User talk:SlimVirgin/archive22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Sorry, but its the eXile page again.

I don't know what else to say, but could you check out the eXile again.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 15:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:SamuelSpade

SV, just to let you know another account has been created, SamuelSpade is now User:Spadesam. I'd appreciate it if you could ban this person as well. Davidpdx 19:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SV your the best! Davidpdx 00:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know KAJ is back and I think he, Johnski and SamuelSpade are mounting an attack on the articles again. You might want to keep an eye on them. Thanks... Davidpdx 05:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re your message

Thanks for the advice and I agree. I wish to stay far away from conflict at the moment. I had put my vote in the wrong place and since have corrected it I think. I agee with your statement and I won't back down from that. I mess up a little lately, guess because I am five months pregnant and frustrated from being housebound. Anyway thanks again.--Dakota t e 04:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old User talk page

Hello, another admin recently helped me delete my old user page for User:Julian Diamond. He also helped me take my old talk page and link it to an archive on my new user talk page. Unfortunetly, I have a new message on my old user:Julian Diamond account but I can't get to it because the talk page now only links to that archive, is it possible to make it so that new messages automatically link to that archive as well? I apoligize for the inconvenience.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You were right

Got this just now. -The record is clear that I've been patient with the anonymous user. SlimVirgin has relayed several unfair accusations against me and is incapable of justifying any of them. Ryan Utt- Would it be deemed proper for me to tell that user to cease or would it reflect negatively down the road.--Dakota t e 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Thank you and you were soooo right. I did misunderstand it to begin with. I still agree with your outside view and that stays. I never intended to get into conflict. My wikistress level is going up because of it. Keep up the good work and thanks.--Dakota t e 02:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

thank you for your comments on the page but it doesn't seem to help because yuber just reverts me 3 times in a row then threatens me with "3RR". John McW 05:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

i am getting really fed up with wikipedia, why are people like yuber allowed to do this? John McW 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frances Power Cobbe

Hi, would you mind if I removed the Animal liberation box, it is pretty overpowering to the article. Arniep 17:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you removed Ouida frrom the activists cat, I re-added her as it states she was an activist in the article. Regards Arniep 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi thanks for your message. I'm glad you agree about the template. You deleted Category:Animal rights activists at 01:44, 20 November 2005 so unfortunately I can't use it. Was it really necessary to delete it, isn't it more specific than Animal liberation movement? Arniep 17:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Don't know if you are in now but I have an article name problem. I have just put up a new article on the actor Reginald Denney and the spelling is the problem. I just found out there are two of them. I should have spelled it Denny. I didn't even remember the other one who was in the police brutality matter some time ago. When I typed that name in and saw there was no article I went on and submitted my work. I have an offline copy of it not yet deleted out of my pc. My question is can the title of my article be changed from Reginald Denney to Reginald Denny which was the actors correct name? Can an admin dothat or does it need to wrote again with the correct spelling? ( I wrote the article at the suggestion of my father who is a model plane nut and has a collection of Dennyplanes cause I had never heard of this actor) If you can help me I would be grateful. Thank you--Dakota t e 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks so very much. I also appreciate your comments about my article.--71.28.246.3 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

i have talked on the talk page many times but every time I bring information with proper sources yuber just reverts again. he reverts everything and pretend he is only reverting one thing and then pretends he is "compromising". Why do you defend him? why don't you tell him about 3rr and to stop reverting? There must be more people here than just me who see a problem with yuber. does he revert everyone or is it just me? John McW 15:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think I forgot

To thank you for helping me which I think I forgot. Thank You. Mayo su día sea grande.--Dakota t e 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamofascism (term)

Circular reference .--CltFn 23:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Hi, Slim. I just want to say a big big thank you for your support on my RfA, and for your flattering words, and also for all the help you gave me in the months coming up to it. You helped to make Wikipedia a nicer place for me. I expect my Wikipedia activity to be quite low in the next week, as I'll be very busy in the real world. But I'll look in occasionally, and I'll be back properly before the end of next week. Looking forward to blocking you first time you step out of line ;-) AnnH (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neofascism and religion

Hi SlimVirgin: Are you aware of this abomination: Neofascism and religion#Judaism? What's your opinion? I have tried to add some "rational info" for whatever it's worth. Take a look. Maybe the whole article should be nominated for deletion? IZAK 11:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean to suggest that equating an entire faith system with fascism is offensive and unencyclopedic? BrandonYusufToropov 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Rights and POV pushing

