User talk:SlimVirgin/archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


[edit] The protection on Don't Tread on Me

Thanks for protecting the page. Yeah, that was me who requested for the protection earlier at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Mike Garcia | talk 2 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

[edit] The latest

Image:Gene wilder.jpg
Hi, I am new! -- El_C

Check out this new user, User:Cognition. He's even got a gallery of Beast-men! Cheers, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Your incessent pro-LaRouche propaganda sickens even me, SlimVirgin! ... What? El_C 2 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)
I'm one of the avocado-fascist evil Beastwomen, didn't you know. Hey, good to see your name on my talk page. You've arrived just in time for the party. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 05:49 (UTC)
I did? Nice! Where all the white women at? El_C 2 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)
I'm here, honey. I'll try to make up for being the only one. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 06:00 (UTC)
YASE! Be creative! Can you dance? Can you prance? Sing off-key? El_C 2 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
I'm extremely flexible, yes; and double-jointed if that helps. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 06:14 (UTC)
Heh, good answer! Oh, it helps, it helps! :) El_C 2 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You

For working around the clock to defend fascism and synarchism, I hereby award you the "rabid dog beast-man Barnstar." Keep up the bestial work. Cognition 2 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Thank you. I will treasure it. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:25 (UTC)
I must earn the rabid cat one! Cats win!! El_C 2 July 2005 07:33 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

When will the feces page be unlocked? Why is it locked up?

No, you did indeed lock it. The page protection log says 19:27, 26 June 2005 SlimVirgin protected Feces (reverting and trolling). No notice was placed on the talk page or on the page protection page, please unlock it.

[edit] Excuse me?

You said you didn't know why the Feces page was locked, and you are the one who did it, so why not unlock it? Floopy 2 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

[edit] Help! hijacked by Laroucher!

My FAC of Carl Friedrich Gauss is being hijacked by a Laroucher!(cognition) Can you help me determine if his objections are valid, and if not, remove them? Thank you! Borisblue 2 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)

  • Many thanks! I'd award you a "barnstar" if I could figure out what a barnstar is. Borisblue 2 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation.

I have just listed the photo "Temple of the Slim Virgin" used in the Prambanan article as a copyright violation. Bjorn

[edit] Urchid

user:Urchid is back to his usual POV pushing (biased) edits in the Islam article. He is deleting almost all the links from the article and reinserting an "Islam and Slavery" section even despite having a dedicated article of the topic and months of discussion on the Islam page. Isn't he also user:CltFn among others? --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

More of the same reverting to ancient article versions going on in the Islam and slavery article despite frequent warning. One only needs to see his talk page to see what type of editor he is. Please help deal with this. Thanks.:)--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Check your email. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 20:45 (UTC)
Just to notify: I responded to your email. Thanks once again. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 22:24 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski article

Hi SV-- would you mind taking a moment to unlock the Dembski article while I add it to a category? Let me on my Talk page when you're ready. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Thanks SV! FeloniousMonk 3 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

[edit] Your question to CltFn

The answer is no, why do you ask? I am starting to wonder whether that no account IP you kept accusing me of being was not a set up by that Islamist Anonymous User account, he is such devious manipulative character. By the way , you seem to be awfully activist against my edits , are you taking a partisan position in regards to edits that deal with your islamic faith? --CltFn 3 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Notice how this user uses exact same terminology as Urchid even though he and I have never confronted one another. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 03:21 (UTC)
Hmm I don't suppose you did not set me up in the post above titled Urchid?. Al-Taqya won't work with me.Your little deceitful and cunning tactics are for people who don't have a clue about Islamists.Oh by the way , why did you drop into this discussion , out of the blue perhaps?--CltFn 3 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, keep em' coming. Btw, I have no idea what you are talking about, all I know is you are accused of being other users. Aside from that I am sure SlimVirgin would be delighted to see what you are writing here. :) --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 03:38 (UTC)
Right you have not idea, no sweat, don't worry about it, and you don't know what Al-Taqya is either, right. Reminds me of Mohammed Atta's last words to the passengers before ramming the plane into the World Trade Center, "remain calm , and every thing will be OK" I know that you just cannot help yourself, lying through your teeth is your religion and you do nothing else but lie and that sadly is your incurable disease. As a matter of fact , I could probably take anything you say , and the exact opposite would probably be the truth. --CltFn 3 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
Okay thanks again. Btw, al-taqya means "deception" and you have been doing plenty of it, but I won't make conclusions as I don't desire to go into a conflict with you. I am sure SlimVirgin has discovered who you are by now. Once again thanks for the personal attacks I am sure they will serve a purpose. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:06 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Its been a pleasure discussing this matter with you and I am indeed looking forward to the exciting collaberation we will be having in the future in wikipedia.--CltFn 3 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
Yes surely. Who knows what the future holds, but with collaberation between you, SlimVirgin and me I am sure it will be quite exciting. ;) --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:47 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Cool as a Cucumber Award
Cool as a Cucumber Award

Hi, Slim! It's good to be back. :)

Wow, I keep running into your great edits all over the place. You are quite simply among the finest Defenders of the Wiki we have ever had. I was going to award you a barnstar to that effect, but I see that Willmcw beat me to it. So here is my three stage proposal:

  1. First, I hereby award you the Cool as a Cucumber Award, for remaining cool when the situation gets hot.
  2. Second, I offer unto you the opportunity to Tote the Ranks. The pay is lousy, but the work is nonexistent. ;-) Any "rank" strike your fancy?
  3. I see that we have no images of Loro Jongrang, the slim virgin. I shall now endeavor to scour the Internet for this most elusive (public domain or GFDL-released) image. The Slim Virgin must have representation!!!

func(talk) 3 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)


