User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] request

SV, you wrote "you have no choice but to do one or the other." You know the context, and looking for a source is exactly what I mean to do.

In a rough approximation of civility, I am going off line for a week. In the meantime could you manage to undo the Ukrainian Nationalist lead to Babi Yar that you seem to have accidentally restored? Jd2718 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia: No personal attacks

In my continued efforts to resolve the conflicts at WP:NPA, I have discussed another potential compromise version with the editors active on the policy's talk page. That version, located at Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal has been tentatively accepted by those editors currently involved in the discussion. However, I would value your input as to whether this proposed policy satisfies your concerns.

Obviously, it is impossible for the policy page to be perfect. As has been noted in the talk page discussion, there is no way to write a policy that will prevent editors — on either side of the debate — from taking extreme positions in regard to actual content or its removal. But as one of the principle editors rejecting the previous attempt to promote a compromise version, I would like to hear from you before I consider contacting the protecting administrator regarding promotion of the proposed version.

Regards, Serpent's Choice 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding comments

Please leave my comments on the page in which I make them. I have reverted your addition of my comments that I made on the talk page into the main discussion. I did not wish those comments to be part of the main discussion, and I did not comment in the main discussion with those, I commented on talk. Thanks, Navou 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to look into the archives and the talk page, as this has been addressed. Discussion should not continue in certain cases. Cases being where community sanctions are inappropriate whereas the proposer is gaming the system, or it is unclear that a sanction is being proposed. As far a several folks, I can only count three, including yourself. Statistically, if I close a majority of discussion, there will be those where an editor disagrees with the close, and tells me about it. I do encourage you to peruse the archives of this board, to see how it has worked historically.
Also, while I understand this is a wiki, I, and I don't think anyone else, wants there comments taken out of context, or etc. See this differential edit where I have told the participants that I would post on the talk page. They way you have added those comments make it appear that I have posted in both places. One can infer two things, that I duplicate posted, or I have lied. I do not wish to discuss this issue in the main discussion and you can not compel my participation there. I would rather participate on talk regarding the process. That is my intent and if you must add my comments, please do so quoting me, not appearing that I have commented, which is the appearance now. I believe the applicable guideline that you are going against WP:TALK states:
  • Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
    • Be precise in quoting others.
    • When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
    • As a rule, don't edit others' comments. Exceptions are described in the next section.


I have again removed my comments. Please fix them for context. If you re add them, use diffs or quote me. Very respectfully, Navou 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I see that you have already fixed for context. Please accept my apologies. Navou 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section

Hi, I think you have the wrong guy - I don't think I ever even looked at History of the Aztecs page, let alone change anything. I don't believe I have vandalised anything.

[edit] Taliban

I had a reference for the point about the Taliban's make-up and I guess lacked the patience to wait before putting it in. Moving on, if you go to the Thought experiment section you started on the talk page I explained my point of view. Hope this helps. Marshall 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Just to clarify I'm not saying I deliberately broke the rules, it just didn't occur to me since it's the next day. I wasn't going to make anymore edits anyway. Best wishes. Marshall 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just did. Marshall 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I did. The current version retains Aminullah's edit that was made in between my edits. Marshall 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, query for you here. Marshall 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forget that, you were already there. Marshall 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

Thanks, Slim. I used the blog as a resource for the links that I added. I will keep in mind what you say in the future.--Samiharris 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

In response to your revert: [1]. Hornplease 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hi, I have been a user here for quite some time and recently created a new account as GTAGeek123. I just wanted to say that I really like your template on your user page. I just wanted to know if I could have your permission to use your template to redesign my user page. Thank You. -  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther Talk Page

Slim, it is you who are out of line. You edited the talk page so as to bury substantial research done by two editors. If additional comments of yours were lost in the revert, I apologize. I assumed from your edit summary that all you were doing was trying to hide our sincere effort at actually making progress. If you do not move the comments, then I'll not have to move them back.

Also, please stop this unending attack on me, my church and others. I will not respond to intimidation or threats from you anymore. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not, nor will not deliberately distort sources. Like everyone else, including you, I am able to make mistakes. In this case, I have made substantial effort to research the matter. The results are there for you to see. If you would stop this assault (and, yes, calling us fundementalists, accusing me of falsification is a personal attack), I will be doing more. So, please, try and work with us. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, there you go again. I did not, anymore than you deliberately ignored the faulty citation. Now, please put back the research you just deleted for the third time. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The long quote from the Vermanung. The quote was in English and the citation was to the German original, not to the translation. The pagination was at least inverted. I'll need to check it again to see if my memory is correct, but I believe the pagination was also a page or two off. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Better yet, why not invite the academic to read the articles and suggest changes along with citations. That way the article improves. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rushed Article merge and mass edits ignoring the debate on discussion page

Hi slim, can you please reverse your mass updates of the intensive farming (now deleted by you) and the factory farming page. I've raised a number of issues with both the naming and the merging which you've ploughed on through by your edits. There's no mad rush and there is a debate on those areas. Please revert your changes and restore the intensive farming page if you can while those complaints are addressed. Cheers. NathanLee 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I still haven't gotten any decent supporting evidence for your changes. Can you stop editing as at this stage the article is going to need a revert back a large number of your and crum375's unreferenced changes. I'm attempting to be respectful of your opinions on what you regard factory farming/industrial agriculture is: but you are pushing forward what appears to purely be POV and unsupported. The discussion page was the space to put forward your change requests as I said, yet you continue to try and push through a lot of changes, now it's very much appearing to be POV and original research. Not even the activist sites use the wikipedia definition you have created. While I appreciate your efforts to improve the article: it is now dangerously original research. NathanLee 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, SV

Just wanted you to know I'm standing for bureaucrat again and you were one of the reasons. I noted your remark when I mentioned that your erstwhile bureaucrat was a moth. I thought it was very sweet and it reminded me how much I missed dealing with all the nice people in the community such as (obviously) your slim self. :) Cheers, Cecropia 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear the moth wants to be a butterfly again. Do you think I could pass? We moths are always thrown out of the best butterfly clubs. ;-) -- `Cecropia 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published sources

Could you weigh in on this discussion at WT:V? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 15:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinctive fetures of the Holocaust

Well, I guess that my first foray on to the Holocaust page was rather minimalist. This was for several reasons:

  • I am still engage in a struggle with French Telecoms to get an ADSL line into our village house in the Gard. Until then, I am hobbled with a dial-up connection when we are there.
  • I wanted to start on the issue of uniqueness without waving a red cape, or getting involved in that sterile (and often demeaning) discussion about “ownership.” I do believe that it is very important to understand the uniqueness and in my experience it is one of the first questions that is asked by those new to the subject.

Thus I put in what seem to me to be the most important points with links to more detailed references. When efficiency and scale are the only reasons given, then the evil which was the foundation of the events risks being swept under the rug. After all for most efficiency and scale are not inherently evil.

