User talk:SlimVirgin/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your vandalism

Please lay off labelling edits you disagree with as vandalism based on your political and religious beliefs. Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal". The Lavon Affair is an example of a premeditated terrorist attack against civilian American installations by the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Don't expect the rest of us to accept your opinion that Israeli terrorism isn't terrorism. We're not all Jews here. User:STP

Alberuni, you are banned from editing Wikipedia; anyone can revert your edits for any reason, or none at all. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dresden bombing

I am glad you like the contributions made. I think we need a longer and stronger coverage of points of view between the "it was a war crime" and "it was business as usual". I've added a detailed section on the defense, simply because I felt qualified to do so (defense analysis is something I've done professionally), and I felt it was important to make sure that this particular section rested on documentable sources, rather than on particular editor's individual notions, there should be a more extensive documentation of the two critical legal points - were there sufficient German forces in and around Dresden to make the city "undefended", and was the bombing of the city center truly in advancing the militarily supportable objective of ending munitions manufacture in Dresden. Stirling Newberry 16:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm feeling much better

Everything seems to have gone according to plan. I'm feeling 100% better compared to yesterday, though am distinctly out of it. Pet your puppy for me.

Yours, in better health,

El_C 00:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dnagod again

Well, if the two accounts are demonstrably (i.e.,, same IP address) dnagod, sure, they should be banned as sockpuppets. Your proof-by-similar-illiteracy is good evidence too. But someone not involved in the fracas should examine the evidence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plea for assistance

It would be good to have a cool head look at Talk:William A. Dembski, which is getting nowhere. I'll not explain, for fear of prejudicing you. Just look, if you would, and see what you think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whether god is on Dembski's agenda

At the 1996 "Mere Creation" conference at Biola, in his introduction to the conference proceedings, published in 1998 as Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design, Dembski describes the purpose of the conference as formulating "a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation." [1]

I think it's safe to say based on Dembski's own words that Dembski has a christian creationist agenda.--FeloniousMonk 20:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New wiki?

Hi, Slim. Might you have any interest in wiki for journalists or copy editors? Maurreen 08:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea is germinating; I'm open and not sure yet.
In order to give it user value over Wikipedia, it would need to do something Wikipedia doesn't or have something that Wikipedia doesn't or draw people that Wikipedia doesn't. Maybe it might be better to just get more journalists to contribute to related articles on Wikipedia.
On the other hand, a new wiki could maybe:
  1. Critique news organizations, both as products and places to work.
  2. Critique news sources as sources. (This one's a little radical; just food for thought.)
  3. Give more how-to's.
  4. Be a base for journalists as activists on journalism issues, such as anonymity.
  5. Give interaction between the press and the public.
  6. Keep up with industry news (such as at http://www.poynter.org/medianews/, but better).
  7. Have culled and annotated links (internal, external or both) to make info on many specific related topics easy to find (more or less like http://www.ikeepbookmarks.com/Editor but on a larger scale).
  8. Be more international and otherwise broader, and of course more interactive than many current journalism sites. Maurreen 08:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About how to start -- the key would be to have enough interested people, otherwise it would probably lose steam or it wouldn't be collaborative enough.
If it was going to be a Wikimedia project, Meta has a page for new wiki ideas. But it appears that Wikimedia projects and ideas are generally broader. But I expect that where to put it would be less of a challenge than building a strong enough initial interest base.
Do you know any other Wikipedian journalists who might be interested? Maurreen 05:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I've asked a little and you're the most interested person so far. I'm putting up a subpage off my user page with the idea and maybe I'll continuing asking here and there and let you know if I make any progress.
In this aspect, I'm apparently ahead of copy editors I know in real life. But I've at least introduced them to the concept. Maurreen 08:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dresden edits

Your answers on my talk page .. just to save anybody else from having to ask. (and I think you probably should put the NPOV tag back) Mozzerati 22:57, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