Hi! Troop mascot is brilliant, and not to worry, the mascot enjoys a very high ranking in the organization. Indeed, you can choose anyone on the list and give them an order right now...and they have to do it! Really! ;-)
You are entirely deserving of Cool as a Cucumber. Your patience with POV warriors is really quite astonishing. :)
Congratulations on the big 12,000. In another 5 or 6 years, I might get up that high as well. ;-)
P.S. Flexible and double-jointed helps me too. ;-)
func(talk) 4 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
Hey, get your own sockpuppet, Mister! I command this one to do my bidding. El_C 4 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
And does she obey you? SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 04:33 (UTC)
No, not really, but that is what makes it all the more interesting! Which is to say, schizophrenia is a harsh, but invariably coloruful mistress! El_C 4 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
I've found her to be quite wayward myself, actually, which truly is a schizoid experience, given my relationship with her. She's worth it, though, overall, mostly. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 04:42 (UTC)
Indeed. Still, though, the superego says: if she can't be rigidly forced to fall in line with chain of brutal command, she might become a risk. A threat. A target. If I may paraphrase Chief Clancy Wiggum: her personality may need to be broken, then built up again, then broken, then built up, then broken, and if we still have time, built up, again! El_C 4 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
You're another LaRouchie, in other words. Many before you have tried; none have broken her yet. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 05:11 (UTC)
Nothing like them, I'm the real thing. And as such, I am precluded from taking advantage of your misconception, and rather am obliged to inform you of its inherent weakness. Incidentally, I'm just about to watch Nimród Antal's Kontroll (inspiration?). Be good during my (uneventful, or else!) absence, I command you! El_C 4 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
Ought implies can. I only ought to be good if I'm able to be good, and you should know by now that I'm not. You'd get bored with me if I were a goody two-shoes and you'd cast me aside, as you did with the others. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 05:25 (UTC)
Ah, linearly, metaphysically, perhaps. But that is backwards-looking; the unity and identity of the contradiction —determinism-indeterminism– implies an interrelation, intercourse, interconnecdeness, interdependence, and interpenetration of reciprocal opposites: particular-universal, finite-infinite(simal), you get the picture, but its overall integrity depends on the frame, if I may (and I will) further stretch this analogy; or can it be counted as one? It's true, though, that I do get bored easily, but not so much at the sound of my own voice(s)! The movie was intense, thank you for asking, and good soundtrack. Recommended. Anyway, so how good were you? [In advance:] Oh, that's good! At ease; as you were. El_C 4 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting page you are partisan in

You are deleting pages that you yourself are partisan in. Not good for an admin. If you had read my suggestion on the Islam talk page you would have understood why the new page.--Urchid 3 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

I want to add a few pictures to the Judy Chicago page and her work, The Dinner Party. I intend to get them from Mark Harden's Artchive (http://www.artchive.com). I'm wondering if something like that is legal? Again, thanks for the prompt responses and the unhealthy amounts of help!! CharlesZ 4 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

We seem to have a new template that is really screwing with the sites formatting. See Template:TOCright. I have listed it on WP:TFD. To see how it is causing problems, see Daniel Pipes. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibitions on metric units, even if dual

You may want to weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Prohibitions on metric units, even if dual. Rl 4 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

[edit] More images help!

If you look on the Greek statue page I made, the image is licensed as 2D art under that tag. How does one make it 3D art or sculpture?? Thanks!

Also, the Greek art section is in need. Do you know how I can get in touch with anyone who might want to help? Thanks!!

Edit: It appears Greek statue would suit better in a new page Sculpture of Ancient Greece...but I have to merge it...how can I delete Greek Statue and merge the contents with the contents of Sculpture of Ancient Greece??

[edit] Russell

Slim, I am glad you've protected Bertrand Russell, as I put a lot of work into this some time ago. I have never paid much attention to LaRouche, but the insertions of his apostle caused me to investigate and to read LaRouche's diatribe on Russell and others, and, as with so many things, he completely fails to comprehend Russell's views on society or philosophy. Judging by the near incoherency and infelicity of expression on LaRouche's web site, I suspect he could never grasp Russell's techincial work, so I find it most amusing that he would comment on it.icut4u

[edit] My good self

If someone wants to write an article about me they are free to do so, and it will be up to other users to decide if I am "notable" enough to merit one. I neither can nor should intervene in that discussion. Having said that, if there is going to be an article it needs to be accurate. The article written by Cognition is wrong on two points, as one would expect from a LaRouchist. First, I was never a member of the CPA-ML. I was a member of its youth arm, the WSA, for about two years (1971-73). Second, neither Michael Danby nor I are "neoconservatives," or indeed conservatives of any kind. I am a member of the ALP and consider myself a social democrat on economic issues and a liberal on social issues. I am fairly "hawkish" on foreign policy issues (I supported the Iraq war), but that doesn't make me a conservative. I will have to leave it to you how to handle this matter. There is some biographical material here if that is of assistance to you or other editors. Adam 5 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

Slim, you say see the talk page but it seems you didn't look there yourself most recently? [1] Some parts of the paragraph do need clean up but outright deletion is inapproriate. They form the foundation for Churchill's essay and evidence or basis for much of his essay.

I am generally ok with your other edits to the intro, and I think the Ward Churchill quotation that 9/11 was "chickens comming home to roost" is the most accurate way of summarizing Churchill's argument, but technically, the controversy started and centered (perhaps illegitimately) around his "little Eichman's" comparison. I kind of liked the quotation-less intro better myself, or, we can perhaps work harded to present the history of how the controversy started without its desired presumption inducing effect and be neutral at the same time otherwise. What do you think? zen master T 6 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

[edit] Points of view

Image:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpg
My contributions is sitting. El_C 7 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

On another page, you wrote:

As I've said many times, no one is being locked out because of their views, but because of disruption. We do have solid majority opinion against LaRouche POV being inserted, but there's no reason that any editor's time should be tied up having to deal with it. However, as you seem to want to do it, you're welcome to volunteer; what you can't do is volunteer on behalf of anyone else. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 02:55 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I've been frequently described as having the most extreme views of anybody at Wikipedia, and yet I've never been blocked or RfA'd. My views are possibly the mirror opposite of the LaRouchites - being that I'm a Unificationist - and yet I'm:

  • Admin of the mailing list (again)
  • A bureaucrat - I'm the one who promoted Cecropria, who does nearly all the work now
  • Chairman pro tem of the Mediation Committee.