Over at the [[Animal rights] article, you did a blind revert of quite a bit of work I had done. Your edit summary said it was "minor", and you made no mention of why you did the revert on the talk page. I find it interesting since you were the one who was complaining about the National Cattleman quotation as being "inappropriate", so I went and found a more "appropriate" source. I replaced the criticism paragraph quoting the Cattlemen organization with sourced quotes from notable experts and a URL to back up each and every one of them. Yet you reverted it, completely, wholly, and without a single word of explanation, marking your revert as "minor". Given the emphasis by wikipedia on the importance of source quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up, perhaps you could give some sort of a legitimate explanation for your massive revert of all these sourced quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up. Without any such explanation, I'm left to assume this was simply the product of POV pushing on your part. FuelWagon 15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please look at the rational for this edit

Hi Slim,

This is your edit:

[1]

Now please look at this discussion:

Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Jewish_Exodus

does it all look consistent to you ?

it should be a no brianer to include related issues even if some claim that don't see the connection.

Thanks, Zeq 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dictators

Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a user on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. He has apparently been doing this for a few years.

Yours,

jucifer 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Ah sorry, it looks like a regular page huh! That is because s/he blanks it and adds a redirect to Dictator. It is User:172 that is doing it. jucifer 23:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant without the capitalised D. here sorry

[edit] Kyoto protocol reference dispute

Hi, I happened to note your question re:Clemson University on User talk:SEWilco which led to my recent post on Wikipedia talk:Cite sources. What I would like to ask is for you to have a look at the Kyoto Protocol page and comment on what SEW has been up to there. I've been trying ro reach a compromise, but am getting frustrated. A similar edit war over SEW's notes bot or whatever is is, is going on at Global cooling. I would like to interfere there also, but only after the Kyoto dust settles. Thank you, Vsmith 00:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I can see clearly now... what needs to be done (I think), to undo some of the mess we've made at Kyoto and Global cooling, if SEW will allow it. Probably a big if there as there is more to the story :-) Anyway, thanks again. Vsmith 05:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your note

Thank you for being so clear.

Apart from the actual historical connection the issue is the use being done today in these historical events. It is common knowledge (and I can find soyrces) thta palestinian narritive about the Nakba is at the core of Palestinian claims and rallying causes today. (which lead to the demand for "right of return" which is one of the causes for the continued conflict). As such the jewish "answer" (see many jewish websites about the issue) which include showing that the palestinian exodus is not unique (not in the world and espacially at that time in the middle east) is an important addition so that the article will be NPOV. Keeping the Palestinian exodus by itself is making it similar to the palestinian narritive. So it is POV. I am quite sure that there should not be an issue here on original research Vs NPOV as I already broghut jewish websites which connect the two events. Clearly there are historical connection between the two exodus: Jews who fled from Arab countries lived in homes of Palestinian who fled Israel. The Arab leaders in their decision form 1949 (or 48) mention both refugees, a source I placed on talk describe the flight of the two groups of refugees as desrving financial help (that source dats to Nov 48) so clearly the connection exist then and now.

Best, Zeq 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have again read your note and than I read this:

"We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them"

No where did I find that no original research takes precedence but it does not matter. There are in talk of that page (and in reverted edits) enough sources which would help make this article NPOV and allow the reader to make up their own mind. So far the limited biased info there is not helping. On the other hand Hertzel is connected to to an historic event that occur 44 years after he died. Please apply the new yard stick in your note to me to every line in this article - I expect it would lead to a much smaller article. It is not just "my issue". You have a responsibility to make this article NPOV as well. Thank you. Zeq 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

What do you mean, don't add it again? All I did was revert an unexplained revert that also took out additions of the sources (which you among others asked for) and readded highly pov stuff in the intro and elsewhere.

