User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 36

Hi SlimVirgin

Ok, so I think your behavior toward me is pretty lame. Nevertheless, I still don't see the benefit in fighting with you, although your personal attacks, etc, continue to be documented. I'm simply wondering, is there anything I can do to convince you that an honest dialogue with me is warranted? You seem to have concluded I'm some kind of crank, I have to assume, since you're unwilling to talk to me. I don't really know how to fix the problem. I tried to explain why I'm editing these articles on WP, though I guess you weren't impressed. In any case, I'm not vindictive, but I am stubborn, so you'll probably keep seeing me around; I'd ask that we simply try to act like adults, rather than fighting and fighting untill one or the other of us has a successful case for blocking the other, or whatever ultimately happens around here.

Also: you may or may not have noticed, but I don't exactly pick the worst battles. Deep down, I think you know, for instance, that the research on Anti-Judaism, and that on religious antisemitism, differ. I also think you recognize that Anti-Judaism, as a subject, probably deserves its own page much more than "Religious Antisemitism," a subject on which I can't even find a book. I'm sure you have an argument for why they're the same, which I'd love to hear, but I think you also recognize the arguments the other way, no matter how ignorant you pretend Kendrick and I are. I think you've also seen that my edits on Folke Bernadotte aren't exactly outrageous, nor my suggestions on Zionism, nor my edits on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. I'm not trying to insert POV material into WP. I'm simply trying to resolve some of the POV disputes on these contentious articles, which I find to be an interesting and worthy challenge, and something which I truly think would benefit everybody. I'm hoping eventually that will become clear enough, but I'm also hoping it could happen sooner rather than later. Best, Mackan79 22:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gavin the Chosen

Not clear if you're accepting comments - but you did invite questions on this one User:Gavin the Chosen - he has other non-functioning accounts, and the userpage seems to say he suffers from adhd. Can you supply a link on my talk that helps to explain this? Thanks.--Shtove 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was reminiscing on my first (anonymous) WP edit, about 18 months ago, and found that, unknown to me, this user had supported the edit - not a good recommendation! A few administrators got to work on the edit instantly, and the Chosen one engaged them in a firefight for an hour after I'd logged off. Anyway, thanks again, and for your work on WP.--Shtove 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User KazakhPol again

He now seems to be trying to change Wikipedia guides to suite his "call everyone terrorist" agenda, see: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid Aaliyah Stevens 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Baby seal

Just to let you know, due to unforseen logistical difficulties, including what I can only describe as a redonkulous level of security at the New England Aquarium, I have been unable to carry out my earlier threat of clubbing a baby seal to death while repeatedly and loudly cursing your screen name.[1] No doubt you consider this far out of character for me, but I have decided to try a different tack. In exchange for toning down you rhetorical dragging-my-name-though-the-sludge everytime we have a disagreement, I will, next time my cat has a litter, gladly Fed-ex you one (1) kitten. And if you are extra nice, I may even poke air holes in the box. Whadaya say? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther content rich info box

Are we back to an "old" info box for a reason? This was discussed (argued) at length on the article's talk page. Only one user spoke up there as not wanting it, and it was not you ... I'm so confused. Thanks for your reply. Keesiewonder 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks a lot better to me this way. I wish the picture could be larger. Thank you Slim. Anyway to make the picture larger in a picture box like this? Justas Jonas 01:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This may have been an unintentional edit on Slim's part, Justas. I believe she's focused on textual content (and that, before your several edits this evening) and very well may have completely missed the fact that the larger infobox has its merits. I am focused on some standard content in the info box, per nearly all other FA articles on WP. You were in the ultra minority on this when it was discussed on the talk page. And Slim did not participate in that. So ... this may not be as done a deal as you implying. Keesiewonder ^talk 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks stupid, but I can live with it. Just make the picture larger. That's the whole point anyway, not to toss a whole lot of information into it that is easily available in the article. Plus, Slim is right, it creates a mess with useless whitespace because it is so long. Why are you being so silly in insisting it must be as long as *you* want it? Slim's edits were great. Looks so much better. Justas Jonas 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism

Hi, just curious to get your take on re-merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism, but under the title of Anti-Judaism. The issue is being discussed on Talk:Religious antisemitism currently. Thanks, Mackan79 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Omura Arb

Hello; please note that I was careful not to include personal details. I prepared this version especially. Have you deleted what I posted? OK, I will prepare an even blanker version and repost.Richardmalter 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello; yes, I do want to publish this - but only because it contains Dr Omura's statements about the current WP version specifically and the WP:OR defamatory suggestions made about him in it and his specific comments about them - which I want to have published so that these current and future editors can refer to them. I do not want to make Ghenigiz Rat's details public (ie this is not my aim). (I do not expect the current two parties to take much notice, it is quite clear to me and anyone that looks twice at it that they want to defame him deliberately). I will email you a version to see if you approve that it maintains GhengizRat's privacy. I have already emailed the original statement with full details about GhenigizRat's real life activities and 'disagreements' - to put it very mildly, with Dr Omura to ArbCom. But also, I still want to publish the blanked out sections because how else are others in the Arb process able to assess matters.Richardmalter 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you a version for your approval. It certainly has gone too far - with real world harm being done - personal and professional!! I hope that is really clear. I cannot comprehend how the WP is going along with this.

I have sent you another version by email.Richardmalter 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is Archive?

Where do I find the archives for this talk page? --Seejyb 11:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I feel I have behaved very immaturely towards you. This has been through no fault on your part, but due to my own personal obsessions. I got very upset that the synthesis policy was not understood, and that people actually convinced me that I was wrong, when in fact I fully supported your interpretation. My current experience on wikipedia has been 99% pleasant, and the only frustration is that many editors have not understood the policy, but this of course is not your fault. I really hope you will accept my apology! --Merzul 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you accepted my apology. And don't worry, this incident has not made Wikipedia any less addictive ;) --Merzul 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship...

I am going to e-mail you. I'm just working out my clever plan how best to go about things... Marskell 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz

Please be informed that a request for comments has been started. Beit Or 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

who's right is it ?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/816091.html Zeq 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA, and your thoughtful comments. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:PAelegy.jpg...

...which you uploaded, has been tagged as replaceable. Thank you. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Request

May I email you? I'd like to ask for your opinion about something. Thanks, Jakew 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC discussion that might interest you

You might want to weigh in on this discussion. I did quote you when I began the discussion. Jeffpw 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Please intervene here. User:Abenyosef continues to defy consensus, and to revert the article. I believe he is in violation of 3rr. Thanks.--Meshulam 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've reverted him. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

blocked & protected

Re: [2], I'm not exactly convinced. The edit 2 minutes before was to remove an "old" barnstar from Ptmccain and the previous edits, done a couple weeks prior, were to the ML article. But, I see that the Ptmccain user page is now protected. I have all related usernames and user articles in my watchlist and will speak up if and when I think something's happening again. Keesiewonder ^talk 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Omura

Hello, I am officially asking you as an Admin in line with BLP to remove content from the Omura article immediately viz Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion .

The article clearly violates:

No original research

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately

The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

Richardmalter 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. This section needs removing: [3]. The reason is that it is WP:OR to strongly suggest that Dr Omura has dishnoestly affiliated himself to Columbia University, using honest mistakes in other websites that attribute that he is 'of' or 'from' Columbiua University (which is the problem with the idea of third-party reporting BTW). Dr Omura has stated clearly that this is an absolutely false suggestion that has no basis in fact. See Concerning the article’s claim that I have implied that I am affiliated with Columbia University: that is absolutely false. here [4]; furthermore it is deliberately intended by GhengizRat to be malicious by using WP as a tool to defame Dr Omura and make it difficult for Dr Omura to continue with his Symposiums at Columbia University as a simple renter of space (you have read the statement about GhengizRat and his real world malicious actions). Moreover, this statement has already done and continues this minute to do real life harm to a living person confirmed as fact by Dr Omura in his statement when he relates the response of Columbia University to this passage remaining public which Columbia University also knows to be falseby This WP:OR is malicious, deliberate attempt by GhengizRat to construe an argument based on patched together citations that do not actually say what the paragraph strongly and deliberately suggests.