I did want to add some other references, partularly one from Friedlander (the Years of Persecution, p. 149) about the decision to go to 3 of 4 grandparents, but the book was back in my office. To my delight, you referred to the long awaited second volume which I hadn’t realized was out. Did you buy it in the UK? Or do I have to order from the States. (I had the good luck to have him as a lecturer back in the Dark Ages of the 1960’s.) Joel Mc 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

I've called for a third party opinion. Please leave me alone until someone else adds their own input. I'm discussing this on the talk page as I always have. Marshall 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wow

I get a new computer and spend a couple of days away and all hell breaks loose! That is one long argument on the Factory Farming talk page!-Localzuk(talk) 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture

I thought you may be interested in this article by Bernard Stiegler. Although brief, it requires some effort, but in my opinion this pays off. It places the debate you have been engaged in into a slightly different context. Anyhow, just a thought. When you get some time. FNMF 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I own these pictures [2] [3] [4] [5]. I have them in my own private albums and I took them with my own camera. User:Hipocrite is attempting to provoke me by tagging them with "unfree image" tags. Help please. Jaber777 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the help. Jaber777 11:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sparkzilla

Hi, I noticed you had some problems with User:Sparkzilla over a BLP-issue. I thought it might interest you that he is thought to have an undeclared CoI (not related to the BLP-issue, however). [6] Heatedissuepuppet 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, I had a legitimate question regarding the scope of sensitivity on a BLP. I still believe that there is scope for certain editors to abuse the policy, and would like to revisit this issue with you under less heated conditions. I sincerely hope that you did not take my discussion personally. Passionate certainly, but not disrespectful. Best regards. Sparkzilla 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on G.W.Bush discussion page

I just noticed that someone from this IP address (70.72.196.49) just deleted the entire discussionpage for George W. Bush, and replaced it with this: "Gorge [sic] is a dummy". I reverted that edit. Can you do something about that IP address? Thank you! Sdth 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion without AfD?

Why the deletion of List of books and films about Martin Luther without a discussion or AfD? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

SV, I appreciate your interest in the subject and your editorial passion, but please do not undo my contributions without a discussion. That will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion at Greer

Hi Slim Virgin. I was not aware you were editing at the same time as me. The information you restored was contradictory, she was married for 3 weeks in 1968. I am in the process of trying to improve the article and presumed those with an interest would use the talk page. I hope we can improve the article. Regards. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

I removed that comment [7]. I'm sorry that you perceived it as kind of an attack, it was only meant to be ironic. I also replied there. All the best, —AldeBaer 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also rephrased my second question. It now reads "Do you really believe that it's best practice to oppose for what could be perceived as purely 'political' reasons? I'd still appreciate an answer to that question. If you believe that the question doesn't apply, why not just state it? —AldeBaer 10:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factory farming

Hi. I responded to your question here. Thanks. FNMF 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

Hi. I am proposing that the Biographies of living persons policy should require material to be moved to the notable event in cases where the event is notable and person not except for the event. Perhaps you would like to create the actual edit to the policy. You excell at that sort of thing. WAS 4.250 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Zionism

<"Expanded duplicate" of what I posted at Talk:Zionism appears below. Could I ask you to respond either there or here? Thx, Y> BYT 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slim

Re: (Brandon, AN WIlson is not a historian, or any kind of serious researcher in this area; for a contentious edit like this, you would need an academic source or otherwise recognized specialist.)

Clarifying: Slim, what kind of source, specifically, do you feel would qualify as an "academic source or otherwise recognized specialist"?

I want to be sure I am hitting the mark for you, and it would be disappointing to both of us if I went out, purchased something in Hebrew, purchased something else that translated it, sat both of the volumes down, and carefully transcribed them for the benefit of discussion here, only to learn that some T had not been crossed or some I was missing a dot.

I know you will be fair about this. Please let me know clearly what I'm aiming for here. I have provided not one, but seven citations for this quote thus far.

(Addendum -- I am not at all sure why "Source the second" or "Source the third," below, would not satisfy your criteria here. BYT)

Source the first: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousands Negroes [kushim - in the original Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - (Protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech at Jewish Agency Executive, 20 May 1936. In Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)

Source the second: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).

Source the third: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [8] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [9] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).

Source the fourth: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.

Source the fifth: "Chaim Weizman, Israel's first president, once noted that, "there are a few hundred thousand negroes [in Palestine], but that is a matter of no significance." Israel's 'apartheid' should not be allowed, Jeremy Tully, Johns-Hopkins Newsletter, November 15, 2002.

Source the sixth: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.

Source the seventh: "Chaim Weizmann, a future president of Israel, noted in 1917 that the British had told him that there was a population in Palestine of 'a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Mark Zepezauer: 'Boomerang'. Common Courage Press, 2003. BYT 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Brandon, and my apologies. I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The balance and objectivity you bring to this joint are so predictable now as to run the risk of being taken for granted by the regulars. Rest assured that I do not take them for granted. I'd put quite a lot of work into tracking those sources down. Thanks for looking them over. BYT 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you, I appreciate that. :-) Your commitment to fairness, good writing, and the use of reliable sources is also not taken for granted, believe me. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting of punctuation fixes

Hi, Slim Virgin, first of all just a quick thanks for all your valuable, tireless edits. They are most appreciated. I am kindly noticing that my recent punctuation fixes to The Holocaust were reverted twice on your part without any explanation. The changes from hyphens to en or em dashes (where I made such changes) seem unquestionably correct to me, and the use of four full stops/periods for ellipses at the end of sentences matches what I've always seen prescribed in writing style guides. Perhaps you didn't catch the specifics of my edits, as busy as you are :) I'm going to revert shortly your edits (relating to my punctuation fixes) one more time with this polite, good-faith assumption made. Again, thanks for your valuable work here at Wikipedia, and let me know of lingering questions/concerns if any still exist. —Respectfully, Catdude 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very kindly for the reply posted to my Talk page; I posted a brief courtesy reply there (quick synopsis: everything's amicable here — not an earth-shattering issue :) ) —Best regards, Catdude 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does it take to add a name?

I've tried to add Dr. Flores to the UTEP wiki and it gets cut out. He is a respected prof at the university. Any reason why?

[edit] Could you take a look at something for me?

Hi Slim,

I got involved with a long running and stupid dispute over at Panorama Tools between 2 competing projects who seem to have a rift outside of the site and have brought it with them to this site. One of the users User:John Spikowski is insisting on changing the 2 pages PanoTools and Panotools to a disambiguation page made up of external links and a link to the original article they were redirecting to. I have tried to explain that we are not a link farm but he refuses to listen as he now thinks I am in some way involved with the other party (both sides have accused me of this now, it is highly amusing). Could you pop over there and provide some sanity to this silly incident. I am getting close to proposing RFC's on the lot of them, as they seem to be unable to see past their own biases and are obsessed with warring and being disruptive. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gracenotes' adminship request

Hi. You seem to be pressing Gracenotes for an explanation on question 5; perhaps I can help. I'd point a new user to Help:Reverting for an explanation of what "we reverted it" means, but I imagine you've already read that. We were both bored and thought we'd redirect our userpages to each other and see what happened. They were only like that for a few hours and no lasting confusion ensued. Rest assured that we are not sockpuppets (a fact that is surely backed up by our contribution histories); indeed we live on different continents and have never met. Thanks – Gurch 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just another quick note, regarding your comments on question 7: surely "artificial inflation of edit count" is only a problem if one actually gives any weight to a user's edit count once it's more than a few thousand. Even on adminship requests, that doesn't seem to happen as often as it used to – Gurch 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's relevant because if a person has made 5,700 edits to articles, and thousands of these were bot edits (or bot-like) which can be racked up in a matter of hours, and there are only 343 edits to article talk, it suggests limited understanding of the encyclopedia, limited interaction with other users over content issues, and therefore a limited ability to deal with these as an admin. It's also worrying that the candidate himself didn't point these things out. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"Only" 343? I must be out of touch, how many talk space edits are we demanding these days? – Gurch 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There's not much point in arguing about it here. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, but the relationship. If someone has made 5,000 edits to articles, I want to see more than 300 edits to article talk. Otherwise, we're talking about someone who just hits save thousands of times in a row, without interacting. This isn't a useless thing to do if the person is reverting vandalism, for example (though thousands of GN's bot edits were not reverting vandalism), but there's no need for adminship, and no preparation for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We have a name for "mindlessly hitting save thousands of times in a row" – it's called maintenance. We do it so that people like you can write content without everything falling apart at the seams. Adminship is a maintenance role not a content one. I have to say I'm surprised you never opposed my RfA if this is really such a problem – the figures were skewed a lot further in my case. (They're skewed so far now it's laughable, >90,000 edits and I've added content to pages about 50 times) – Gurch 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
But you've since been desysopped, I believe, though I don't know why, and perhaps it was your choice. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It was my choice, yes... and it certainly wasn't because of a skewed edit count :) – Gurch 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, adminship is not limited just to a maintnance role; it also, crucially, involves communication skills. El_C 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And if the candidate had these communication skills, he would have been able to put my mind at rest with his first response. Instead, every response of his has deepened my concerns and given rise to others. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you noticed during your little banter on oppose #29 that it actually makes no sense whatsoever in the context? I'm certain he's talking about Grace Note, not Gracenotes... if such a vote is considered acceptable, I find that very troubling – Gurch 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Can you explain to me why adding a tag to Night (book) seems inapprorpaite? --Fez2005 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the quotes, a lot of the article has nothing to do with the book itself and is too long (it even says so if you look on the edit page). Even if it's not a quotes tag, it needs some sort of a tag.