When rd232 removed it, however, without blanking anything else and with a justification on the talk page, I didn't revert. I agree that it's not worth adding it now (as you would have known if you'd read my recent talk page comments), but I might change my mind at any time and insert the material. Of course any major change would then be explained on the talk page, and existing arguments would be adressed. Please look more closely at the talk page before issueing such requests in the future. Dsol 23:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you and I have different points of view about this, but there's no need to threaten me with a block. First I want to say something about the content issue at hand, and second I want to say something about your last message on my page.
I have not heard any convincing arguments why the Ekman section should not be put in, and several other editors agree with me. There is no clear policy reason why not, nor is there a clear consensus. In particular, users Ryan Utt (formerly Clarence Thomas), Mgreenbe, Brighterorange, and Squibix, and several anonymous ips have expressed approval of versions of the page with the Ekman info in. Rd232's recent comments on the talk page were expressions of personal judgement, and not quotations of policy. This is fine, but it means they are not binding, and subject to consensus. As for the other debates that were ongoing about it, well, you seem to have broken off our previous discussion to question my identity. My last argument on this subject, which despite my repeated specific requests for a response has gone completely unadressed by you, can be found (as a diff) here, though I later edited it (ce). Since these points were ignored by you and others, I did not feel under any obligation to remove the Ekman section when the anon ip readded it. After rd232 gave a rationale, however, it would have been inappropriate for me to revert without further discussion.
Aside from content, I feel I should adress the threat of a block which has been placed on my user talk page by you. I think that blocking me in this situation would be wildly, obviously, and indefensibly inappropriate, and if you were to do so as a result of an ongoing editing dispute I would formally contest the fairness of such an action. As I have mentioned before, there are other editors and other admins who have expressed views similar to mine regarding both content and the proper interpretation of policy. Of course, if you feel that you could defend and justify (e.g. "he was endagering WP") such a block, there is nothing I can do to stop you. What I will do, however, is continue editing just as I would have had no threat been made. Do not think, however, that because I am ignoring your inappropriate threats, that I would also ignore valid discussion regarding editing of the article.
On that note I am still waiting for a reply to my above-linked comment, or some other reason not to reinsert the Ekman section. Of course it may be that we simply make different judgement calls here, but then it is a matter for consensus do decide.Dsol 23:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about notability

Would you mind taking a look at and giving your opinion about a dispute I'm having regarding notability? See [2]. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Regarding proper citations and verifiability, I'm having another debate at Talk:List of Jewish jurists - would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

No policy, just personal preference. In this instance I was mainly annoyed because when I came in a while back the spacing was all over the place. So I harmonized it to no space and after punctuation, then suddenly the lead wasn't harmonized and that ticked me off. :"D Anyway, my logic is to keep footnotes as unobtrusive to the text as possible. However, if I see a page with spacing... I won't change it so long as its consistent; if it ain't I go in and the spacing don't know what hit it. If there were a wikipolicy I would likely follow publishing guidelines; dunno what else to tell ya accept keep up the good stuff. - RoyBoy 800 03:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DOM Arbitration

Hi SV, just in case you didn't know, our case for arbitration got accepted. I saw that you were involved with another arbitration case. Good luck with that. Davidpdx 15:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mylo Carbia

Hi SlimVirgin (I love your user name :-) ), I really can't remember how I ran into her name (I think somebody posted it in the List of Puerto Ricans, without writing an article). After seeing what was written about her in different websites (including her own), I assumed good faith on her behave and wrote the article on information recopilated. However, I do agree with the point of views posted and if the article was posted for AfD, I would like to know because I would be more then willing to vote for its deletion. Your friend in Wiki Tony the Marine 19:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Goldsmith

I'm delighted to hear that the SlimVirgin now prizes good faith above all. Please see my e-mails and read the talk page and edit history of the List of Jewish jurists. Please reply by e-mail. - RachelBrown 20:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please check your email. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon

Hey Slim, I appreciate the message on his page :-) Good to see you're looking out for me (and vice versa). However, it's cool. I'm happy to respond to Brandon and explain my position on things. He's getting borderline abusive, but it's cool, I can take this. He's upset about the existence of the article and I think that's understandable. If Brandon gets highly abusive I'll stop responding. - Ta bu shi da yu

[edit] Re Unicodify

Hi Slim, yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm maintaining the em/en-dash distinction. I've got a small Python script I pass the stuff I edit through that does things like turn (safe) HTML entities into UTF-8 and random other bits and pieces (don't worry, I watch the output fairly carefully).

Another wikipedia user asked me about my mdash ndash conversion a few days ago, and pointed me at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dashes). In it, it says "Use the HTML entity – (not the numeric form –; see below) or type it in directly if your keyboard allows it", so I guess UTF-8 is OK.

If you think it is a problem, I can easily special case it in my script. Let me know. 01:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

UTF-8 characters have a few things going for them vs HTML entities:
  • They look nicer in the edit window: you see actual characters as opposed to markup.
  • They're a more compact representation in terms of storage (this is especially true of Latin-1 entities like é)
  • They're a small step towards making life easier on 3rd party apps that deal with raw wikicode: ideally you wouldn't need a full HTML parser to be able to interpret wikicode.
That said, if it's frowned upon, or if converting things like – is regarded as too much needless churn, then I can easily stop doing it. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judeofascism

There has never been a "vote" on deleting the redirect, only on deleting whatever was in the article. The term is now mentioned on List of political epithets, and thus there should be a redirect there. If you feel otherwise, the correct place to discuss it is on Talk:List of political epithets, not by improperly speedying the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. An AFD result of delete means that the article as it stands should be deleted. The CSD dealing with recreations allows for speedy deletion of a new article with the same or very similar content. This is completely different content, and should not be speedy deleted. --SPUI (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Please read the relevant section on WP:CSD about re-creations. "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject." --SPUI (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, particularly this section:

A useless redirect
 Don't worry, redirects are cheap.