Next instance for immediate deletion: re Use of categories : Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. WP:BLP. This is especially the case when it is intentionally malicious.

Omura is the creator of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), a form of applied kinesiology[2] which has been characterized as pseudoscience,.

First this has already been discussed months ago in Mediation with Aguerriero as the Mediator, who I think was also an Admin. It was agreed in full consensus [5] Discussion closed and action taken as agreed. that this citation cannot be used as it is here (even though Crum375 and GhengizRat have edit warred to keep this up). In the second round of Mediation with Che it was agreed again by full consensus. (You also stated yourself many months ago that this is saying loud and clear "that you dont rate it" to these editors who put it up originally.) The citation does not discuss the BDORT directly which is why GhengizRat has had to label the citation note [6] en passant. Most importantly, it is a malicious and deliberate attempt at labelling and catagorizing Dr Omura's work. The Catagories section [7] catagorizing of Dr Omura's work as 'Pseudoscience' is also based (solely) on this agreed inproper use of citation. Furthermore, Dr Omura has stated that:

Also, using a reference, [the WP editor] claimed that BDORT is pseudoscience and quackery. However, the quotation [the WP editor] is referencing is from an advertisement from a company that makes a metal bracelet which they claim was found to be beneficial using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test developed by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura. [the WP editor] uses this reference to make the BDORT appear to be pseudoscience and quackery. However, in many of my lectures, I not only discuss the side effects of wearing such metals but I also describe briefly why such metals should not be used by explaining a reason why these metals can be harmful. Therefore, the article’s statement is contrary to the facts. Most of the references the article uses have a similarly misleading or false nature.

and

Anyone who does any real research about the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test can easily see that these statements are made by someone who has never seriously studied BDORT, and that BDORT is not part of Applied Kinesiology. If such a person claims that such statements are based on his own research, including actual experimental data, he should be able to provide published data.

[8]

This means that, in addition, this section is referencing citations that are contrary to the facts and claims stated by the subject of the entry about himself. And Dr Omura is the best source to say what he thinks and claims about himself.

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." ^[1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." ^[2]

Thanks.