[edit] Re: NPA, Attack sites, etc.

You had mentioned at WT:NPA that no one has offered a reason why an "attack site" might need to be linked to. I wanted to address that here, in a little larger context than the already-to-busy talk page warrants. My apologies for its length. The core of my problem with the blanket ban in written policy is two-fold.

First, it generates a demarcation problem. What is an attack site? ED, sure. But that is banned by the Mediawiki spam filter, so no problem there. WR/WR? Probably; I don't see anything they offer that would contribute (at least at this time). But are those all? Someone recently pulled a link to Kelly Martin's blog as an attack site. Another editor I know from off-Wiki wonders why we would ever link to Stormfront. Others have suggested Free Republic or Little Green Footballs for inclusion; attacks there have certainly been made against posters at other sites; is that enough? What if a Democratic Underground poster outed at LGF is also a Wikipedian? Would we then need to blacklist those other sites (with opposing political views) in order to prevent undue bias?

Second, if we do ban attack sites, how do we express it? A simple wording ("Do not link or reference attack sites." or the like) leaves open the demarcation problem. An explicit list ("Do not link or reference foo or bar.") violates WP:BEANS, and more importantly, advertises for the sites we want to disavow. An implicit, hidden list seems unwise. Newer editors won't and can't know about it, and they are the most likely to make the error in good faith. Existing editors might debate about inclusion of certain sites, returning us to the BEANS problem. And there will be accusations of cabalism against the secret list's keepers, perhaps rightly, that will fuel the problems we're trying to combat. And in any case, what if a site changes focus/management/policy? Certainly ED wasn't always the way it is now. Pendulums can swing both ways. How could a review process occur? It is possible to imagine someplace like WR taking a hard stance against the outing and attacks and being a useful forum for Criticism of Wikipedia, one that might eventually even earn mention here.

I don't want you to think that any of this means I am supporting linking to ED/WR/WW, at least not in their current forms. I know what they have done to people. I know that is is not, cannot, be acceptable. Links to those places should probably be removed. I just don't think we can say that, because we're trapped between two bad outcomes: saying what must not be said on one hand, setting a dangerously unclear policy on the other. No matter what NPA says, people will misinterpret it. That is the nature of the beast, and is why we have a dispute process, frankly. But that is why I'm supporting a wording that allows for editors to consider links to viable attack sites to be removed, while avoiding actually saying so.

I don't know if you had a chance to look at the most recent draft I've tried to present. It does not discuss attack sites per se (nor pages, for that matter). About external links, it says: "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable." Is that a wording that satisfies your concerns? If a dispute over this policy came to, say, an RFC, I'd certainly agree that places like ED are indististinguishable from attacks, in context if not in specific content. But at the same time, this satisfies editors who are concerned about the "attack sites" phrasing for the reasons I've listed, and prevents any need for an explicit list. It offers editorial discretion to dealing with gray areas like Stormfront and Free Republic ... and to places like WW/WR, if they change enough in the future to allow them to be viewed in a different light.

Thanks for reading, and for whatever response you can provide. I know no solution will make everyone perfectly happy, but as an incorrigible optimist, I have to try... Serpent's Choice 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] translation

I've been following your good work on On the Jews and their Lies from afar. You are extremely patient and calm-headed. In response to your (as of now) latest comment, though, I wanted to say that there's no question that a new translation of an old work, even one which has been translated innumerable times, is still sufficiently creative so as to generate a new copyright. (Among the examples I can think of are Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu, translated in in 1922 as Remembrance of Things Past and in 1995 as In Search of Lost Time (the volumes being released as the copyrights on the original French release go out of date), or the many translations of Dante (Longfellow, Mandelbaum, Ciardi, Musa), each with their own new copyright. So FWIW I don't think that's a fruitful argument. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was speaking of relative calm: you are always calmer than I would be :). People making new translations tend to be rather careful in working only from the original language - at least on the first draft through, for exactly the reasons you'd imagine: they want to have a valid copyright, and not to infringe on any copyrights for previous translations. So in real-world situations, there's almost never a question. In a situation where only a few changes are made from a pre-existing translation, a new translation isn't really being made, rather the "new" work is clearly a derivative of the old translation. All of which is stuff which would keep a lawyer fed for years, but is probably not the issue here :) - Nunh-huh 21:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Were there rescuers of Jews and were there rescued Jewish communities

during World War II or yes? - Jackanapes 23:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If the answer is yes, I think that the article about the Holocaust must inform about this significant side of these historical processes. I'm afraid the lack of space isn't convincing excuse for such an "omission" - this excuse means structural incompleteness and inadequacy while there are vast and detailed sections about many other problems. This situation leads to the question why exactly the rescuers and collaborators are... neglected? - Jackanapes 23:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, I'm afraid I heard exactly what I expected. The Holocaust is treated predominantly emotively as "the beast" in your understanding. Please, try to get my point of view. This process was more than horrific in most of its sides, it is beyond any dispute. But there are basic principles of historical science also, which contain requirements for completeness, impartiality, neutrality, lack of emotivity. This is true even about the most atrocious facts in human nature. This article is called "The Holocaust", not "The Beast in the Holocaust", whih means that it has to inform about all sides of this process, not exclusively for historical bestiality in it. Any link to other different and more narrow article can't create adequate idea for entireness of the epoch of Holocaust - at least it is generally accepted to give a short note when there is separate article about some concrete question, but not only dumb link. Why rescuers and rescued are important and integral part of this concrete historical narrative - excuse me, but I think that there is something obscenely in such a question. On the first place, this was part of the history of Holocaust, and on the second place, the resistance shows the very nature of the "beast" by revealing the possible opportunity to stop or diminish mass extermination if... there were humanity and will to oppose. - Jackanapes 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

P. s. By the way, take a look at the addition of user Robvhoorn in the same section. Obviously there is interest about these problems. Best wishes, Jackanapes 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JackSarfatti1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JackSarfatti1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SarfattiGeller.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SarfattiGeller.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights

It appears to me that you and Localzuk have been working together on a number of animal rights-related articles including Animal testing and Factory farming, among others. In these two cases you became embroiled in protracted and vitriolic discussions, and appeared not to value the contributions of all users. This concerns me not only because I happen to disagree with many of your positions, but because I fear that good contributors might be driven away from the project, and the result will be biased articles of poor quality. Do you think that there is any way you could change your behavior to cause less conflict? Haber 00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please watch your language

This seems disrespectful to me. Please keep in mind that children might be reading these pages. Haber 00:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors; in any case that comment was hardly bad language. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't even see what might be bad for children. The word "hell"? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Every Sunday, in the Apostles' Creed, the vast majority of the world's Christians confess that Christ "decended into hell, and on the third day rose again." It is a very large stretch, at least in our Judeo-Christian western culture, to call the word hell profanity. Pastordavid 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"You seem determined to have three articles, and to hell with compromise." Most people in polite company replace the word "hell" with "heck", or avoid its use altogether. Directed at another person, your statement is incivil. Haber 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to "completely ridiculous". Hi Slim! Keep up the great work! Hamster Sandwich 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Hamster, good to see you on my page again; where the heck have you been? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in Leave it to Beaver, but the real world is rarely like that. *Dan T.* 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple flowers

SlimVirgin ,
Have a wonderful summer,
and thanks for being a friend
Dakota

[edit] My apologies

I must apologize for the COI notice. While I am not in general happy with your approach to editing, after discussion with others I must agree with them that the message in question could well have been a Joe job. Mangoe 17:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP, PLEASE!!