That's because I don't disrupt; I harmonize. I've figured out how to describe everything from the NPOV - with a few exceptions which I simply avoid.

I don't really think there's a danger from blocking site access to disruptive users. All they have to do is follow the civility and NPOV rules - which are NOT that hard to follow. Anyone who tries, can pick it up in a week or two. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 01:49 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping: I'm wondering which of the two types of Unificationists listed on the disambig page that you are, because there is quite a big difference between being a moonie and wanting to unite Australia. :) func(talk) 7 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
Uncle Ed is an adherent of the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Moon. Surprise, SV! I dropped by to see the nice colors on your user page. Great job! Tom Haws July 7, 2005 19:37 (UTC)

[edit] IP Tracking on Registered Users

You claim that a few Wikipedia users are the same person. Is there any place to check the IP address used for a certain edit by a user? I'd like to see this myself, if possible. Thanks. ^_^ Gemini6Ice 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

[edit] Something you might want to look into.

I'd like to get at least one admin watching this...Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Túpac Amaru II. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 05:06 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry But I don't Believe and Trust You Anymore

If you remember me I sent you an e-mail before and you said "I don't have any idea about that thing but if I find someone I could... etc." or you said a thing like that. Whatever, I see no changes, now I think that Wikipedia is a propaganda tool against the SOCIALISM , KEMALISM and all of the other BEST ideologies to save the COLONISED AND POOR NATIONS and to make the world a better place without POORNESS and WAR. wikipedia is not an ENCYCLOPEDIA , wikipedia is a propaganda tool in the hands of IMPERIALISM ,and there are racists people, administrators in wikipedia against the Turks and some other Middle-eastern and Asian nations, I don't want to be a part of this ABOMINATION, I am asking you now how can I DELETE MY ACCOUNT in Wikipedia? Or I request to DELETE MY ACCOUNT. Or can you tell me anyone to talk about DELETING MY ACCOUNT in Wikipedia if you don't have any idea about that thing again? And don't worry , over 200 million people will learn that what Wikipedia is? And what wikipedia is not? DOWN WITH IMPERIALISM!!!! -- aozan

Yeah, Sock it to The Man! --Irishpunktom\talk July 8, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

[edit] Spy satellites reading newspapers

Hi there - you wanted to reinsert the text at the Pan Am 103 article claiming that spy satellites could read newspapers.

1. It's crazy talk. The resolution of a military satellite is secret, of course, but the highest resolution cited by the usual suspects on the web is about 5cm, meaning a 5cm object could be detected.

2. So a journalist mentioned that a spy satellite could read a newspaper. This does not add credibility to the extraordinary claim. There are plenty of journalists with no technical background, and the line sounds like the type of facile, throwaway-line BS that one might expect from a credulous reporter. There has never been any evidence presented that a spy satellite can read a newspaper.

3. The claim has nothing to do with the Pan Am 103 disaster and does not add to the article. It only detracts from the article, because the claim is so crazy. It makes one wonder what else in the article is incredible hyperbole.

That's why I removed the line. Regards - Tempshill 8 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)


[edit] Unlocking the Islam page and the Islam Slavery page

  • There is no real dispute on those pages,so the lock is pointless and I find it interesting that you conveniently lock the version that you support.
  • Is it true that you are a Sunny Muslim? --Urchid 9 July 2005 00:47 (UTC) [later corrected to Sunni]

I'm sure that if SlimVirgin were a Muslim, she'd be a sunny one (though she might cloud over a bit when people aimed ill-judged and bigoted remarks at her). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mel Etitis and Urchid,
Every human can believe what he/she wanted to, no body can discuss someone because of her/his religion, why doesn't anybody discussing someone's Christianity or Judaism, how can you describe someone as something without her/his permission, how can you know someone's religion? Please look to this page: secularism maybe this page helps to change your decisions against the religions of the people -- aozan

??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Aiken

Well, Slim, I'm again having quite a problem with an article I came to originally because of an RFC (when will I learn my lesson?). You helped out so much with PJ.com that I thought I'd contact you to see if you're interested in this one. I originally came to the article because several anon users (probably Aiken fans) kept removing a brief, NPOV paragraph about pop culture speculation that Aiken is gay. Apparently, Aiken's fans really get incensed about the rumor. Anyway, we got a good, ~4-5 editor consensus to keep, but there suddenly was an influx of anon users from different IP's reverting only that information. I suspect someone posted a message on a fan forum somewhere and the floodgates opened. Anyway, I finally posted a request on RFP and someone protected the page for a couple weeks. That stopped it for a month maybe. Suddenly it's started up again, although now the dispute seems to be over whether to include a link to a fan group called "Openly Clay," which is basically a forum for Aiken fans who think he's gay and are fine with that. Now we have a new phalanx of anon editors coming to erase the information, and a couple who have registered for accounts solely for the purpose of erasing the information (and a couple have left messages on the talk page). Most of them are extraordinarily belligerent and can't seem to understand NPOV. Their arguments for removing the link essentially consist of: we don't like the link because they talk about the Aiken/gay rumor. It's devolved now into ad hominem attacks (mainly against me, somehow), and one user (which I have reported on WP:3RR but which hasn't been acted on) that just took a vandal comment from my userpage and then reposted it on the talk page. I'm sort of at a loss at this point; reported on RFP but no action yet. Understand if you're too busy to take a look, but thought I'd run it past you just the same. Thanks in advance either way. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:59, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Willmcw just protected. Thank goodness. Still welcome your thoughts on a resolution. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:23, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Slim :)

The images on your user and talk pages always make me smile. Long time no talk.

I've left the following message[2] with El_C regarding the Wareware Arb Com process, which includes a link to my comments on the Arb Com talk page. I'm not stewing about this; this kind of thing (like Wareware's racism) is old hat. I've long since moved on. But in archiving stuff on my talk page, it occurred to me that some loose ends required attention.

Not the least of which is a thank-you to you. I very much appreciate your helpfulness and concern in the Wareware matter -- and your time. Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 07:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animated flag images

Hi!