[edit] adminship

Thanks for the alert. I'm afraid that you're going to stop letting me know about things, though, as I seem to disagree with you more often than I agree. Still, I hope that the disagreements are all amicable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, it was a pleasure to have someone else there to balance S.S.'s idiot mantras — it's not the opinion, it's the intelligence of the argument that counts. Besides, I agree that Dembski's arguments are more sophisticated than the average 'intelligent design' theorist... it's just that sophistication isn't the same as scientific respectability, which was the view S.S. was pushing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Ammash.jpg. Please leave a note on that page about the source of the image because of copyright law. Thank you. --Ellmist 02:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and Vandalism reverting

Have i gone completely mad and lost my mind. I think you have vandalised and then reverted the vandalism done by you on Animal testing... And not only once... Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

I did assume good faith, after all you did revert it, my first thought was that somebody was using your login name. It can happen if you were to use a public computer and forgot to logout. My intention was to sound confused not harsh, if i have failed to convey what i was trying to say, i'm sorry. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

[edit] Your sandbox

You had categories defined in your sandbox. I removed them because your sandbox was being listed in live categories. 12.222.161.185 05:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dawidowicz

Dawidowicz is/was a really hard-core intentionalist. Her argument is that the Holocaust was already in Hitler's mind from, say, 1918 on, which I don't think any serious historians would argue at this point. Plus, she's incredibly obnoxious. Henry Friedlander's review of her 1982 book The Holocaust and the Historians notes that her book, which castigates the historical profession for not talking about the holocaust enough, makes its point by actively ignoring all books actually about the holocaust. She also apparently imputes this supposed absence to anti-semitism and over-sympathy with the Germans. And also seems to feel that ideology is the only legitimate way of explaining the Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who is the writer of what is probably still the most important work on the Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews, describes War against the Jews as reading like a long term paper, and as "not a significant contribution to knowledge." She also seems to impute all criticism of Israel to anti-semitism. I suppose I shaould recommend alternate books. Hilberg's book is over forty years old, but still hasn't really been replaced. Saul Friedländer has now written the standard book on the German jews before the war - don't recall the title. Browning has just written a book on The Origins of the Final Solution, which deals with the actual decision for genocide. I'm sure there's plenty of books beyond that. john k 05:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Background

You've probably already seen this.[2] If not, you might find it interesting. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:53, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the same user as this editor, [3], as if we couldn't guess. -Willmcw 08:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your vandalism

Please lay off labelling edits you disagree with as vandalism based on your political and religious beliefs. Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal". The Lavon Affair is an example of a premeditated terrorist attack against civilian American installations by the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Don't expect the rest of us to accept your opinion that Israeli terrorism isn't terrorism. We're not all Jews here. User:STP

Alberuni, you are banned from editing Wikipedia; anyone can revert your edits for any reason, or none at all. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image sources

You seem to have uploaded some images of David Icke and marked them as fair use. If you wish to claim that these pictures are legal for use on Wikipedia, you need to at a minimum identify the source from which you took these images, otherwise they will need to be removed. Someone has expressed an interest in reusing these images elsewhere, but we can't provide them with any guidance without this information. If you could provide the source information for these, as well as any other fair use images you may have uploaded, it would be appreciated. --Michael Snow 05:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to make a note of that. I was just processing some of the email that gets sent to Wikipedia and gave them a stock reply about image license terms, but noticed that the image description page didn't have any information to help them. I do recall that they represented themselves as being some organization that publishes research on extremist fringe groups. It's possible they may get in touch with you, and if we hear back from them again I'll let you know. --Michael Snow 05:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Thanks for helping to keep my talk page tidy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] arbcomm

The guy was actually ArmchairVexillologistDon but I don't remember where the exchange you're asking about took place. I may have forwarded it to you by email so I'll check when I'm home if I have time tonight. (I'm going to a party to celebrate Ernst Zundel's deportation so I may not have time)AndyL 21:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 138.130.194.229 RfC

Thanks for the info on the existence of the RfC. I have done my best to stay far away from RfCs, but having read this one I was considering making a comment. I am obviously not a complainant, but I am also not really an "outside view" since I have been disagreeing with the user on the Dembski talk page. So, if I chose to comment, in which section would I do so? Thanks Guettarda 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11 Page