I need your help, Slim Virgin. Someone keeps anonymously leaving malicious POV edits on the article about Michael Delgiorno. Can you help me get them blocked, please? I think they qualify for violation of the 3RR rule. Crockspot and I both have warned them.

By the way, I am aware that the article is not properly sourced, and I will be working on that over the next few weeks. Thanks!! Sdth 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, SlimVirgin! You're awesome!! Sdth 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Slim

Once again, i'll reiterate that you no doubt contribute hugely here, indeed you are clearly one of the major contributors to building the wiki, so thank you! - but these posts;


  • I remember now what your other accounts are, and I see you're still using them. Why don't you post here with one of the others? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're going to cause trouble around the policies, people are going to develop a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions, so proceed with caution, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As a matter of interest, how do you know he has edited this page with only this account? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's always a shame when that turns out to be wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the issues on this page is who from outside Wikipedia is stirring up this issue deliberately, and has been ever since the BADSITES proposal. So your other accounts are an issue, Purples, like it or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

..are pretty nasty - I've done nothing to hurt you, and have never intended to annoy you, so still hope that we can engage productively wherever we cross paths (not swords!) - best, Purples 05:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be nosey, Purples, but I don't see anything particularly nasty about SlimVirgin's posts. Perhaps it is your POV and/or perception that is causing the problem. Stop, take a deep breath, and take a step backwards. Then, look at the situation carefully. Sdth 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Good advice, sdth (i've tried to take it..!) - I still feel that i've been a bit unnecessarily disparaged, but a deep breath is always a good idea, and i didn't mean to escalate anything..... cheers, Purples 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I know by experience. My tendency is to lash out at those I feel are criticizing me. But I've found it's better to work "smart", than to work aggressively! Sdth 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gracenote's RfA

Hi, SV, long time no see. ;-) I wonder if you would look at a proposal I have made on Gracenote's RfA (and Gracenote's request) at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#One_Bureaucrat.27s_Impression. Thanks and regards, Cecropia 17:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Away from events unfolding elsewhere...

This is an olive branch! See, I am hitting you with it?!

In our few interactions we seem to have been on different sides of the debate, but this is not necessarily the case. Where I have agreed with your position I have not seen the need to support or concur with you(and, no, I can't remember which ones so you will have to AGF) since you are clearly capable of arguing your own corner. That is all I wanted to say, really. If ever I thought you needed some extra (or gently off-tangent) support then I wouldn't hesitate to give it. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEAD

Slim, given that the entire guideline is based on a "concise overview of the article", using hypothetically bad versions of articles to block suggestions renders the entire exercise useless. "The lead is shit." "Well, the article is shit, so this actually qualifies as a concise version." More specifically, "...describing its notable controversies, if there are any" can be removed on exactly the same grounds as you've removed the relative emphasis section—which was a reponse to six different editors broadly agreeing with the idea. We're obviously dealing with hypothetically decent article to base our lead suggestions on. Marskell 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACCUSED OF VANDALISM

Please email me at metalmuse@juno.com There is a person deleting posts for corrections to The Holocaust article, erroneously calling them "vandalism". I submitted a second post briefly citing the error I had found and then lambasted whoever deleted my original post. It took quite awhile to write the first post, so if you want that information, please email me. Also, could you please send a warning to the individual who is going around deleting posts without reading them carefully? I find that person's actions to be inappropriate for it discourages serious scholarly discussion. At the risk of sounding arrogant, my time is too valuable to be spent retyping posts to sites on the Internet. However, I feel Wikipedia is an important online resource and The Holocaust vital to education. It is with these thoughts in mind that I have brought this matter to your attention. Thank you -- Marti Masters

[edit] Thanks for your note....

I'm a Weedy seadragon - from Purples
I'm a Weedy seadragon - from Purples

I replied a little on my page, basically to say no worries and to look forward to engaging on these and other issues - also, seeing your interest in sea horses, i thought i'd drop off this little fellow for you to look after for a while too..... best - Purples 04:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(and sorry for breaking your clever layout....i would try and fix it but i'd probably wreck the joint..... ) - Purples 04:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The joint is duly unwrecked, thank you, and I love the seadragon! :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a second opinion

Hi Slim, and sorry to bother you. Can you please take a look at Mixino1 (talk • contribs • logs) for me? Was adding joke edits to Irish-Scots and then vandalised my user page when I spoke to them. Appreciate your time if you can look. --Guinnog 04:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million. --Guinnog 05:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just for easy reference ...

... here are the seven sources I tracked down for the disputed quote at Zionism.

Source the first: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousands Negroes [kushim - in the original Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - (Protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech at Jewish Agency Executive, 20 May 1936. In Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)

Source the second: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).

Source the third: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [18] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [19] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).

Source the fourth: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.

Source the fifth: "Chaim Weizman, Israel's first president, once noted that, "there are a few hundred thousand negroes [in Palestine], but that is a matter of no significance." Israel's 'apartheid' should not be allowed, Jeremy Tully, Johns-Hopkins Newsletter, November 15, 2002.

Source the sixth: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.

Source the seventh: "Chaim Weizmann, a future president of Israel, noted in 1917 that the British had told him that there was a population in Palestine of 'a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Mark Zepezauer: 'Boomering'. Common Courage Press, 2003. BYT 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Hitlerwithdeer.GIF

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitlerwithdeer.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 14:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the explanation given the IfD nominator: "No rationale explaining how or why this is necessary to illustrate Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler. Even meat-eaters can feed deer. Further, the image is not being used to illustrate the event in question as required by the fair-use tag. ". I was surprised to see how Hitler feeding a deer could have anything to do with his vegetarianism. I've fed goats, cows and chicken but I eat them all :D, pretty funny. Anyway, the image was nice but - maybe you could use it in Hitler's main page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

I used this web sight for a project im doing in school. I got all my info off of here. I did the holocaust in 2 different classes. 1(english) 2(history) Thanks alot. I never would have gotten this far w/ out your help!!

[edit] Gracenotes RfA talkpage

Should (and are we allowed to?) protect the above page during the 'Crats ruminations, or do we let the 'Crats decide upon that? If they are weighing up the arguments there having them added to may be confusing - and seriously piss them off, too. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the talkpage rather than the mainpage (which is templated). I think I will protect, since new admins are given just a little flexibility over mistakes in application of stuff. Thanks for the reply. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal testing POV

Hi SV. I wonder if you could have a look at animal testing and have a word in the ear of User:Migospia who, while well meaning I'm sure, is insisting on listing animal experimentation in Template:abuse and placing it at the top of the article. She completely ignores any discussion on the issues and, while both Localzuk and I have been reverting, he has presumably gone to bed and I reached 3RR. Thanks. Rockpocket 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it may be considered appropriate for the "allegations of abuse" section, but I would rather discuss it on the talk page first. Rockpocket 06:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

No prob. thank u

[edit] Graduate assistant notable?