If you must, list on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion but only after reading our recommendations on deleting redirects

 {{rfd}}

--SPUI (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I must admit, I giggled seeing you two fight. :P That said, I'm siding with SV on this particular issue - wikipolicy definitely seems to suggest that he is in the right Sherurcij 03:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I also. (Siding with SV, that is, not giggling.) On the other hand, the recent edit warring on WP:CSD has neutered the recreation of deleted content criterion even more than it was in July. I expect by this time next month, the new article will have to be word-for-word identical to the previously-deleted one. —Cryptic (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to prove you wrong on that one, Crypic :-) . And please don't side. It's silly. Let the two folks just talk it out. Forget whatever the policy du jour is, and just do what's sanest for the encyclopedia. :-) Kim Bruning 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] E-mail?

Hmm, no new messages in my inbox for some reason.. :-/ Did you use wikipedia E-mail? Sometimes that's extremely slow.

Kim Bruning 04:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I used wikipedia E-mail to complain to Jimbo about extremely slow speeds! Now less slow. What? El_C 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
If you're speeding it up, please keep in close contact with him. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
That no data warning in FF just kills me, at least with the foundation one I can still refresh. With my watchlist, I quickly lose track of what I did or did not look at. Thus, I end up reverting A claim of niggerology to numerology on 26 instead of 25 Novemeber (I could have been sleeping with it fixed), and so on. My memory is far too fragile. In other words, help computa. El_C 08:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV policy

The dispute that is on the talk page of the palestinian exodus is not charterized on the page it self. (as mandated by the NPOV policy) this dispute is between scholars .

On the other bundeling up Zionist transfer intentions (from 1904, 1930s, 1944) into events in the war of 1948 is implying enrosing a POV. You suggestion of relancy need to be applied to both sides equally.

This article is a complete failure of the NPOV policy - read the talk carefully going back 6 month if needed and I am sure you too will see how wikipdia comuntee failed to generate an article that is truly showing both sides of the issue. This failure is shedding a negative light on wikipedia is a relaible source. Zeq 05:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deleted discussion of direct links

Hi Slim, in this edit you removed a discussion of direct links which Francis had archived. Did you move it somewhere else? Things discussed on the Village pump are supposed to be archived in a relevant discussion page and aren't kept in the pump archive after seven days, so I'm not sure if it is still preserved anywhere. Mozzerati 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left this for Ta bu, but want you to read it too, dammit

(I had hoped, perhaps foolishly, that you would be among the people willing to stand up against hate speech, SV)

And that's what it boils down to. Apparently Brandon believes we can't document hateful speech without agreeing with it, accepting it and welcoming it. Sad that he thinks this way, but he's already shown me that he's being unreasonable. Like I said, I'm cutting off all correspondence with him until he becomes more civil. I've already asked nicely once, I'm not going to do it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reasonably, then

Reasonably, then: Is there a discrepancy in the way we're handling terms like Kike and Zionazi as compared with the way we're handling Islamofascism?
Is Kike prominent in usage? Is Zionazi? Is Gun nut?
Where are their articles?
Can someone please answer these questions without offering a variation on, "Maybe you should go work on those?" BrandonYusufToropov 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If I may boil this down