I re-added the effects on children part on the 9-11 page (I noted you removed a vaild part of the legit. article) if you remove it again I WILL REVERT YOU UNTIL DOOMSDAY.--198 03:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

Since I have now more-or-less returned to Wikipedia editing after my tantrum last year, I have given some thought to what to do with my draft Holocaust article. I did put a lot of time into it and it seems a pity to waste it. But after what has happened to other articles of mine I am reluctant to put it at the Holocaust page, because I know it will be attacked and vandalised and have all sorts of illiterate nonsense put into it, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to wage an unending series of edit wars over such an emotionally charged subject. I actually asked PMA to delete the drafts from Wikipedia entirely so no-one could access or use them, but apparently this is not possible.

The position now is that the drafts are there, and if you or anyone else wants to use them to replace the existing article you are free to do so, although I would rather you didn't. If it were up to me, I would replace the existing article with my draft and then have it permanently protected, so that it could only be edited with the consent of a committee of (let's say) me, you and Danny, or some arrangement like that. I doubt the Wikipediarchs would agree to that, however. It would be worth asking the opinions of some other Users with expertise on this subject their opinions, such as Jayig, John Kenny and Zero. Perhaps we could form a Holocaust article group and decide what to do. Adam 04:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11 page

I reverted you again and will contiune to ad infinitum, I don't care about rules such as the "Three revert rule."--198 07:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling and Dembski

Thanks for the note, SV. I replied to FeloniousMonk as follows:

Ah, thanks for editing back to "analyzable" in Dembski, FM. Of course it's a barbarous spelling, but if the national style set already has to be respected (as SlimVirgin has now advised me as well), then I'll respect that. Of course, the article has such a turbulent history that it is hard to determine such things. Often the style seems quite heterogeneous. And I did check for other instances of "analy*" in the current version, for consistency. I will, as you suggest I do, become more familiar with the Manual of Style. As for the Dembski article itself, it needs some grammatical and stylistic fixes, but I won't touch it any more. It would be like writing on sand in a cyclone!

Best wishes to you.

--Noetica 09:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Euripides.jpg

Greetings. You recently tagged Image:Euripides.jpg as public domain. Why do you think the photo is in the public domain? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 12:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SNIyer1 dispute resolution

Hi there! I noticed you and some others are having a bit of a run-in with User:SNIyer1 at September 11, 2001 attacks and other articles. While I'm only mildly interested in the subjects involved, I do think that this user's conduct is becoming a major nuisance. I have already posted several messages on his talk page, but as you probably know he seems to be totally incommunicado. So, I'm letting you know that I'm prepared to support any arbitration request against this user, should you be willing to take that route. Alternatively, I'm willing to initiate this process myself, if you could lend me a hand here and there (I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia). Just let me know what you think. Cheers! --Plek 00:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) P.S. That poodle is cute! ;-)

[edit] Holocaust

If you are going to take up my draft then I would prefer you remove it from my Userspace and work on it somewhere else. Also note that none of the photos will pass muster with the Copyright Police and will probably have to be deleted. Adam 01:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS "analyzable" is not a correct spelling in any national convention. It is based on a false etymology - "ize" words such "theorize" are formed analogously with a particular Greek verb stem, whereas "analyse" comes from a completely different stem. A "y" can never be followed by a "z". Adam 02:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks for your note! I agree with you that conflict for conflict's sake is a vexation to the spirit and a noisome impediment to the advance of civilisation (with an "s"). But it's fun to descend into gratuitous detail for light relief, is it not? Here's what I wrote to Adam about "analyze", for your archives:
Adam, I note your support regarding "analyze" and its derivatives. The less insular among us understand this awkwardness in American spelling, of course! But I think it is going a little too far to suggest as you do that "analyzable" is not a correct spelling in any national convention. In fact, the great American dictionary Webster's 3rd International gives "analyze" (etc.), and notes "analyse" as "chiefly British". Well, and Australian, and New Zealand, and South African,... Of course, while we understand the Greek root "λυ-" ("to loosen", "to break down") and its various forms with "σ" underwriting the non-American spelling of "analyse", it would be an error to say that "y" can never be followed by "z"! One need only recall "conyza", "coryza", "Byzantium", "myzont", "syzygy", and a clutch of others from Greek; and of course "wayzgoose" and "kok-saghyz" among those from other sources. Yours in hyperbolic pedantry, --Noetica 07:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
--Noetica 07:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide and nationalism