Way back in August 2006, in your contributions to Islamophobia, you added text and a picture of Jehanzeb Hasan, who is/was a graduate assistant as CSU. You even contacted this person to ask for their picture. My question is: How is this person, a graduate assitant, notable? The text was removed and the picture taken down as well. I think you should prove the notability of Mr. Hasan before putting back his opinion there other wise I could bring tonnes of graduate assistants from other universities and their pictures and insert their opinions on Islam in Wikipedia. I'm sure no one would appreciate that because they do not have any known voice on the matters of Islam and looks like, niether does Mr. J Hasan. What do you think? I also see that you've had some debate already on this issue but no where have you proved that Hasan is notable and worthy of inclusion. The fact that there's only ONE opinion like he has, is of no consequence. I could find Mr. XYZ to talk about the (non-existent) harmful effects of using toothpaste and insert his opinions in the toothpaste article but that wouldnt be appropriate. I've always had some questions in my mind about you but after seeing that you personally contacted Mr. Hasan to retreive his picture and insert the non-notable opinions of this really unknown user with no authority on Islamic matters (needless to say graduate assistant doesnt count), my questions were answered. Looking forward to your opinion on the Talk page of Islamophobia. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I will of course not change or remove any of the material myself, but I still believe that some clarifications regarding this issue would be very helpful. What makes him and especially his opinions on the subject notable enough to be included in our article? I am sure that all editors here agree that we should work towards presenting the most notable and important opinions in our article, and not just what we as individuals might think is interesting. -- Karl Meier 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, as I repeated, Jehanzeb Hasan is non-notable and therefore not worthy of inclusion here. I have removed it again. An encyclopedia should be based on content from notable people - this is the first rule here, not graduate assitants who have no authority on the subject matter. It may be a good essay, but thats all it is. If you would like, I could ask some graduate assitants in the University near me to write some good essays on Islam, get their pictures and post the content all over Wikipedia, but that would be wrong. By the way, his arguement is nothing new. You shouldnt have problems in getting these same opinions from a notable person who has an authority on Islamic issues. I know of some very good friends on Islam related websites who know a lot about Islam and have written good articles on what they beleive are the harmful effects of Islam. If you want, I can start putting in their content too and a lot of what they write is excellent material. For sure, Hasan will not stay in, unless his general notability and that pertaining to Islamic matters is established. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The approval of Hasan as a source will have lots of ramifications in that, many other writers critical of Islam could also then be used in Islam related articles. It will be interesting to see the outcome here. For one, I know of some people who left Islam and have written a lot of interesting content on Islam. I mean if notability is not an issue, then its a free-for-all affair practically which means every XYZ's views can be used. I dont think thats right.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halfastar's comment

Slimvergin, do you have any other web sights? + I need ur first name for my works sighted page too. "2" kudos!!!

oh, ok. well, thanks again. have a good day.

[edit] a question, if you have time

hello SV... this may appear a little abrupt, but i'd like your opinion on the topic raised concerning editing solely to forward one's viewpoint, as outlined here[10][11]. i don't believe it's acceptable, and i'd like confirmation from someone far more acquainted with the spirit of Wikipedia that such an approach isn't. thank you. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I wrote, yes and I got no response from the community at that time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedian biographers

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedian biographers, by Black Falcon, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedian biographers is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedian biographers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedian biographers itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Hi Slim, the Category Category:Animal rights activists is being repopulated again, even though it has been deleted once and the majority are against its use. Just thought I'd let you know.-Localzuk(talk) 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Hi. Just letting you know I approved of your deletion of a sentence from WP:BLP and have re-deleted it after a talk page discussion with Black Falcon in a sub-section called "Let the record show". Thanks. FNMF 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/8463 Zeq 05:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks

Thank you for awarding me the fine, original honour of the Wikipedia original barnstar. I will post it with pride! You are a great encourager to excellence.--Drboisclair 12:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro LaRouche editors

I know this is annoying, but the pro-LaRouche editors are once again rewriting pages in a POV manner. Please see the discussion page at Lyndon LaRouche. Sorry this seems to be your albatross.--Cberlet 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Slim, regarding this diff: [12]. What is supposed to be expressed here is that for articles that use summary style, if the daughter articles are well-sourced, it may not be necessary to repeat those same footnotes in the summary that appears in the main article (except for quotes and possibly very contentious material). See Wikipedia:Summary_style#Citations_and_external_links, second paragraph. I agree that the statement you deleted was misleading -- other Wikipedia articles are not sources, they are just places where the citations are kept. Unless you disagree with this practice in general, do you have suggestions for a clearer way to express the idea? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your input. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC opened on editor conflict in dispute that you were involved with

Hi SlimVirgin! I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI as policy

Hello SV. Yes, it's worth discussing whether WP:COI should be a policy rather than a guideline. The results will be better if the policy is very easy to understand.

  • Have you been following the Kittybrewster saga, and the Arbuthnot articles? I'd be curious if you can opine as to what our current policy would say about that situation. I observe with interest the various comments that the AN/I participants make about COI.
  • There are a number of indignant people who strongly disapprove of the current COI guideline, though I tend to feel that their position is doctrinaire, since I can't intuit what is behind it. See their comments at WT:COI. They appear to feel that the COI template is incivil and that other tags should be used instead.
  • Certain practical issues are observed at the COI noticeboard, for instance the application of the COI tag. Is there really a 'COI backlog' (the 300 articles in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:COI), that should be considered quite distinct from the 'Notability backlog' (the 2000 articles marked with {{nn}} that are members of Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance)? What action is appropriate to clear each kind of tag?

If the answers to these are crystal clear to you, I would be glad to hear them. EdJohnston 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please join the discussion

Please join in the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. I've noticed you moved my comments from your talk page [13], and placed them in Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section. That's fine. However, the discussion is taking place in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. You clearly have an opinion on the matter. You clearly have an interest in the lead section. And you have considerable experience of Wiki. I think it would be useful and helpful if you brought your thoughts to the table. Please help us. SilkTork 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

I noticed someone without a talk page edited a policy article with the summary to correct grammar. You reverted it as vandalism using rollback [14] and then protected it [15]. I am assuming you just figured that it was vandalism falsely cited as grammar then using rollback you didn't see what it was but I looked at it and the person actually did do a grammar fix. I just thought you should know. SakotGrimshine 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for joining me in Mediation re:The Holocaust

Hi, Slim Virgin, thanks yet again for your diligent work on The Holocaust article. In regards to "us not having been on the same page" with my recent punctuation edits, I respectfully followed your reply that was placed on my Talk page — in essence, I interpreted that my prior punctuation edits were fine with you, and I restored them a third time. As they have now been reverted by you three times, I would like to kindly ask you to join me via the Mediation Committee to try to reach a professional and amicable consensus. I do kindly still feel that my use of an extra period for ellipses which appear at the end of sentences — and I do kindly feel that I have indeed put such devices only at the end of sentences — is grammatically correct. Additionally, the reversion of my edits is also reverting some other fixes which I politely feel are absolutely correct. Please let me know how you feel about mediation in this instance; again, I'm just trying to be cordial and operate in good faith here :) —Very respectfully, Catdude 22:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim Virgin, for the reply to the above as posted on my Talk page. I kindly responded to you there with what I think is a helpful suggestion. Thanks again! —Regards, Catdude 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPblock-exempt

