User talk:Tictoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 3RR

In case you're not familiar with the 3RR rule, you have violated it The eXile. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. Please see Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more information. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

What matters is where the information was published. Who said it is a secondary issue. If Time had wanted to publish it, they'd have done so, and if they didn't publish it, we don't mention them in relation to it. It bolsters Meirer's credibility to associate his statement with Time, and we're not here either to bolster or to denigrate; we just report. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a five-star general is not comparable to being Moscow correspondent for Time, which may even be a freelance position, and we don't know how long he held the position. To mention Time is to give the impression that they published it, which they didn't, so we can't. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I would say not, given that they attributed a quote to Time that wasn't published by Time. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exile

Hi. Thanks for your edits on the Exile. The anonymous IP that keeps reverting you is some guy claiming to be Peter Ekman, a former Moscow personality who has developed a pathological obsession with the Exile. Years after being attacked in the Exile, Ekman doggedly pursues vindication. In Wikipedia, Ekman tries to get admins to sympathize with him by emailing them and telling them that the Exile is fascist, racist, right-wing, grandiose, misogynist agitprop. Another Ekman strategy is accusing anybody who makes positive edits to the Exile page of being Mark Ames and/or employeed by the Exile. This happened to me, it happened to Dsol and I was amused to see it happen to you.

Ekman's strategy generally fails, but one person who believes Ekman is SlimVirgin. Take everything SlimVirgin says with a grain of salt. She will invent rules and then justify them by saying "that's just the way it is". This is usually pretty obvious since she is a sloppy thinker. A perfect example is her insistence that Andrew Meier of Time magazine cannot be called Andrew Meier of Time magazine if the quote attributed to him wasn't printed inside Time. Why not? Because associating him with Time would "bolster Meier's credibility" and "we're not here either to bolster or to denigrate; we just report." In other words, if you demonstrate the sources referenced in your article are credible, SlimVirgin thinks you're in the wrong. Make sure to double check all her claims against policies and precedent.

Thanks for your contributions. I hope I see you around. --Ryan Utt 08:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"SlimVirgin is an administrator that means she has a lot of power here and she is clearly abusing it in bad faith"
She is an admin. This does give her some ability to ban IPs, speedy delete, freeze a page, etc. but she hasn't done any of that in bad faith and I don't think she will. Really, any "power" that she has is in her clout with other individuals. This can prevent a concensus from forming against her even because she can summon people who will agree with her without even reading the underlying issue.
I agree that at times she's acted in bad faith. For instance, once she ginned up the Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and then cited them on the Exile talk page to support her viewpoints. I have inquired about how complaints can be made, but I have no answers yet. --Ryan Utt 09:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The eXile

Hi again Tictoc, I can't go on arguing about this. The policy is pretty clear. If you want to quote someone, give a citation and make sure the source is a credible one. You've now done this: Rolling Stone and CNN, so there's no further problem. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)