I noticed you uploaded the animated flag images. You labelled them as PD, but 3DFlags.com's terms of use only allows their use with credit and a link, which isn't PD. The site for the UK flag (which you labelled as fair use) says that they're used freely but they ask for a link back to their site. Unfortunately, that license isn't very clear, either. It's better for us to have images with clear licenses. Are there any truly free sources where you could find these images? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] have a gander?

I posted this on Mustaffas talk page too, but the more invokved the better the piece (In theory anyway) Wondering if you can have a gander over at two revert wars Jayjg and I are involved in. Al Andalus (Muslim Spain) and The Sword of the Prophet. You can check the talk pages to see his rationale for the constant reverting, because I don't understand why he's doing it, but, help is appreciated! regards - --Irishpunktom\talk 19:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry I was slow to find rule violation info you requested, but I'm new...

SlimVirgin,

You asked me for info regarding the 3RR situation, and I feel I may have been prejudiced by my slow response.

As you recall, I made the claim that i felt that this user violated the "spirit of the rule," even if not the "letter" by creatively trying to get around a "technical" revert. Well, he protested along those same lines, and apparently it got by us. But, he got smart with me and demanded I cite the rule, and the exchange that follows -and posted in the 3RR page, clearly shows he violated a rule that I had imagined ("spirit of the law") but did not know really existed (e.g. “gaming the system“).

(Here is in pertinent part below the exchange: Have i lost my argument because I was slow?)

  • Duck, at this diff at 23:22, 10 July 2005, you asked me for answers, and I answered you at this diff at 01:57, 11 July 2005. You raise a point that i had not considered, because I've only been here a few months and didn't see the 3RR page's fine details. I'm recopying it here because SlimVirgin wanted clarification of whether you violated the rules: --GordonWattsDotCom 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

…but the sup tags weren't [in the original version], and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version… So let me see if I have this straight. In the version before my first edit (under discussion) there were no <sup> tags. I edited that version by adding <sup> tags (not changing them). When I did that, it "reverted" to a different version, which now even I can't understand. It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion. That is one magic concept. Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened. Duckecho (Talk) 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Duck in italics) "It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion." Bingo! You got it. "Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened." OK: "This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording." Cite: 3RR#Enforcement, 4th Paragraph, 2nd Sentence. Trying to make a complex revert like you did almost fooled SlimVirgin, but thanks to your smart remark to me, I looked up the exact cite, and I shall bring this to her attention. While I don't think that you will get blocked this time, I am certain that you tried to "game the system."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


(He also had more to say, which I have not recopied here, but I don't want to clutter your page; The full account appears at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Duckecho )

--GordonWattsDotCom 02:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • PS: We've tried mediation, and some points upon which we agree are being violated or are in the process, and that is covered in the more lengthy version -and poor Uncle Ed is being worked to the bone. We need more help. ArbCom maybe? I say this because you may think that this is an edit dispute, but the rules say otherwise. Do I not act fairly in my laying out of the facts?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Good luck

You will need it trying to sort this out. The above is but a microcosm of what the rest of the editors on the Terri Schiavo Talk page and article project have had to deal with since his arrival. A complete and utter lack of ability to follow a point, and posts that verify Lenin's precept of quality vs quantity that "quantity has a quality all its own." Uh, half-truths enter into the picture, too. By the way, my apologies for even posting this here. I believe it is essentially unethical to plead a case here on a talk page, and I won't plead it here, but this user spews volumes all over the place and I don't want my voice lost. Duckecho (Talk) 03:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not pleading my case here. I am only making a statement that there were new things I found and posted on the 3RR page, by making reference to them; This is reasonable, because new material may be overlooked unless one is looking for it.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To pet or to pet, that is the non-question, whether it isn't...

Image:Vulpes zerda front view.jpgImage:Vulpes zerda in Heidelberg zoo.jpgImage:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpgImage:Fennec001.jpg
Image:Vulpes zerda yawning.jpgImage:Fennec007.jpgImage:Fennec008.jpgImage:Vulpes zerda dozing.jpg fin. El_C 10:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luding Bridge

Erm, you asked for what Jung Chang said and I posted it ages ago. Could you give some sort of response on that, please? Cheers John Smith's 11:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol, you were the one that asked for the "evidence", so I supplied it and assumed that you would look at it :) John Smith's 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Lao Wai is editing Jung Chang even after the special edit you did. Could you keep an eye on things and enter the conversation if necessary. I fully accepted it needed to be edited, but what's the point in you editing it if user after user comes along and wants to change it to suit themselves? John Smith's 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to hit the panic button. We're starting to have some sort of discussion. John Smith's 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (Message below transplanted from my page, that is Gordon Watts' page)

Hi Gordon, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I didn't follow it entirely, but the important point is that we can only block for technical violations of 3RR; the gaming-the-system thing is a bit nebulous. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply; I don't know the ins and the outs of Wiki-worlds, but I take your word. The matter was not real complicated: It was a simple "edit war," using edits instead of reverts, but to the same end; There were, however, ancellary issues, but hopefully not that which would push Wiki editors off track. ~~ Two other things: #1: A statement: We all (especially you over-worked admins) don't get paid AND have to put up with NONscreened editors. The lack of screening (like one would do for a "regular" job) allows much vandalism!!... and uses up precious human and computing (and financial) resources -plus, as none of are paid, the quality goes down, which I told Jimbo on his page, in hopes my thoughts would improve Wiki quality. #2: A Question: What is the convention for replying? Aphaia, for example, insists it's easier for her to track down my reply on my page (on her watchlist, I guess), but many people prefer answers on their home talk pages (cuz you get a message when someone posts) --with no regard to your preference, where would you have expected me to reply, if I were an "average" Wikipedian? (And, I'll try to do that, as "most do.") Oh, #3: (Bonus Question) which was #1 from my initial complaint: I don't seek sanctions against Duck, and I feel bad he was baited into the edit war, but what would you suggest in our case? Leniency, as Uncle Ed suggests -typical of people already in mediation -so there is less paperwork, or just an informal verbal warning for all of us to be more careful? (Before you answer, please KNOW that I attempted to ask Duckecho about his edits numerous times, but he was silent and kept on keepen on, so that "gamin' the system" is less acceptable here... grr...) Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 13:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

But there are problems with the page, which a copy edit will iron out to some extent, so please allow me to do it, and discuss any edits you disagree with on talk, rather than reverting without reading them.