Re: [16] and [17]. I'm sure Armedblowfish will answer but let me clarify as I had tried to explain in my nom. All admin accounts can edit free from blocks on their IPs. We aren't affect by autoblocks or IP blocks. If I blocked your IP now, you would notice no difference - even if it wasn't an anon-only block. One of our "tools" is "IPblock-exempt". We aren't proposing to change the status of Armedblowfish's IP. But if Armeblowfish were an admin the block would no longer prevent editing. WjBscribe 02:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for admins. We can continue editing even if our IPS are hardblocked. The feature was announced at the top of this story in the signpost. WjBscribe 02:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. 2 years is the present length of the block on AB's proxy (the time period that comes up if he tries to edit). I don't know if I can persuade you here but this RfA was not a whim of mine. I discussed the concept with several checkusers and Arbitrators first to see whether they had an objection to an RfA in these circumstances. They didn't raise any problems as long as the community trusted the candidate with the tools. I notice that one arbitrator (Morven) has even supported the RfA. This isn't likely to come up again - given our crackdown on proxies (including Tor) it doesn't seem possible that anyone will be able to amass enough contribs to be anywhere near asking for adminship. This is in all probability a once-off. WjBscribe 02:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest - I don't have much knowledge of internet security. I don't know if Armedblowfish is using a proxy due to taking internet security to absurdity as well as to help out people behind the firewall access other websites that would be otherwise denied them. All I see is that we have an editors from whose contributions the project will only benefit if he is able to edit from a Tor exit node. I trust this person. I think their contributions to the project demonstrate that they are trustworthy enough to be made an admin. Therefore I have proposed that Armedblowfish be an administrator. We pass admin candidates every day where we have a lot less evidence on which to assume trustworthiness. It is my firm conclusion that Wikipedia benefits from Armedblowfish being a sysop and loses if he is indefinitely IP blocked. I could not have written that RfA nom if it was not. The question to me boils down to considering the arguments for or against discounting the Tor proxy, is the fact that he will edit Wikipedia using such a proxy enough that we can't trust him to be admin? WjBscribe 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It was raised as part of a more general conversation about Tor blocks. I asked about the potential for an RfA from someone editing from a Tor proxy and no objections were forthcoming. I did not name the person. There were Arbs and checkusers in the channel, I can't remember if they addressed that question directly (as ever there was a lot of noise) but certainly no one shouted that it would be unacceptable. WjBscribe 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If I may offer a comment, SV. I do understand your security concerns, however how do we know that any number of other admins are not editing from open proxies? As far as I am aware there is no way we can know that. So if the concern is that admins are able to edit anonymously, then we should either remove our IP-block except status, or we should have random checkusers on admins to ensure we are not using open proxies.
Armedblowfish - or any other candidate - could have edited from an internet cafe for the length of their RfA, been promoted, then immediately switched to an open proxy for evermore, and we would be none the wiser. He, at least, is being honest enough to admit his situation. Rockpocket 03:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply here rather than going back and forth. RP, the concern is not that admins will edit from open proxies, because they can do it already if they want to. It's that we would be endorsing it. This means that, if we suspect admin A is also admin B, and we look for hard evidence and all we find are that they both use open proxies, that's it. No reason to desysop. At the moment, that would likely be a reason, combined with whatever the other suspicions were. In addition, if we endorse it for admins, we have to allow all editors to do it. Admins can't hold themselves up as the only ones allowed to edit in secret; in fact, if we had to make a distinction between the two groups, it should be that editors may do it, but admins may not. There's precious little accountability as it is; this would remove the last vestige of it. I agree that we need to do something about the IP-block exempt status; as I understand it, it was intended to stop admins getting caught up in AOL blocks, not to allow them to edit via proxies. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Mmmmm. Yes, that is a fair point. Thanks for your response, let me think about this a little more. Rockpocket 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel there's something about this situation that's not adding up. [18] SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Not sure if this is relevant to your concerns (since I can barely understand any of this discussion), but thought you may be interested in this, if you have not seen it already. FNMF 04:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, FN. I can see it might be a valid thing to do in certain circumstances, but ABF hasn't outlined any special circumstances, so if we allow it in this case, I can't see how we can disallow it in any other. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And he says he still sticks by this: "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the WP:POINT suggestion though, SV. ABF has been open about his editing from a Tor proxy from day one. Although I made the suggestion, there is no realistic way he could have gone through an RfA without the issue coming up. He indicated to me previously he would think long and hard before accepting a nomination. To me, at least, he has demonstrated nothing but good faith, so I find it hard to accept there is an ulterior motive behind this. Rockpocket 04:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fair point. But he could still have posted from his regular ISP for one week so that he was able to post to the RfA. Not to risk even that suggests a level of paranoia that is very worrying, and also a complete lack of faith in the Wikimedia Foundation and its checkusers, all of whom are extremely trustworthy people. Not only does he think they might check him for no reason, but also that they will hand his IP over to someone (and how will they know who to hand it to?), who will use it to somehow break into his ISP, in order to obtain his cable bill (ignoring how difficult that would be), and who will then ... what? What does he think will happen if someone gets hold of his bill?
Bear in mind that this is not a user who edits in controversial areas or who has been wiki-stalked, and even if he had been, it would still arguably be too paranoid, but at least we'd know why. As things stand, no reasons whatsoever have been offered. It just doesn't add up for me. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is perplexing. I never asked ABF his reasons why editing through Tor is so non-negotiable, I simply assumed that his privacy is extremely important to him and/or he may be in a situation where his browsing habits must remain private from certain bodies. That it was so important to him that he will accept an indefinite hiatus rather than edit from a regular IP seemed to support this. By the way, I'm not sure his comment about those who may hand over his IP bill was directly in reference to Wikimedia or the checkusers. My interpretation of this is that he fears someone like Brandt could capitalize on an editing error he may make and track him down.
To be honest, I'm not in a position to judge whether or not his paranoia is justified or not. Someone pointed me towards a discussion thread about me on another site recently. It turns out I was being discussed simply because I was nominated for adminship by you. I then learned the horrifying lengths some individuals have gone to "investigate" you. Its too late for me (My user name is so transparent your grandmother could probably track my details down, and I'm sure its only a matter of time before Newkirk sends round the heavies ;) but I really don't know where due care ends and paranoia begins around here anymore. I guess the bottom line for me is that there could be more sinister reasons for all of this, but I believe ABF's motivations are good and true even if I don't share his paranoia. I am concerned about the wider implications though, which I hasn't fully appreciated previously, and will continue to watch the RfA before deciding whether I can justify supporting his nom. Rockpocket 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skype, irc?

Are you online on any real-time medium atm? Skype is somewhat superior, as it is encrypted. (I was going to email you instead, but I think it might be wiser if I actually walk you through the whole situation and show you where the landmines are.) --Kim Bruning 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the discussion!
A very short summary: Tor is often abused, but the basic ideal behind Tor is to help people who are repressed to still have a voice. If possible, we should try to find ways to distinguish between users and abusers of Tor, as opposed to a blanket hard ban. --Kim Bruning 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Geezuz God! I actually agree with Bruning for a change! And I haven't even suffered any head injuries lately! Hamster Sandwich 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Head injuries? SqueakBox 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely, Kim. I don't support bans on open proxies. I think we'd do better to work to resolve issues without relying on weight of numbers. That way, there's no real benefit to sockpuppeting, except to abuse people with (relative) impunity, and there are only few people who want to do that. Grace Note 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proxies

Leaving aside the disagreement I have with you over whether open proxies should be banned, and the further disagreement I have with you over whether it's a reasonable use of one's time to pursue "sockpuppets" rather than, say, not have votes or fix the policy on reversions so that numbers no longer count (of course I also understand why you would not want that policy fixed), I do want to point out that your argument against ArmedBlowfish's promotion is flawed on two counts. I am pointing it out here rather than there because I don't care much for users who turn RfAs into sprawling fights over minor issues. The first count is that it's perfectly possible for hackers to acquire IPs from the Foundation in more than one way. First, they can hack the IP logs; second, they can acquire the CheckUser ability. I accept in principle that CheckUser users should be trustworthy but I also know that the system can be abused, and gamed, in various ways. Are the users who have CheckUser trustworthy? Yes, in this realm (but not so much in others), I believe they all are. But will everyone who ever acquires it be? I'm not so sure about that. Second, a stronger flaw, is that IPs do not always resolve to one's location, but often to the place where the server that dishes them out resides. It's not really of any account that one knows where someone lives anyway, unless one is hunting sockpuppets and wants to know whether there's a connection between two accounts. Of course, people are traceable through their IPs, by contacting the ISP involved. However, it is not the Foundation's obligation to track down people who post defamation, merely to remove it. It is not obliged to keep IP logs for this purpose, so far as I know, and I doubt that it would be anything but the rarest occurrence that the Foundation was subpoena'd to provide an IP. I hope that it would require a subpoena, because we expect the Foundation to protect our privacy, and not just give it up because some solicitor makes a threat.

