSS file like user:Ligulem/monobook.css if hard-coded in the article. It is general good practice for webmasters to prefer to define font sizes in CSS files and not in articles. For the Joel Brand article I would recommend to leave away the 95% entierly around the <references/> if possible. BTW, I'm not a fan of these small fonts anyway, but a lot of wikipedians like them. But please try to do font sizes with CSS if possible. --Ligulem 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maybe of interst

[18]. btw, nice fractal on your user page. Zeq 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI(2): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANakba_Day&diff=52475545&oldid=52267877 Zeq 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Quadell/remedy

Hi,

With the departure of Quadell and Talrias, it looked like User:Quadell/remedy was about to die. However, I think there might be an opportunity to persuade Ambi to accept it. Keep your fingers crossed, or feel free to do something less metaphysical to encourage her. Regards bobblewik

[edit] Apologize

I would like to apologize to you personally for putting that quote on the article. I personally do not believe Luther's writings had any affects on Hitler or other anti-semites, but i have been asked by others to put in an article that said he did to show both sides of the argument. But now that I read over it again, that quote does not relate to the topic of On the Jews and their Lies and i realize it should be removed immediatley, so i did. The other info i believe belongs in that edit, but regardless, that first quote did not. I am sorry that I messed up, but I am still learning my way around, and I promise to try harder not to mess up. Your Friend, Thetruthbelow 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Zeq

I banned Zeq from editing Nakba Day under his probation because I saw evidence that his editing was unnecessarily aggressive. He has asked me to unban, but I dont think the ban was unreasonable. I've asked for a review on WP:AN but there have been few responses. I wonder if you'd like to take a look, since I notice you recently edited the article. [19]

I'm not trying to drum up support, just looking for honest opinions and possible lifting of the ban. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ptmccain again violates 3RR

CTSWyneken's colleague User:Ptmccain is [again] in violation of WP:3RR by executing his 14th identical revert to the Martin Luther article (the last of which was his 4th within a 24 hour period). Ptmccain has not only repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with official WP policy and engaged in repeated acts of vandalism, but has demonstrated his contempt for WP policy and administration. See here, for example, where he again blanks the page after be directly told not to do so and adds, "Your "Stern Warning" is received, with no little amusement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptmccain
14th # 12:04, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (move text to a more appropriate location)
13th # 02:50, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)
12th # 17:56, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)
11th # 12:13, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to a more appropriate location)

Please note that the 14th revert was executed less than 24 hours after the 11th identical revert in violation of WP:3RR.

Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated by at least one and I suspect many Wikipedians. Doright 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upset?

Are you angry at me. You seem to dislike me for some reason, as when I edit, some if it has been reffered to by you as "pure nonesense". Your tone seems to imply that you are upset with me...and all I wanted to know is if their is something i can do to reduce that anger. I wasn't trying to upset you, but unless I'm wrong, it seems like you dislike me. Write me back, Your friend, Thetruthbelow(talk) 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

I just read your note on my talk page were you stated that, "Similarly, to say that something happens "because of historical circumstances" or whatever the wording was, is also odd writing, because why else do things happen (unless you were making some sort of Marxian point, which I doubt)? What was worse about the latter is that you attributed it to the author, whereas he almost certainly didn't say that." Actually, the author said EXACTLY that, and if you don't believe me, ask CTSWyneken to send you a copy, as he is loaning that article to me on the requirement that i don't send it to others. Thank, Thetruthbelow(talk) 02:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction to the bombing

"The names of the non-Jewish victims were engraved separately from the others" is not a reaction to the bombing. Best, Zeq.

[edit] Attack on Zeq

I quite agree as to the harshness of Zero's comment regarding Zeq, see my response at [20].