What makes you think I haven't read them? FuelWagon 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

mistakes like italicizing half of guardian ad litem, but not all of it.
Hey, if that's all you want to do, have at it. But what I read was seriously out of whack with the "copyediting" approach that you insist on describing. FuelWagon 20:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Flowerofchivalry, again

Once again he is using sockpuppets to start revert wars at Nanjing Safety Zone. You and others have warned him numerous times prior to this, so I thought you might be interested in it. I have submitted a 3RR log here. -Hmib 04:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, Hmib is still doing barbarous acts at all over the place, and I'm sorry for his leaving his filth. I think you now understand what kind of person Hmib is.--Flowerofchivalry 07:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Map-Kaliningrad.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Map-Kaliningrad.gif. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}} or {{no license}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{GFDL}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}} but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. RedWolf 05:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise on Schiavo

Hello, Mr SlimVirgin. Or Mrs SlimVirgin, whatever. I have put a suggestion for a compromise on the Terri Schiavo talk page, because I really don't like all the fussing and feuding. I do think both sides of this newly created hissy fit have been a bit irresponsible. Eh, I'm not writing it again ... go see the darn talk page. Proto t c 08:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I am spending my personal time looking into this, and, as I stated below, I had hoped to "retire." However, as perhaps the most successful litigant on the "losing" side, I felt that my personal experience in the four-fold areas here might help bring balance to this matter. (Four fold: 1-I wrote about this, 2-I was written about a tiny bit, 3-went to court myself, and 4-was involved in the protests / rallies / demonstrations, or whatever you wanted to call them.)
I have not fully reviewed the talk page, but so far, your edits looked OK to me: A few edits that could be classed as "pro" feeding Terri; maybe 1 or 2 that were opposite (balance); and 1 or 2 times you commented but left the opposing item in. (I looked at every single edit from before your first recent edit to current and tried to follow the "chains of thought" of the various editors involved.)
After I finish reviewing talk, I may weigh in on this. Oh, my "most succesful" court case? I was the litigant who was defeated 4-3 in the same Supreme Court and on the same matter where Jeb lost 7-0 twice. You can google me for details:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=watts+schiavo+%224-3%22

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=watts+schiavo+%224-3%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/search/web/watts%2Bschiavo%2B%25224-3%2522

--GordonWattsDotCom 13:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you should probably see Duckecho's talk page before reading too much into that. Proto t c 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm reverting to my "native" font color of pastel blue, as I usually do in talk (and this helps differentiate me from Proto above). -Anyhow, I wanted to give you all an update: I've read all the edits in the main Schiavo article from your first recent edit (up to a few hours ago; since then, I've been plodding thru talk page, with which I'm almost finished: I'm almost finished with reading ALL the recent talk diffs). I realize the FuelWagon is particularily abusive, but he is harmless and means no real harm by his bad language (that is his way) however, I may take issue with a few of his points. My point to you, SlimVirgin, being: Don't let them rile you up: You are mostly (but not totally) right, as close as I can estimate so far. Hang on: The calvary will arrive soon.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Short Reply (it really 'is short!)

Translplanted from my page: Hi Gordon, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I didn't follow it entirely, but the important point is that we can only block for technical violations of 3RR; the gaming-the-system thing is a bit nebulous. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on your point. I'd say forget the apparent 3RR violation and get on with editing. Regarding where to post messages, I prefer them on my talk page, but others are different. There's no rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I left several points, not all of them totally related, in hopes to merely improve the system (chiefly screening editors, paying the help, etc. improve quality, even if some downsides exist).
  • Also, I made several point in re my prior 3RR violation; I feel stupid if you missed my points. (smile) It was part my fault for making several unrelated points, but in regards to the 3RR, I think you got my point, as evidenced by the fact that you dispensed probably the right amount of discipline that was (I think) appropriate. Thank you.
    • I see some new dispute has occurred in re the late Theresa Schiavo's wiki article. Although I am "retired," I think I'll go on over there to check it out. (I'm "retired" because after having been a VERY major litigant in court for Terri -and almost winning; AND in doing “major” editing in both WikiQuotes and WIKIpedia --I've NOT gotten paid; Time to move on and retire, but I shall look at the new dispute.)--GordonWattsDotCom 10:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You won the context; Hope your opponents have no hard feelings...

FYI, I tallied the points assigned (yes, I know the "contest' theme is probably getting old, and appears combative) -but I objectively looked at all the points and did npt fudge just because some of your edits appeared to support my pro-life POV, but you won in an over-time tie-breaker.

The strength of your victory was your accuracy to facts, and I was glad to have been able to have reviewed the article for inaccuracies a few weeks ago -I previously thought the Schiavo page was honkey dorey and A -OK, but credit is given to NCdave for raising cane, and I took a "closer look," and got more educated.

OK, that's all -the details (and you mande a few preventable mistakes, unfortunately) are in talk; I hope my observations were helpful

NeuroScientist also makes a few good points, but a few times he seems to contradict himself. This paragraph, by NS, for example, contradicts itself. First he says that autopsey DIDN'T find cortical blindness ,and then said it DID, suing different language -huh??