The issue of sockpuppet admin accounts really isn't pressing, Sarah. You write a lot about it, but frankly, as I noted, the resolution is to stop counting votes and to stop allowing conflicts to be decided by weight of numbers, not to live in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion. Users such as Poetlister are simply not a huge problem if you do not have votes on deleting articles and so on, because they can use as many accounts as they like to push the same point, but after all, it's the same point. I'd rather see us fix our method of resolving issues than to carry on any further down the track of spying on users, suspicion, IRC backstabbing and collusion, backchannel gang-gathering and socking up to win fights. None of it helps build an encyclopaedia, even if some of it makes for the most wonderful powertripping for some involved. Grace Note 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what view you have of adminship. For example, there are people allegedly running several admin accounts for various reasons. At the moment, an admin account found using open proxies would be regarded with great suspicion. Sure, we may never notice it, but at least at the moment, if it is noticed, we have reason to enquire further. But if we endorse admin use of TOR, then we'd have no reason to check further.
If you take the view that adminship doesn't matter, this won't bother you. I don't take that view. Rogue admins can cause a lot of harm. They can unblock problem users, unprotect articles that people want to edit war on, cause a lot of unnecessary grief by endlessly criticizing other people's admin actions, and so on. They can also view and copy deleted material, they can ask for checkuser rights, and if they get onto ArbCom, they have oversight too.
I know that not endorsing TOR isn't going to stop any of this. But it will help. To abandon the principle that admins should in theory be traceable via their ISPs (should a court require it, or should a check user want to compare IPs) means we're saying we don't care who administers this website. Maybe it's true as a community that we don't care, though I think the kerfuffle over Essjay shows we do, but it should be discussed on the policy pages, not during an RfA. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning?

You should have given me a warning, really, I was really balancing on the edge of a Personal Attack.... Though the guy'd better be happy that he's a couple of thousand km's away from me. --Rabbeinu 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Icke

I have comments on David Icke, and his view of the World being run by the Illuminati, and that 911 was caused, or brought about by, in other words, "Manipulation Of World Events:"

In view of what I read on David Iche, about his lectures, books, interviews, etc. etc., I can truely say that he is not mentally ill, but right on the mark. Regardless as to how he obtained his information, he is right, for what he addresses is the truth, and truth stands along; It does not take anyone's belief to make it so. What I do see is that being a Christian, and being aware that we are living in "The Latter Days," God is making His Word open, making man more knowledgeable of the Truth, so that man will be drawn to Him, seeing that He is so soon to come. I am aware by God that 911 was a process of manipulation, to get America's eyes off of what the Reptoid Race/Fallen Angels, and Hybrids are doing in the earth, and that is "Genocide Of The Human Race." God revealed to me as a result of my life being manipulated, with intentions of taking over, or assuming my identity, by Fallen Angels themselves, which has been ocurring since March of 2002, in which I moved up North, in 1999, and in 2002, not realizing it, into their territory, or an apartment building pratically inhabited by them. There is a book that I am writing on this, in which I had to start over, because the Reptoid Race stole it from "My Computer," in an effort to confiscate evidence. Seemingly, coincidentally, although I do not really believe in coincidence, that the Newspaper carried information, two days later, pertaining to what I was writing about, with an attempt to cover up. There was a public place that had information on camera, regarding this Reptoid Race, that I had intentions of exposing, making sure that it got on camera; As a result, or seemingly coincidental, the next two days the place closed, when a Reporter wanted me to share my story. I also have a Journal dating back to March Of 2002, earmarking my ordeal of attempt at manipulation, and control of my life by this Reptoid Race. I am presently undergoing this ordeal, and if Mr David Iche, or serious Interviewers that are not part of the Reptoid Race, would like to interview me, for a worthwhile purpose, feel free to do so. Manipulation Of The Human Race, with intentions of Genocide, or Anihilation of the Human Race, God is bringing to an end, but we as the Human Race, have to be the one to expose the matter at hand, for God uses humans as His instruments. God said as it was in "The Days Of Noah," so shall it be in,"The Latter Days." What we are seeing, is history repeating itself. God cast Satan, and his Fallen/Evil Angels out of Heaven, because Satan rebelled against God, and two thirds of the Angels rebelled with him. Satan has always been jealous of God, and stated that he was going to ascend, and exalt his throne over God. As a result of God having cast him on earth, being there already, when God created man, he enticed Eve to eat of "The Forbidden Fruit." Sin entered the world, and more sin, and violence when these Fallen Angels/Reptoid Race married the daughters of men, whom God had instructed not to marry, for marriage being for humans, men. They concieved offspring, that God described as Renown, Giants, although there were already giants in the earth. The land could not contain these offspring/hybrids, so they began to eat the humans, and themselves, the first cannabalism. God brought judgement upon these Fallen Angels by sending a Deluge, or Flood, in which prior, there had not been rain. This was because of all of the violence that these Reptoid Race/Fallen Angels had caused. These Hybrids was destroyed, which are Demons, but not their spirits, which God doomed to wander the earth forever. These same spirits are in the world, along with Satan, and the rest of the Fallen Angels repeating the violence upon human beings on this earth, and being the Greys only enemy, upon them as well. The Government, Satan, and Scientists are in collaboration, to create a New World Order, that do not involve man, using man in satanic experiments, of their own devices. More can be obtained on this, from me in sincerity, to stop the work of Satan, being wrought on the earth, in "These Latter Days." Satan is defeated, and God is exalted.

                                       By armethai

[edit] RfC on User:Mike18xx

Hi SlimVirgin. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI and their avoidance to solve the issue. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New A S

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1537 Zeq 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert

You don't have the right to revert this. Alithien 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First. If it has nothing to do with EJ, why is it mentionned ?
Second. I answer to this deletion in saying him to wait.
I perfectly understand what happens here. Alithien 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you are admin.
Why don't you make this deleted article back while admin Zero0000 is not here ?
Alithien 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It was a serious question. Put it back

NONE OF YOU HAD THE GUTS TO RESPOND. Put it back. --Pleasantville 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments

Just wanted to thank you for your comments on my RFC. I think it went a long way towards putting the complete story in one place should questions about the situation ever come up again. Thanks again and I look forward to continued good faith efforts on both our parts to improve the project as a whole. CLA 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

There is an important query for you there from Jayjg, which I hereby echo. Please share your thoughts on how we should proceed. Eager to get your insights and suggestions here, as always. BYT 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your quote

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about."