[edit] What the hell

Quick favour, or point of order, or something. Look at Peter Tatchell. Myself and User:Dbiv (David) were involved in a conflict, and so, he removed the info (Which was sourced) he didn't like, and then locked the page so I couldn't edit it. Surely that is not allowed? See the diff Here. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that... do you want to be the uninvolved admin ?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I was about to ask the same question. Irishpunktom's highly disruptive POV edits to this page have been a constant problem since he noticed it. The information Irishpunktom was attempting to add is clearly original research. Will await your reply. David | Talk 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
the information I am adding is sourced,a nd you can see that yourself. It is verified and not OR, but David just doens't want it because he has his own POV, which leaves us in a problem. Your help is appreciated! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to look at User:Dbiv/RFC on Irishpunktom. I have not yet filed this RFC because Irishpunktom stopped editing disruptively for a period. It summarises some of his previous problem edits. I understand the editors of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy article also have concerns over him. David | Talk 14:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, david has a personal problem with me, and this is reflected in his aggressive editing and blocking. - Again, your help is appreciated! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What blocking? If you look at the block log you will see I have never blocked Irishpunktom. David | Talk 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to you blocking the page from editing. - Discuss your concerns regarding statements made by me on my talk page, or on the pages' talk page, not here. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Americans

Hi Slim, Thanks for checking up on me and leaving me a note. Here is the deal about my edits and MY agenda. About 6-8 months ago, a bunch, maybe 5-10, editors went on a MAJOR "Jewish-American" rampage in here, adding that term to the intros on as many biographies of persons of Jewish decent as they could get their hands on and trust me, there are ALOT of notable persons of Jewish decent :). Anyways, ALOT of them were reverted back since it APPEARS that terminology(sp) is not appropriate for INTROS of biographies. Now I am not talking about persons BORN in Poland for example who moved to the States or persons of dual citizenship, ect or persons who are NOTED because of thier "Jewishness" or if they write EXCLUSIVELY on Jewish matters, ect. I was trying to REVERT the biographies of persons who had the "tag" "Jewish-American" added to their biography header. SHOULD their ethnicity be discussed in the article, sure WHY NOT? Where should it be placed/discussed?? Not sure, probably under early life, ect. I have seen it inserted into biographies where it really makes the article read poorly, IMO, but whatever.

How this actually started for me as a new, I am still new, Wiki, was on the Edward Teller article that was a featured article. Mr. Teller got the Jewish label and I questioned it so it got moved. Even today, Teller's decent seems sort of out of place for the article as a whole, but again, whatever. It seems that some people want to stress one's "Jewishness" for some "reasons" that aren't really clear. The problem with that is there are "good" reasons and there are "bad" reasons to stress ones ethnicity. In doing my edits, it wasn't long before I "caught" some guy that was going into EVERY criminal of Jewish decent and making note of their ethnicity, not to subtle, but it showed some sort of bent, IMO, agenda of his.

I see that you have great expertise on Jewish matters so I would be happy to defer to you on edits in this area. I assure you that I don't want to discount a persons ethnicity or insult ANYBODY in here regardless of their faith or lack their of. I am of a certain decent...but what it IS really shouldn't matter to how we edit/contribute to this project, should it? :) I look forward to further discussions with you and please disregard my horrific spelling, I REALLY do have some education.Cheers--Tom 16:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slim, in my ramble above I am not sure if I answered your original question to criteria for removal of "Jewish-American" I am trying to REVERT articles that were edited by anonymous IPs that were ONLY adding the tag to the header of biographies and NOTHING else. Its a work in progress since there are 100s of these out there, go figure. Again, if you feel I made a "mistake" PLEASE revert it back and we can discuss further/later. I really do have better things to do but once I got going :). Hopefully this answers your question and if it doesn't please let me know. Thanks!--Tom 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Slimvirgin, please help!

I had to post this on the talkpages of User:Danny and User:Essjay following some events today.

Hello, I am Juicifer, I have returned to wiki after a few months and got a new (Protoz) name after some unpleasant threats.

I would like to have my IP unblocked please. I would like you to explain why you are deleting the article on this guy without consensus. That Essjay now claims on the Protoz page that I am a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" is demonstrably false, as his his assertion that this has been checked with checkuser - if that is checked I can assure you that you will find that Essjay is in error (to be generous). I merely came to this article browsing through the Google news for wikipedia. When I found the page and history had been erased, despite a recent strong Keep AfD and no discussion on the talk page I became curious. Assuming good faith, I replaced the article based on the Google cache. I posted a plain query to you and another Admin who had deleted the article asking if there was a good reason. I was blocked (along with god knows how many other people on the same AOL IP.