"This is nonsense, of course. Dr. Nelson did not "find" cortical blindness. He found that Schiavo's visual cortex had been severely damaged, such that it was exceedingly unlikely that Schiavo was capable of sight. Cortical blindness is the clinical correlate of severe destruction of the visual cortex. One does not "find" cortical blindness in an autopsy. One either finds it in life through clinical examination, or deduces it in death upon finding a destroyed visual cortex." (written apparently at 05:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC), by NS)

I've been hopping from computer to computer as mine is offline now due to lightening strike, so my hurried bad grammar/spelling is indicitive of such. -later.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flower of Chivalry

re this 3 revert rule infringement, is there any possibility that the anonymous IP addresses were actually not 'Flower', but someone else? I mean, could they be associated with 'hmib' instead? or do they resolve to the area that flower is editing from? If you don't know, is there someone who could look into it before I ask 'Flower' ? Any advice? It will be a lot easier to advocate for the user, if I can be sure he's lying, or if I can be sure he's not. It kinda looks like it could be a frame, judging only by what I know of the original conflict between the 2... since flower is apparently blocked right now, I think it might be difficult to get a fast reply from him. Thanks, sorry to trouble you. Pedant 18:17, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

With the amount of personal attacks and crap he (FoC) is throwing around, he's long overdue for a ban. If I did indeed impersonate as such an unsavoury individual and do some kind of orchestrated framing... I have better things to do.
This is not the first time Flowerofchivalry resorted to such tactics to circumvent 3RR policies. The last time he did Mark confirmed the anonymous IPs as Sprint IPs. I do not know what he did to find this out, but IIRC there are apps that allow you to see where the IPs originate from. Flowerofchivalry claimed somewhere that he lived around the Berkeley area, or somewhere, in CA. I live in Olympia, WA. If anyone knows how to determine the location of a certain IP address, please help out. The IP addresses in question are 68.124.90.72, and 204.210.33.122. However if those are Sprint IPs God only will know where the real user is. This page has the IPs from FoC's last attempt. There is also the possibility that he is editing from school or work. As a token of good will, my WAN IP is 24.17.141.99, it should be static and my ISP is Comcast. (If I suffer any DoS attack shortly after this, I'll know who it's from). I'll ask Mark what he used to determine those IPs' origin.
To be honest, I am also somewhat surprised that FoC resorted to this underhanded tactic... a second time. What I'm even more surprised of, Pedant, is that you casually dismiss the possibility that FoC committed this offense and blame it on me without a single scrap of evidence... from your English skills I'm confident you're not FoC's sockpuppet or anything, but please take a look at his track record first before accusing others. You might know him from real life or whatnot, but please approach this objectively. Thanks. -Hmib 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've replied to your email. Sorry about the delay. Hope it helps. -Hmib 01:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I have replied to your latest email. Good luck. -Hmib 02:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, Pedant. I reversed 68.124.90.72 to adsl-68-124-90-72.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net, 204.210.33.122 to cpe-204-210-33-122.san.res.rr.com, and 24.17.141.99 to c-24-17-141-99.hsd1.wa.comcast.net just for your information.--Flowerofchivalry 07:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I replied all the e-mails. Hmib and Mark wasted you and my time using the false accusations, again and again. --Flowerofchivalry 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Just who is wasting whose time is not yet known.
Playing the devil's advocate here, is it possible that the 219 (I think) anon user that kept on vandalising articles and accusing FoC of being a 'fucking jap' is the one responsible? -Hmib 18:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hammesfahr

Ciao bella, good work on Hammesfahr. Have you read his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo? If you haven't, you ought to look it up. It'll give you good insight into his methods and why he's held in so much contempt by the medical community. -- Grace Note

That's as may be, but if he is practising "alternative medicine", one ought to take care about allowing his opinion to be stated qua "neurologist". Practitioners of alternative medicine are often derided by scientists not so much for political reasons as because they do not practise the methods of science. As his diagnosis does quite clearly show, Hammesfahr indulged in a kind of interpretive medicine in diagnosing Schiavo. I'm not a neurologist, of course, but I think those that are have questioned his report on that sort of basis. -- Grace Note

[edit] Measurement units

Hi, Slim, you might want to see this. Ciao. Maurreen 05:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who/Whom

'Who' is used as the subject, 'whom' as the object. I don't understand your revert

[edit] Help with page move

Hello SV. GCcarty has done a cut-and-paste move of Mount Erebus disaster to Air New Zealand Flight 901. I wonder if you could help to merge the page histories [or perhaps I should just revert his changes?]. Sorry to be a bother. (P.S. Thankyou very much for the barnstar!) -- FP <talk><edits> 09:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks VERY much, it's looking great. But I think the intention was to move the whole page to Air New Zealand Flight 901. (Which name do you think is the most appropriate? Perhaps I can ask for naming advice on the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.) -- FP <talk><edits> 10:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diatribes

You made a very good point, Slim:

obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of

Can we deal with this by then (1) giving them a clear Wikipedia:No personal attacks block and then (2) protecting their talk page? (If we had to continue talking about the block - everyone but them of course - we could do it on an unprotected subpage.) Uncle Ed 17:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions and Disputes

Hi, it's Joey. Do we always have to propose edits and revisions on the talk page before implementing them into the article? I'm asking primarily due to the RCorrie article. Jeus 20:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I'll try to have some more restraint next time (instead of falling into edit/revision wars). Jeus 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Question: What do I do when someone refuses to even *look* at my edits, and insists on reverting pages dozens of versions into the past? I'm talking about the Israeli terrorism page. I'm not breaking the 3RR, as far as I can tell, and I am using the talk page (both of the site, and of the person I disagree with), but I'm not making any progress. Jeus 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have mentioned to Guy that he must adhere to policy on this front. El_C 23:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TOCright proposal

Hello. Since you were part of the discussion of the Template:TOCright template once it was moved from VfD to the MoS, you might be interested in the draft proposal currently posted there. We appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have. -- Titoxd 23:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli terrorism

You seem to have just reverted the page to your preferred version, and then protected it. Before you take such steps, I suggest a careful reading of Wikipedia:Protection policy, particularly #2: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." and #3: "Add {{ protected }} (or {{ vprotected }} for vandalism) to the top of the temporarily protected page and make mention of the protection in the edit summary". - Mustafaa 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Might I ask why you made the page protected? It takes two to start an edit war; favoring one side while dismissing the other side (and Then making the page impossible to edit or revert) seems...wrong, somehow. I hardly think there's a need to lock the page down into one person's version -- that sort of makes "discussing it" on the talk page rather moot; why try to change it if it's still dependent upon someone's overriding opinion? Jeus