I will document more instances soon. Richardmalter 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• SV, I don't know whether you know about the ArbCom case surrounding the Omura article, but it is important to note that the motions passed in the proposed decision will ban Richardmalter from editing the article once the case is closed. While I would like to assume good faith, this request does look rather improper from that standpoint. --Philosophus ^T 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Philosophus. I think it makes sense to let the ArbCom case finish, and then continue working on the article in its own Talk page. Using SV's Talk page for arguments about the issues is inappropriate and I recommend that this thread be moved to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura. We do have a list of issues we plan to address there as soon as the ArbCom case is closed. Despite Richard's assertions about the other editors, we plan to take a hard look at all the BLP issues he raises, as well as others he hasn't, and see if we can further tighten the article to avoid any appearance of WP:NOR or 'synthesis', even if every individual item is well sourced. We also plan to add new sources that have been discovered in the meanwhile. Our goal is to have the article conform 101% to all of the WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and sourcing requirements. I would like to take this opportunity to thank SV for all her help on this article and case so far. Crum375 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (I apologize for spamming your talk page, SV, as I continue to spam) I think this is fine here. It appears that what RM is trying to do is contact an individual administrator to intervene with BLP issues. While I can't understand why he would choose to contact SV out of all the admins here, this is not unusual or improper, except that he isn't mentioning the fact that the material is currently the subject of an ArbCom case, and that the ArbCom is expected to ban him from editing the article shortly. For some reason, I seem to recall him using a very similar tactic before with SV. Am I actually recalling another editor with another case? --Philosophus ^T 14:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is well aware of the Arb case. She has been helping me with a non-harrassment version of Dr Omura's statements. Both of you should realize the WP policies say in cases that I have listed here that defamotory information (that causes real world harm) should be removed immediatetey. Without any assumption of lack of good faith, the reality for both of you is that you arguing that we should not follow WP policies in these cases, makes you effectively complicit in real world harm to a living person; no comment that you can make here changes that fact. Since I trust that neither of you want to help or perpetuate real world harm, I know you will agree immediately. Neither of you have read the whole statement about GhengizRat (whose real identity and real life actions are known and have been reported in detail) submitted to ArbCom which has acknowledged it. You will effectively be aiding a malicious attempt by GhengizRat, that will be your reality, again without any assumption of lack of good faith towards you, and nothing you can say here will stop that except the immediate removal of these passages and others I will document soon.Richardmalter 21:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would encourage you to work on this in the open (SV, would you be so kind as to confirm this?). I do think that parts of the article need reworking and strengthening, and I believe that both Crum and GR acknowledge this as well, but we've been busy because of the case and concerned about editing the article while it was arbitration. I might start editing it today. At the very least, the boilerplate disclaimers are very annoying and could probably be reworked in a more tactful manner. The affiliations section that you take issue also needs work - it seems to be taking a rather specific interpretation of the sources (of which many no longer seem to work), and could certainly be rewritten in a more appropriate manner. The category problem is part of a larger issue with the Pseudoscience category that needs to be resolved at a more general level. However, Dr Omura is certainly not an appropriate source for what he claims publicly, and many of the assertions you make need to be backed up by sources (eg, Columbia being aware of the affiliations section issue). If you could get a public statement from Columbia clarifying the issue, for example, your case would be helped considerably. Also, GR has emailed me his side of the off-wiki story, so it would be nice if you could email me Omura's side of the story. I already know that they are very different even in basic facts like conference attendance. But please continue this discussion on the Omura talk page. --Philosophus ^T 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I will say this just once, and be advised that you may soon be banned and/or blocked from WP if the ArbCase goes where it seems to be going. First, please desist from making accusations about other editors. The statement you just made above about GR constitutes a personal attack of a WP editor. It doesn't matter what you believe the facts to be - WP is all about sourcing rules and neutrality rules etc. - attacking other editors is simply unacceptable and interferes with our mission here to build an encyclopedia. Either the sources are acceptable or not, the NPOV language can be tweaked where required, these should be our focal points - not attacking our fellow editors. Normally I would revert your message here, as it contains an attack, but I am leaving it intact for now, so you understand my points. BTW, as I noted above, as soon as the ArbCom case is done, we do intend to keep improving the article in all its aspects, including the BLP, NPOV and sourcing considerations. Crum375 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philosophus, I've not had a chance to look at the issues Richard raised, but I'll try to do it later this evening, or tomorrow. I corresponded with Richard briefly about a statement from Omura that he wanted to post to the ArbCom page, because his first version contained BLP issues; that's the extent of my recent involvement. I'll perhaps post something to the article talk page once I've had a chance to look at Richard's complaint. The behavioral issues and the editorial ones are separate, as the ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues as a rule, although I've not looked at the case in any detail. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, I understand the personal attack issue and will be more careful. However, the fact that real world harm is being done is a fact confirmed by Dr Omura. You will effectively be, and are in fact already, complict in this even if you do not understand this, dont think this, dont want this, dont intend this, etc etc, if the paragraphs and others I note (that you have edit warred to keep up), remain. This is just the reality of the situation. You can then choose to act as you do, but the real world harm is being done, and this is against WP policies; and WP policies state that such material should be deleted immediately. It is also noted that regardless of the ArbCom outcome you have consistently not kept to full consensus mediated agreements that relates to this real world harm; again, no statement that you can write can change back the real world harm that has been done. This is again your reality and the reality of the situation, regardless of whast your motivations are. Hopefully you will act well immediatetely regarding your responsibility in this case.Richardmalter 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Richardmalter 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, I have not published the detailed sections about GhengizRat's real life actions after discussion with ArbCom and SlimVirgin, for privacy reasons; I cant see any point in sending them to you as you are not a judge. However you can know that there are also an official statement from a witness confirming part of Dr Omura's statement (the other parts where not visibly witnessed due to their nature). But in the instance of Columbia University, I would hope at the very least that you act in a precautionary way and accept that this real world harm is taking place and act accordingly.Richardmalter 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for the necessary speedy deletion, which will - please know - have a positive effect on the real world events described. I hope the editors will heed your recommendations re the pseudoscience issue too. I think there are more clear instances that I will request your Admin opinions/actions on; but I will consider these further first.Richardmalter 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, two questions please for clarification:

1) Can Omura's statement on WP be used to state what he says he(Dr Omura) said to Dr Gorringe re the NZ Tribunial issue?

2) If Omura puts his statement on his website, can it then be used? If so in what way further. Thank you.Richardmalter 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

omura again

Can you comment on this please, other Admins have disagreed:

There is a WP policy that says we cannot present 'fringe theories' at all, except in their own article, when they have sufficient verifiable notability. Once such a theory is presented, it must be balanced with other prevailing views according to the 'due weight' requirement, which means that a reader must always understand where the theory stands relative to mainstream view. In this BDORT case, it is in its own article so we can mention it, although it is clearly (IMO anyway) a fringe theory, but we must balance the presentation of any claim against the mainstream views. So if we say, for example: "Omura says that Special Papers soak sunlight and acquire healing properties", we can't just leave it that way, because it would violate the undue weight requirement by presenting Omura's claim unchallenged and without mainstream view of it. If we had some reliable mainstream sources, ideally secondary, that evaluated Special Papers, we could just summarize what they say, but we have none. So, the way we deal with that lack of sourcing is simply noting what Omura says, followed by a comment that we are not aware of any mainstream source that evaluated his claim or supports it. Again, if we left that comment out, we'd be violating undue weight. And that proper neutral balance must be maintained anywhere in the article where we mention such a claim. Thanks, Crum375 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks.Richardmalter 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

your edit warring

it would help, given that you can't be bothered reading the acctual justifications for those deletions, if you could just stay out of the dispute. no congent arguments have been brought against them, indeed, as per your other intervention, there has only been prevarication & edit warring. of course, i'm not going to become involved in an edit war with you, your, um, discretionary use of 3r blocks in these areas recently has been, well, highly discretionary :)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible socks

possible socks may act there.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly new to wikipedia. I have noticed you are really active in topics related to anti-semitism. I am in the process of trying to add information relating Nazism to Martin Luther and in particular his influence on the holocaust. I would be grateful if you would come by and comment on the discussion.

For information

- Medieval Sourcebook: Martin Luther (1483-1546): The Jews and Their Lies, excerpts (1543) ,

- Nazi Artifacts,

- Martin Luther's dirty little book: On the Jews and their lies A precursor to Nazism,

- On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther),

Richard Steigmann-Gall The Holy Reich (goes into detail about the views of leading Nazis on the influence of Luther on their program) Talk:Nazism ClassA 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kla'quot 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Antisemitism

Hi Slim, I just wanted to request your participation in finding some suitable resolution on Religious antisemitism. I'm sure you saw many people responded to the RfC, agreeing there's a problem. If you'd offer your thoughts, I think it would really help. Otherwise, I'll simply try again, but if people keep reverting, I don't see anywhere else I can go other than WP:3RR or WP:AN/I. It's such a waste of time, though, not to mention the annoyance, that it really seems we should be able to work it out. Thanks, Mackan79 21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Werdna's RfA

Why did you move Werdna's RfA page? It is true that it is his fourth nomination, but the other's have been under different usernames, and the page, therefore, should not have been moved. What were your reasons for moving the page? Cbrown1023 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