The short answer: I think I generally agree with you and Filo... about rules and nationalism. But I not absolutely on all the specifics. And I disagree with some people who aren't here on this page. Let me know if you ever want to chat on the phone. No biggie either way. Sorry, that's neither as short or clear as I might wish, but I don't feel like typing more about this right now. Hope you understand. Maurreen 08:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hope my clarification is of some help. Just now I'm tied up with an article I have on WP:FAC and keeping an eye on another of my babies on Main page today. Not to mention being at work. I will be watching the MoS debate, too, as time allows. Filiocht 08:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Talk:Human

Rednblu, in case you missed it above, here is my response to you:

Reporters have to be able to understand what they're quoting and paraphrasing, in order to judge whether or not they should quote or paraphrase it. So my question to you is: what do you understand by the following? "Mankind assuredly continues to evolve, both culturally and biologically. The grave problem is whether the direction in which biological evolution is now proceeding is an acceptable one." SlimVirgin 19:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope it was okay to cut this discussion here to keep from interrupting the business on Talk:Human. 8)) This could be a very interesting conversation. But it seems odd to me that you would ask that question in the context of considering ideas for a new section to the Human page. It would seem that this is Wikipedia. Hence, it would not matter what the frame of mind of the "reporter." The only thing that would matter would be the quality and accuracy of the reporting. If you are truly interested in pursuing the meaning of the Dobzhansky quote, then I apologize. Does that make sense? I would be glad to trade ideas with you. But that trade of ideas would just be our trade of ideas and not very relevant to the Human page, would it? What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New wiki

About a possible journalism wiki, you said it might not be good to announce it widely because it's a good idea. I'm not sure I get that. Maurreen 08:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have a third. I've copied comments from Fuzheado to User:Maurreen/Journalism.

[edit] Journalism

I've ginned up a little more interest the possible wiki. Do you have any thoughts on a name? I'm thinking "Journawiki" might be better than "Wikijournalism"? The former is less like to be confused with "journalism produced via a wiki". Maurreen 16:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi Slim, well I was just looking over Category:Jews and I saw a handful of individuals amid entries like Bukharan Jews, and figured it makes more sense for this info to just be on the much longer and more comprehensice List of Jews. There is also a page for List of Jews by country. Perhaps I should have discussed this first on the category talk, but it seems like lists is pretty much the established convention.--Pharos 22:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I've now put a notice on Category talk:Jews explaining my reasoning and putting it to open question. The individuals categorized were just so random, and the list seems to me like the place to handle it comprehensively. There is of course a link to List of Jews at Jew. Quite a contentious and active article actually, see Talk:List of Jews.--Pharos 22:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide and national varieties

Slim, thanks for your note and thanks for removing the EU thing. I hope this comes off the right way to you at least.

For at least the time being, I've taken the page off my watchlist.

To make a long story short (or at least less long), I prefer not to participate in matters that are not cooperative. I agree with you that, shall we say, some people should improve their interpersonal practices, and that people have been handling the style guide edits inconsistently. If issues are going to be decided that way, the style guide will have no weight with me.