For how many days do we vote over disputed pictures? (I'm talking about the one with the girl. It's on IFD at the moment). EDIT: Nevermind. I found it. Jeus 00:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your concern for correct characterization of the death of Rachel Corrie, I note that you reverted the page three times before protecting it. I find it almost impossible to characterize that as involvement solely as an admin. See also m:The Wrong Version. - Mustafaa 00:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I had already looked, and was seriously considering reverting back to the longer version when I noticed you had protected it. Both versions are flawed (why include bulldozers but exclude AI's quotes on killing children?) - Mustafaa 01:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Americanflag.gif

Image deletion warning The image Image:Americanflag.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

Also, Image:Indonesianflag.gif and Image:Spanishflag2.gif. The license from their site doesn't seem to release them into the public domain. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza Strip

Thanks - I really appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arabian Gulf protection

Hey there. I wanted to notice you that I unprotected the Arabian Gulf page. Protecting an article "long-term" is pretty much as anti wiki as it can get, we should rather watch out for vandalism and simply revert that as to hinder everyone in editing a page. --Conti|✉ 09:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Such fun

Wikipedia is such fun that sometimes I get too wrapped-up in one endeavor and neglect another. Parallel edits? Yes, if you think it's time, once again, to "build a case". Apply, lather, rinse, repeat. "Shampedia"? -Willmcw 10:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uthar Wynn 01

Hi Gadfium, I just went to block the above indefinitely, but I notice he's negotiated a shorter block with you. My perception of this user is that he's a troll. He has repeatedly added nonsense to Terri Schiavo, material that constitutes vandalism e.g. these edits [3], he's vandalized a user page with the edit summary "spelling fix," [4], and when I blocked him for 24 hours for it, he e-mailed me in a very contrite, reasonable way, asking to be unblocked early. When the block expired, he went straight back to Terri Schiavo and continued his vandalism, admitting to another user that he knew he was adding nonsense, but that it was "true nonsense." [5] Would you have any objection if I made the block indefinite? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've promised to give him a chance, but if he goes back to his old ways then I would have no objection to your blocking him indefinitely. With both of us watching him carefully, he should be aware that he's on thin ice.-gadfium 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
If I may jump in here, I recommend a series of short blocks instead. Some people take longer to learn than others. I teach Sunday School, and one kid took 15 time-outs before he mastered the rules. He then became a model student. Uncle Ed 01:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from A ghost

Slim (or is there something else you prefer?), I noticed that you were involved in a dispute with a number of Users whom I respect. As a member of the Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation effort, I'd like to invite you to join us there. I'd like to understand more of your recent involvement with the article(s). My instict is that something went horribly wrong during my recent abscence, and if we're going to fix it I'm likely to need your help.

Although Duck, Fuel, Gordon and I all make our share of mistakes, I consider these editors my friends. It hurts to see them at each other's throats. Oh, and Duck quit. I'm trying to fix that. But editing his User page postmortem maybe bad taste. I understand you find that comments distasteful, but they are his. Please revert your edit.--ghost 20:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:Your comments:
Slim, I understand some of your concerns about the editing that surrounds the Terri Schiavo page. I am, by nature, a concensus builder. Most people are not. You are partially correct that something was and is wrong. That's why I requested Mediation, and Uncle Ed's been trying to help. Recently, that effort lost momentum, and I believe that led to the set of incidents you found yourself in.
The fact that any User has a strong POV means nothing about their status as an editor. In fact, those with strong POVs maybe more valuable because they bring something others cannot. And the number of edits a User or an Anon has/hasn't made is equally irrelevant. They are Users and should be treated as equals. To do otherwise undermines the principle of the project. We need people who know alot about subject we might not know or care about.
Finally, Users view their User Pages as personal space. Personal space is sacred in human culture. If Users can't vent there, where should they? And do we have the right to invade that space? I understand your concerns about personal attacks. They don't belong in the articles, and must be avoided in Talk pages. But your rights end at the tip of my nose. And mine, yours. Deletions in the User space of others should be avoided at (almost) all costs.--ghost 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I greatly hesistate signing up for a zero-tolerance anything. For the simple reason that it sacrifices the need for common sense on the altar of some noble priciple. Principles, no matter how noble, are not as important as people. The dispute over what some have called personal attacks, and what others consider a refutation of erroneous facts, is a good example of this. These editors you've labeled inexperienced don't initially seek to undermine the work of anyone. A zero-tolerance policy would suggest we jettison scientific professionals who are following the standards of peer review in their fields. Not everyone plays with others as well as you and I might. And some professionals are taught not to.
You and I seem to be very close to agreeing on alot. Where we differ seems to be in how we give others the benefit of the doubt. And I mean all others, even the ones that cus us out. (BTW, FuelWagon and I have gone round and round before. My respect for him is based on the quality of his work. Not his behavior.) What worries me is that not enough effort is given to examining the Man-in-the-Mirror. We all need to do this more.--ghost 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Slim, I know about the abuse. I've been the target before from both sides. On Talk:Terri Schiavo and elsewhere. I am working to fight it from a different approuch. One of inclusion, rather than enforcement. I have to disagree with you about its on two key counts:
1) "Taking your lumps" is part of the risk we open ourselves too whenever we enter into any public debate. I am also concerned about editors being intimidated and was (prior to my absence) working to get those voices heard. But it's unrealistic to expect the world to follow our personal standards of conduct. And imposing those standards on others is immoral.
2) There are some people who don't see this behavior as inapproprate. Having worked in the hearts of major cities, the language and behavior here is tame. If we find it offensive, then it shows us the need to put ourselves in the other persons shoes. And in those shoes, the behavior you've identified is not only appropriate, it's demanded.
I look forward to working with you as well. But we cannot allow ourselves to become that which we fear. I propose we demonstate how to do it the right way by embracing the editors on both sides, and guiding them forward. Exclusion is not the way.--ghost 04:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I saw you edit of your edit on Duck's User page. Thanks, it shows character.--ghost 04:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Re:PVS Intro
That was a recent edit. (It occured while I was absent) You may want to look at this version which was what had been agreed on on Talk. The Talk page does work, but sometimes those efforts get unwound by others.--ghost 05:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone else has disagreed with your edits on User:Duckecho. Since I have no idea if this the Duck-ster himself, I didn't think it appropriate to revert you. However, would you do me the favor of reconsidering your position on editing another, possibly retired, User's page. I understand your concerns about personal attacks. However, I still believe that someone's User page is the page they should be able to vent. Also, editing the page of an inactive User just strikes me as morbid. I'm not asking you to agree with me. Just to give the guy his space. (BTW, if you're thinking the Anon is a sockpuppet of me, it's not. Your trace will find I'm behind the firewall of a major financial institution, unless I'm at home.)--ghost 18:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection requested