== Re: Marsden ==

Clayoquot, please don't post any more links to the Rachel Marsden talk page. I see you recently created a page containing nothing but a list of headlines, which I believe Fred deleted, and you've repeatedly tried to add links to the talk page, whether they're used in the article or not. It's starting to look as though you're trying to denigrate the subject. Even if you're not (and I'm not suggesting that you really are), we have to be careful that it doesn't look that way, as Sam Blanning also pointed out to you on the deletion review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference used in the article makes Marsden look really bad. I added my recent comment to suggest how to make her look better. Knowing that whatever I do that has anything to do with Marsden will be interpreted in the worst possible way, I chose to suggest alternatives on the Talk page instead of just doing it. You deleted my comment with the edit summary, "(please decide for yourself which link to replace it with, and then just do it, rather than posting multiple links to talk)". I'm not going to just do it, for the same reason I didn't do it in the first place: it will be interpreted in the worst possible way. And I strongly object to you blanking my comment [9] from Talk:Rachel Marsden. You had no basis in policy to do that. Kla'quot 05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could change the link yourself if you think it makes her look bad; I don't see how it could be misinterpreted if you replace it with one that doesn't. I just can't see the need to keep posting lists of articles about Marsden to various pages on Wikipedia. I've been editing for over two years, and I don't recall another talk page that keeps having links posted to it, supposedly for the use of other editors, that make the subject of the article look bad. The policy basis for my deletion is BLP. Please take seriously that you look as though you're out to get Rachel Marsden, and appearances matter in this situation as much as reality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not been posting lists of articles about Marsden to various pages on Wikipedia, and BLP does not support what you did. You say that I look as though I'm out to get Rachel Marsden, and I said that everything I do in relation to her is interpreted in the worst possible way: we're saying pretty much the same thing. I'm doing what any normal person would do under these circumstances and not touching the page. The fact that you delete my comment and tell me what to do at the same time doesn't motivate me either. Kla'quot 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned something to Fred that I'll say to you as well: Uncle G asked weeks ago for contributors to collect a lot of good sources and cite them. If this was a bad idea you should have said so before I did the work. We get a) flack from Uncle G if we don't provide sources, b) flack from people who say that only a small group of obsessed young men are interested in the subject, and c) flack when we try to refute (a) and (b) by providing a list of newspaper headlines produced by a robot that demonstrates extensive and nationwide coverage of the subject. I can't win this game and I'm not going to play any longer. Kla'quot 07:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got your latest comment. And I am not "continuing" to post negative information about Marsden; I haven't posted anything about Marsden since the posting that you deleted. Your suggestion about emailing Uncle G is a reasonable one, but if it's so obvious that that's how to handle things then you should have said so on the Talk page long ago. I stand behind my other contributions which include removing the {{stub}} tag from the article so it wouldn't be expanded, and asking an Arbcom clerk to courtesy-blank the Arbcom pages so Google wouldn't pick up all the garbage that was on them. No, I'm not going to take a break. The subject was never as important to me as you think it is and I'm finished with it altogether. Kla'quot 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe Featured Article Review

Hi, I noticed that you were involved in the initial featured article review for the Roe v. Wade article. That article is now up for review again, and your comments are invited. See here. Ferrylodge 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

a smiley for you

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.18 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

One of the finest examples of New anti semitism

http://jta.org/page_print_story.asp?intarticleid=17507&intcategoryid=4 Zeq 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. how come we lost touch ? Zeq 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear fm you. hope to renew contact. Zeq 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

New antisemitism

I have added a section regarding some reverts you did in the talk page of New anisemitism. Could you please give some guidance. Nlsanand 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Hi again SlimVirgin. I was wondering if you know of any software that Wikipedia may have or may be developing to detect argumentative phrasing and WP words to avoid? I've got into the habit of searching for them using Google and it works ok. And of course just going through categories of articles works pretty well. Any other ideas? AlanBarnet 07:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Omura/help again please

Hello, I am trying to get some fundamental things sorted before I get blocked - if that is what happens.

1) Can Omura's statement on WP be used to state what he says he(Dr Omura) said either about the Tribunial and BDORT involvment and/or to Dr Gorringe re the NZ Tribunial issue? ie can any of these be used:

a) Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003).

b) I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me.

c) I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

d) It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.).

e) Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

and/or?

f) Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings.

2) If Omura puts his statement on his website, can it then be used moreso? If so in what way further.