Nice. Fourdee

[edit] Islamophobia

Your edit summary on Islamophobia says the paragraph needs to be clearer, but not to the extent that I brought it to. Are you saying that to some degree it should be vague, fail to represent its source, or be difficult to comprehend? The previous version of the paragraph was all of those things. I think a response to an arguement should be represented as clearly as the argument itself, in the interest of neutrality. Xiao t 20:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Pattern blindness I guess. I just assumed that since it looked so different it must have different content. Good catch. Also, not sure if you did it or not, but many of the animal rights category articles I saw said "further reading" in place of external links. If you see anymore of this, you might want to change it. It is not recommended under style guidelines (it is easily confused with "see also" and hides the fact that they are external sites). Thank you again! VanTucky 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you're unfortunately mistaken

On the naming of External links...see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions. You're confusing external links with a section that provides links only to other related published sources. For the sections in the particular articles (and for the vast majority of articles), not all of the external links are properly categorized as further reading. External links is the proper section header, as it is extremely important to notify users/readers that the links lead away from Wikipedia. Otherwise there is no warning, and just assuming that people know is not acceptable. VanTucky 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree. It is misleading. From the guidelines I've read, it says that the moniker Further reading is only when the links are confined to related published works. Not all the links conform to that standard, and it does not make room for other links in the cases that the current version of links does conform. Therefore, I will be reverting to External links where I think appropriate. Since it too is acceptable, and is much more common, I don't see a reason not to. VanTucky 03:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Where both kinds of links are present, that is when two separate sections are needed. Otherwise, when links that do not fall under the further reading def are present, the section should be titled external links. VanTucky 03:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input sought

Hi. I imagine you've got WT:NPA watchlisted (or maybe you prefer not to be reminded of it so often), but I just wanted to bring your attention to the most recent topic on that page, where there's some discussion of seeking mediation. I'd appreciate if you could have a look at that topic, which I think might contain a possible way forward. If you'd prefer not to discuss it in that venue, I'd be open to alternatives, such as email or IRC or what-have-you. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] similar one ?

[19] Zeq 10:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hmmm

And again . --SakotGrimshine 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA :)

Thank you for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.

Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your support. I was, quite honestly, slightly shocked to receive a vote from such an experienced and bold user/admin/... :) I sincerely hope I can live up to your (and everyone else's) probably high expectations. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt AfD

You know, you're right. Thanks for the heads up. No more posts until tomorrow. J Milburn 18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That was 5 times not 8. Your own BADSITES contribs have definitely swayed my vote. Best wishes, SqueakBox 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Companion animals

Is there something I am missing in the PETA article talk as to why certain people seem to be so strongly aganist companion animals, even to the point of comparing PETA to the KKK?--Migospia†♥ 06:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Muslim bashing"

I was somewhat offended by your incivilty in this diff and elsewhere in that thread. What were you referring to as "Muslim bashing" in that article? Arrow740 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar.

The Special Barnstar
I wanted to thank you for the amount of work you have done in the mainspace. You have done an impressive amount of work, both in quality and quantity. Again, thank you. :) Acalamari 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome! You've done great work with articles related to Judaism, animals, and other good topics. You well and truly deserved that star, and all the others you've earned. :) Acalamari 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image

You're right - I made a mistake and didn't see the "cropped from" explanation. I've restored the image. Thanks for letting me know. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism and Weizmann

If you haven't already seen it, could I ask you to please take a look at Jayjg's note today on the talk page? Many thanks, BYT 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V -- why?

Why is this an important point? The same list appears on WP:BLP and no one there has been able to offer any explanation of why it's worthwhile, nor have I been able to guess one. WilyD 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's not totally unexpected, as I originally proposed a change to something like "self-published sources should not be used to establish notability of information" or such. Still, self-published tidbits that "tie things together" show up often enough, and with the überstrict enforcement of BLP going on these days, needlessly broad statements should probably be avoided. The specific cases I encountered were questions of sourcing things like birthplaces - or the most motivating was trying to source that Peter Goldreich was Thomas Gold's graduate student, rather than some "generic" type of student, which always lead to horrid prose. I did the sensible thing in that case, I think. Anyways, if the problem is using self-published sources to establish notability of information, would you object to changing it so something more specific? WilyD 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is one of the pillar policies of Wikipedia. You shouldn't be changing it without first gaining consensus on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability - Crockspot 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well now that I have a more specific reason for the phrasing, I'll chew on it a bit. Cheers WilyD 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For fixing up Ingrid Newkirk Page. I'm fairly new to Wiki and am just learning how things work. Bob98133 21:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption?

"Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures."

Fourdee 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page... How is it that I could contribute to this high quality piece of writing?
This is obviously (to me anyway) a content and policy dispute and not an effort on my part to push a POV or disrupt the article. Whatever the article, I don't believe WP:NPOV allows value-judgments to be stated as fact, or other points of view to be ignored. The particular article isn't important to me, only that the built-in bias of many articles dealing with emotionally-charged subjects be reduced. My questions are "what are the most neutral terms that can be used in stating facts" and "are all significant points of view actually represented".

[edit] Japanese Wikitruth site

Alkivar, how do you know this site isn't related? [20] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for one... after significant article writing by Wikitruth, have you ever seen them refer to anything but the EN wiki? Not to mention after babelfishing the Japanese site, all of the content there refers to specific incidents on the JA wiki, and refers to Wikitruth.info in the third person... If they were related wouldnt they be using we instead of they?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harris protection

It looks like you are attempting to protect Harris from the citation of legitimate criticism.

1. You have not removed material that is sourced from Harris's own personal website, which is twice in violation of the WP:SPS policy which states: "personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

2. You have declared that WorldNetDaily, a credentialed news organization, is an unacceptable source, while not removing items sourced by the Huffington Post, an uncredentialed web site, and AlterNet, which is also uncredentialed. What is your basis for deciding which sources are poor and which are not?

3. You then deleted the Vox Day entry.

This inconsistent behavior doesn't make Wikipedia look credible or legitimate.

[edit] Alf DAB

Was that already resolved in Discussion? I set up the new page format to match similar pages, and didn't see anything in the MOS regarding how you've edited the more popular choices. Could you tell me where you are basing the decision? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Look at the section immediately below the one you cited, though (overlooking for a moment the "in most cases" qualifier) which states that for longer lists a sectional method is better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A & V

I'm unfamiliar with the backstory, but from what I've seen the last few days, both users are equally guilty of sniping and other nastiness targeted at one another. I believe mediation would be in order. >Radiant< 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, Slim, but unsubstantiated assertions don't cut it. If the problem is as one-sided as you claim, I would suggest you open an RFC on said person. Otherwise, I believe the issue would calm down if both sides would simply stay away for a few days. >Radiant< 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'm keeping an eye out. >Radiant< 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harris

Hi Slim, I'm not clear on the BLP issues that brought you to the Sam Harris article, but I'd generally disagree with a significant reduction. I'm fine discussing it on the page, just want to give you a heads up in case that presented any issues. Thanks, Mackan79 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on the clean up, was it reasonable to ask you to wait? Mackan79 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Slim, I'd like to keep this simple, but I think this edit should be undone.[21] Among other things, it takes Harris' argument somewhere he doesn't really go (Harris argues that contemporary Islamic terrorism shows the basic problem of religion itself, but doesn't single Islam out in that way). If we can go back to the previous version, I'll be happy to shore up the rest of the puffery. Thanks, Mackan79 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animals rights

Yes I just read your e-mail and added my name to the list, thanks!--Migospia†♥ 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree with the current edits to Veganism, they don't make much sense to keep all of that in there.--Migospia†♥ 00:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt

If he had closed as a delete, I wouldn't be arguing for a DRV but this isn't good for us or for Brandt. You've interacted with Brandt so you know as well as I that having this level of information about him on Wikipedia won't make him happy either. (That's why I said it should be overturned, I didn't say overturn and keep) AMIB's close is the worst of all possible worlds, Brandt will not be happy and will continue to create problems/have distress and the information will be spread out in a poorly organized hard to maintain form where we need to watch 6 articles to prevent further BLP problems than 1. JoshuaZ 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)