So, after returning to wiki after a few a months it appears:

  • a) A article has been repeatedly deleted against consensus by two admins, deleting the history and providing no explanation on the talk page.
  • b) An apparent newby (me) on a generic AOL IP was given a complete ban on account of stalking User:Danny despite merely posing a comment on the talkpage to the effect that he should explain his actions or expect me to take the usual actions.
  • c) I was falsely accused of being a sock-puppet.
  • d) Most seriously, User:Essjay one of the 14 most senior administrators who are trusted with legally confidential information (subject to the 6 stated exceptions) has not only claimed that Protoz (me) is a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" but claims that this has been confirmed by the Checkuser tool. Either there has been some ridiculous coincidence and I really do share this AOL IP with "Israelberch", or Essjay found no evidence and (forgive me, WP:NPA and all that) decided to "economise on the truth" by saying that Checkuser confirmed what in fact it had excluded.

While d) is an inexcusable breach of trust and abuse of power, I am sure that c) is merely a misunderstanding.

As to a) and b). As I can ascertain, the deletion by User:Danny followed the publication by the article's subject of a critique of wikipedia, which is how I found this in google news. It makes wikipedia look very childish to then remove the article on him as a "punishment". Such authoritarian censorship is the exact opposite of what wikipedia is about.

P.S. It appears that User:Danny also unilaterally deleted the article on the organ that published the critical piece. What an embarrassment for wikipedia that it sunk to petty censorship.

jucifer 18:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uni Wales user

Continuing to add POV statements Special:Contributions/144.124.19.33, Special:Contributions/144.124.16.28, Special:Contributions/144.124.16.33. Arniep 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

Can you look at the talk page for that article? I protected it a few days ago because of a completely unproductive edit war that was contributing to an increasingly acerbic atmosphere on the talk page. Having followed the discussion since, I can understand the points being made by both sides (despite the attrocious spelling and grammar). One "side" has declared consensus--which they certainly have among themselves, but nothing has changed, and I see no evidence that the edit war isn't going to resume immediately upon unprotection. I'd appreciate any feedback you could leave for the editors or for me on my talk page. Thanks for your time and attention. Tomertalk 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unjust Vfd of Berel Wein

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein. Shabbat Shalom ! IZAK 12:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CTSWyneken is deleting references again

CTSWyneken is wikistalking and deleting references again. For example, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Niemöller&diff=52819033&oldid=52793333. Please take a look. [[21]]Doright 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for addressing this problem and improving the Martin Niemöller article.Doright 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Really sorry, it was a mistake. I punched wrong keys. Siddiqui 22:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, please help me

I have a strong feeling the editor who was previously harrassing me is up to his old tricks again, this time with a sock. I may be wrong, and I wanted to proced carefully, but when I asked someone, anyone to investigate the potential sock, he beat me to the AN and asked for help against me harrassing him and now I'm deluged with people telling me to lay off, which is, well, frustrating. Since you have some familiarity with the history of all this, I thought maybe you could weigh in. I'm not handy enough to give you the diff (since the contribs are all chopped up, but it's in regard to User:Gomi-no-sensei. NB, keep in mind that there are deleted/archived/moved parts of GNS's talk page. Thanks. IronDuke

Thanks again. Just realized my email wasn't enabled, in case you tried to send me one. If you don't mind, please let me know on my talk page when you've sent it. IronDuke 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've replied. IronDuke 00:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIan_Pitchford&diff=52971881&oldid=52548168

Zeq 08:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Don't Delete Others' Comments on Talk Pages

Even if you've edited their contributions, it's not kosher to remove others' comments on talk pages. See WP:TPG, "Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others." — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:VAN: "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism." I'm not accusing you of vandalism, but just pointing out it's very clearly against policy. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've replied to your response on my talk page. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)