3) Next please. Crum375 has reverted the POV template I put above the article, saying that it is not very non-neutral as a whole. I have said that as a WP editor who strongly disputes the neutrality of the article, I have the right to have this template up, is this correct or am I mistaken?

4) A critical statement from the Tribunial, from exactly the same official NZ Tribunial citation being used for all the others states that:

Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

Crum375 is arguing that this is "confusing" and so not allowed. Obviously it is important because it makes the Tribunial have a different 'light' on things altogether. It also corresponds with what Omura states in the above quote from his statement. I strongly contest this and see this as clear POV omission, and see no reason to omitt it except POV. Can you help with this please.

Thank you.Richardmalter 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

Re, Re: 3. The POV template may only be used if you've made suggestions for NPOV improvement that are actionable within our policies, and those suggestions have not been implemented. SV

1) I have made suggestions: this critical quote from the NZ report be included. There is no WP reason on the planet not to. Che, the last Mediator, even in his stub version included it. 2) It is so obviously critical to the whole thing, excluding it cannot really be NPOV. It is the sole quote that Omura mentions himself. Why cant WP readers just get all the rounded info, not selective, and decide for themselves?? Who said WP is not a tabloid? There is no way excluding this is not POV.Richardmalter 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) So having met the requirement of a positive suggestion that can be implemented, and has been by other editors, if Crum disagrees, can I not exercise my right to put the POV template up?Richardmalter 09:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: [10]. Regards.Richardmalter 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

SlimVirgin, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for all your help with the Yoshiaki Omura entry. I also really appreciate all the kind words you said about me, but I want to assure you I would welcome any criticism of any of my positions. They are all very flexible and based on my current understanding, which could well be flawed. I would be more than happy if you or anyone else, after proper scrutiny, corrected me on any of the issues involved. Thanks again, Crum375 11:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I was just trying to edit out my mistake when I hit an edit conflict, and you'd done it for me; thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Everwill's unblock

Hello, Slimvirgin. I noticed that on January 27, you unblocked the user Everwill. I just wanted to suggest that in the case that he is unblocked, that the RFCU which FeloniousMonk requested against him be reopened. It was closed as a foregone conclusion, under the assumption that if he was using the same arguments, a Checkuser was unneeded. Being that you have retracted your block of this user for reasons unknown to me, the concerns that originally motivated his RFCU are once more valid, I think. If I am incorrect in any of my assumptions, please let me know on my talk page- I'm not the most experienced user, so my interpretation of what the standard policy in this case would be. --HassourZain 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I'm not sure how it was resolved (I assume by your correspondence with Everwill via e-mail), but I trust your judgement. Thank you, --HassourZain 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel's honorary knighthood

I noticed your question in the edit summary - his knighthood is honorary because he is not a citizen of a country which has the British queen as a head of state. It's not a second-rate knighthood or anything. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Singer

Hi SlimVirgin - thank you very much for your heads-up on the link I deleted on this article. I've made a note on my own talkboard. -- TinaSparkle 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Please don't revert the RfC entry for Religious Anti-semitism again. It is obvious that there is a disagreement - thus the RfC. The entry serves its purpose, and directs people to the details on the Talk page. You have reverted the entry 3x already today - for sake of the sanity of those of us with the RfC page watchlisted, please just let it go. -- Pastordavid 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA article

There have been a lot of recent changes to the WP:NPA Policy. Thought you might like to take a look to see if the changes make sense. I'd definitely appreciate your input there... Dreadlocke ☥ 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Finally, an administrator with an ounce of sense. Not many of those around at the moment. (I just got warned for accidentally warning myself, go figure...) – Qxz 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay

Slim -

I've raise this request for comment, but I've also tried to re-frame it to be less of a cessppol than normal. I'm editing lightly for a little while, is there any chance you could watch this page and attempt to shepard it somewhere constructive? I'm still of the mind that creating tools to deal with social problems in our biggest downfall right now.

brenneman 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP defamatory statements need immediate deletion/ammendment

Hello SV. Omura article again. Please see: [11] and [12] Richardmalter 09:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Х