Jguk's proposal is at least his third attempt in just a few months to change the style concerning "U.S." and the serial comma. I won't go into detail at the moment, but he should give it a longer rest. And if not, he should at least put up a full draft.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to split out the "national varieties" section from the style guide. Maurreen 10:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette alerts

Maybe we can consult on something else together. If you're interested, can you have a look at [[4]]? Ciao. Maurreen 11:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re : User_talk:Wally#El_C

Try User_talk:Sam_Spade#A_Request_from_El_C_and_Myself, your link provides a comment by User:Mel Etitis. Your relationship w El C is downright snuggly BTW, and isn't terribly relevant IMO. If you'd like to see a typical users interaction w myself, try the rest of my talk page, or its archives. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conscious evolution

Don't look now, but a supposedly new user has just recreated it as a redirect to Transhumanism. Odd as the ninth edit of a new arrival... He's now kicking up a fuss at Talk:Family as a model for the state. I've posted on the Admin Noticeboard my suspicion that it's Dnagod, getting round his ban, but be aware that even if it's not him, it's another of the same sort (and almost certainly someone we've encountered before in a different guise). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heydrich and Eichmann

Re this passage: "The ghettoes would be in cities located on railway junctions, so that, in Heydrich's words, "future measures can be accomplished more easily." At his trial in 1961, Adolf Eichmann testified that the expression "future measures" was understood to mean "physical extermination." and your note to it. The source is Peter Padfield, Himmler: Reichsfuhrer SS (Macmillian 1990), 270. Padfield gives as his source for both the Heydrich quote and Eichmann's comment on it J von Lang and C Sybill (eds) Eichmann Interrogated (Bodley Head, London 1982), 92-93. The reference to Eichmann should probably be changed from "at his trial" to "during his interrogation." Adam 08:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics

Well, the "stupidity" of it is thinking that people are so asleep at the wheel here that they can just insert vulgar revisionism and think that nobody will notice (I love the latest one, that the Germans only sterilized 300 to 400 people, when the Germans themselves proudly noted the thousands upon thousands they operated on). Fortunately everybody has been more or less civil so it seems fairly containable for now—I think after awhile they will just move on to something new. They have a marginal understanding of this history and literature, to say the least, but I suppose that's what you get when you only read work by other revisionists and haven't even bothered to acquaint yourself with the mainstream version you are supposedly going against. Anyway, I appreciate your dedication to the goals of this project in the face of such nonsense. --Fastfission 00:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Search and accents

Hi SlimVirgin! How are you weathering the Wiki? A quick question for you, since you seem to know a lot about everything around here. Recently I have been looking at and editing articles on French poets (one of my interests), and I noted that the search facility does not accept "e" (for example) in place of "é". This must be a hindrance to users, since many wouldn't know how to do an "é" at all. Has there been discussion about this? If it isn't fixed, we'll need a huge number of redirects (like Valery -> Valéry, which I added). --Noetica 23:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SV. I'll try those options you suggest. Stay kyool! --Noetica 10:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kolkata/Calcutta

Where did you see question marks? That was unicode encoding (see here:(কলকাতা) )... that is, name of Calcutta in Bengali. Are you using win98 or any other unicode non compliant platform? The things you saw as question marks were the Bengali characters ... I am restoring the Bengali name. Please try to view the page with a Unicode compliant browser. --Ragib 07:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand the problem with Unicode text not showing up. My own lab computer runs fedora and firefox doesn't show them either. Thanks for your sincere effort in looking for details and the clarification message. If these were actual question marks, the removal would definitely be appropriate. All the best. --Ragib 08:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, being on MacOS, you are running a "nix"; there should be no dirth of Unicode compliant fonts for you. I am surprised MacOS doesn't itself doesn't have one, actually! The fonts at OmicronLab probably work for Mac, but then again I can't be sure. You can check them out obviously. And please, as a website designer, my personal request, use a W3C standards-compliant browser like Opera (preferred for CSS handling) or Mozilla Firefox (easier plugin installation) - even Safari would do :)! -- Urnonav 08:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) PS: Your name intrigues me!
My pleasure, honestly! Like most other website designers, I would love to see everyone opt out of those browsers from Hell. (If you don't know what I am talking about, I will not mention it here to avoid being ostracised by the "follow the market" Wikipedians!) Safari is still a project under work. At any rate, I would recommend Firefox, although it is a little more difficult to code for than Opera. (If you couldn't tell, I am in love with that red circle!) How do people come up with names with such fascinating myth; my name just means "spidey" :(. -- Urnonav 08:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MoS

Glad to have been of help; the MoS is in real danger of making itself irrelevant. Filiocht 08:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)