Hi Slim! I like your page a lot; it has some fascinating information and good advice. I'm writing to you for help protecting an Wikipedia page. Without going into detail, a user has taken the stance that I am the same person as an anonymous IP (registered in Hong Kong). While this is simply untrue (as a reasonable comparison should make clear), the user has continued to attack he and I on his user page. I tried every avenue to resolve the situation to no avail. As some people won't listen to reason, I've decided not to let it bother me as I believe the facts speak for themselves.

Having said that, I made a mistake in trying to resolve the "sockpuppet" dispute. In an attempt to be very honest about my editing locations, I disclosed both my home and work IP addresses to the user making the allegations, a moderator, and the user in Hong Kong who is alleged to be me. Subsequently, the person going after me placed redirects on both IPs to my personal profile (RJSampson). I didn't change the redirect on my home IP (I truly have nothing to hide), but as I have resigned from my present job to start a new one next week, I erased the redirect on the work IP (66.179.35.4).

I informed the Legal department here of the situation and how Wikipedia works, and they're not too happy with me, to say the least. They told me to put a disclaimer on the user page of the IP address stating them as the registrant. I did so. (On a side note -- The user who made the mistaken sockpuppet accusation seems to be having a field day with this). Is there anyway that my former work IP page can be protected from future edits? I would like very much to separate as amicably as possible with my employer, and I thought it would do no harm to ask a moderator for help.. If I can show the Legal dept that the page cannot be edited, I'm sure that would help my transition between jobs go smoothly. RJSampson 18:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. The lawyers are finally satisfied! RJSampson 18:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi again Slim. Once again, I appreciate your help. It really seems to have upset the user I mentioned in the above message, as I had to remove the following text from the now protected IP talk-page:
"I have never heard of such a stupid thing in my life! User:SlimVirgin you are being played by this User:RJSampson. I can't believe you are allowing someone to copyright an IP address like this. You've made a bad decision and set a bad precident! Have you ever read some of the BS that this guy has been writing ot just to me but to other users? Maybe you should, he lies. Carr 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)"'
Clearly, this person has it out for me personally, and quite badly at that. And I would invite you to read any of the "BS" that user is referring to, if you're concerned about that statement. I just want to assure you I was being perfectly serious and certainly not "playing" you, and I strive to always be honest. This user does not appear to know the correct meaning of "copyright" as it were. Anyway, I feel bad that me asking you for help has incurred attacks from that individual upon you as well, but we are grateful for your assistance. RJSampson 20:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Deletion of Username

Hi again... I'm so sorry to keep bothering you Slim. I need to request a deletion of the user ProfitlineInc. It was apparently created in anger for the sole purpose of mocking my request for protection. Yikes, this guy really hates me. I had no idea things would escalate this way, and I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. RJSampson 20:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no fair. I wanted to block him. Oh well, off to clean up his mess... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for page protection

There is a user on Neofascism and religion who keeps deleting material without engaging in a serious discussion. Could you review the situation and consider locking the page until there is a more constuctive and detailed discission? Thanks. --Cberlet 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ProfitLineInc and User:66.179.35.4

Why did you protect the discussion page for an IP belonging to ProfitLineInc? People have a right to discuss someone who runs around attempting to trademark information. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, there seems to be a vandal afoot over there. Never mind. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mansour

Greetings,

I dont mean to be meddling in or anything, but regarding Mansour's latest reply to you that "either show me the racial insult or shut up", the comment he specifically made was:

"Torke tabloye taze be dorun reside cheghad zer mizane", which appeared on 05:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC) on Afghanistan's talk page.

The first word of this sentence is referring to my ethnicity, an Azeri Turk. The second word is a (negatively) adjective that describes the first word. The insulting tone of it along with the rest of the sentence can be verified by any Wiki Administrator who speaks Farsi. Regards.--Zereshk 05:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

hehe, you *ARE* truly pathetic Zereshk, as I have pointed out to you before. You know damn well that the term "racism" or "racist comment" doesn not apply in Iran in the same way that it applies in countries with true racist history, such as USA and many European countries. The fact that you are using your familiarity with the English language to get a cheap "winning point" out of a lost game, tells us how weak and pathetic you are. In absolutely BEST of circumstances, you can associate "turk" in Persian slang with "ethnicity" but if you really grew up in Iran as you claim you did, you know damn well what it is. And especially "torke tablo", which you are an epitome of one. Given your pathetic edit history of "all image and no substance" I repeat, it's hard to imagine a lower self-respecting Iranian than you. You were born to be a wannabee-western and as such, Iranians like you deserve to be jew-slaves like how most hard-working, tax-paying innocent Americans are today. In the best of circumstances, you will be a second-class American. You get it bright sparkle? Mansour 08:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I am almost afraid to ask what "bright sparkle" means in Iran.... func(talk) 02:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

I hope you are witnessing all these relentless attacks. Mansour also has been attacking others, and is using other aliases and anonymous signatures in the revert wars here and there.--Zereshk 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings,
I hate to keep bothering you on this. But I think Mansour's latest post is illustrative of his intensifying behaviour. See here. He is using an anonymous account. Even if the anonymous user is not him, I would still prefer to report this. Regards.--Zereshk 11:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[