  • (Examples -- Blowjob, Zionazi -- proving you are being utterly inconsistent with this)
  • "Gee, fascinating point, but, um, neocons really need to stand unchallenged in this particular case, but anyway thanks for raising this, and, er, what if you go fix those articles yourself?"
  • It is not my point (as though you didn't know) that Blowjob and Zionazi -- and Kike and Gun nut and Judeofascism -- "need work." My point is rather that a systemic bias exists preventing those harsh, controversial terms from meriting separate articles (and the perceived legitimacy such an article implies), and b) that this systemic bias has, at the same time, no problem whatsoever with harsh, controversial terms like Islamofascism or Feminazi or Raghead. (If I may quote from that article: "Sikhs (who wear turbans) are particularly offended at being lumped together with Islamic 'ragheads.' -- Can you picture a sentence like that in Kike? Oh wait, never mind that article doesn't exist, so it's a moot @#$%^&* point.)
  • Could you please do me a favor and read the above paragraph again, carefully?
  • What I have perhaps grown slightly weary of hearing:
  • "Gee, if you want to try pushing Zionazi, you can, but I don't think you'll get it up the hill..." THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT, TA BU.
  • What I have perhaps grown equally weary of hearing:
  • "Inconsistent? Who's being inconsistent? Tell you what, why don't you go spend some time on Blowjob? And, while you're at it, uh, stop bothering me?" That's what the neocons say when they want me to go away, Ta bu, and frankly I imagine that's your objective too. BrandonYusufToropov 12:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to also let you know Slim, I'll not be listening to Brandon any more. All his new messages that I deam abusive are going to be deleted from my page. I'm certainly not going to work on the blowjob article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I was paraphrasing your last message to me, as dismissive that I should go work on Blowjob. Once again, you have decided not to address the larger questions of systemic bias. BrandonYusufToropov 15:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hello. I wonder if I could ask a favour? Would you mind looking at circumcision advocacy and giving your views in Talk:Circumcision advocacy#Original research as to whether it constitutes original research? User:Jayjg and User:Nandesuka have been kind enough to do so, but another editor is protesting that it is 'obvious' and so does not need sourcing. It's most frustrating. Jakew 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pretty please? Jakew 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Email for you. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a personal attack?

You once previously cautioned this editor about personal attacks. Could you please look at this diff? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Great_Scandal&curid=3142287&diff=29307428&oldid=29290183 Do you agree that it is a personal attack? Thank you. Robert McClenon 20:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. In case you're puzzled by Robert's statement that you once cautioned this editor about personal attacks, it was here.
He started as Flamekeeper (talk · contribs), but did not want to give an e-mail address to Wikipedia, so when his computer lost the cookies, he couldn't log in. (He seems not to have kept a record of his password.) He then became Fiamekeeper (talk · contribs), Corecticus (talk · contribs), Famekeeper (talk · contribs), PureSoupS (talk · contribs), and has recently reappeared as EffK (talk · contribs). They're not sockpuppets; they're just new accounts created when he can't access the old one.
He seems from his first appearance to have been on some sort of personal campaign to get Str1977 banned from Wikipedia as a Vatican agent, and has harassed both Str1977 and Robert McClenon for months. In fact, I am positive that his (harmless) oppose vote on my RfA was a result of wiki-stalking Str1977, who had just voted for me and had left a very friendly message on my talk page. As far as I can tell, EffK had no prior history of contributing to RfA pages.
Some of the talk pages have become quite nasty, e.g. Talk:Enabling Act, and Talk:Pius_XII/Archive2, etc. It's the kind of thing you might want to take a look at if you were feeling very energetic as an admin, but I couldn't blame you at all if you didn't want to get involved! In any case, an RfAr has been filed.
Just bringing you up to date on the situation. I have your userpage on my watchlist, so I saw Robert's message. :-) Cheers. AnnH (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that might be a personal attack, but what it basically is is incomprehensible. But at least he's letting the Catholic Cabal take some heat off the Jewish Cabal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL!! Yes, it's gibberish. Not sure how anyone could tell it was a personal attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important AfD

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

  • I am the main protagonist mentioned and I totally agree that this is an important AfD and a number of principles are at steak, and that is why I am pursuing it.
  • The debate hinges on whether "dictator" is a definable English word. As it is a clearly defined word (I list 8 very similar dictionary definitions on the talk page) used without controversy to describe a large number of rulers by historians, Britannica, the press, the public, 27,700 times in wikipeida, this is self evident - indeed the term is clearly defined in a number of wiki articles. Since there are certainly at least some dictators, there should be no reason why they cannot be listed - potential POV is no justification for deletion - it requires improvement.
  • 172's repeated assertion that describing anyone is a dictator constituted original research is utterly without foundation as there are usually a myriad of sources. He has tried to argue that the application of an accepted definitions constitutes original research.

If this AfD is passed there will serious ramifications as this could then be used as a precedent for the misuse of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in a similar way. The use of English words would also be constantly open to question.

Yours jucifer 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Check user request

I've investigated the usernames in question. It seems unlikely that either of them is Environknot, unless Enviroknot has moved, and they certainly aren't sockpuppets for each other. As well, neither is using open proxies, and neither appears to be 209.123.8.125 (talk · contribs), which also does not appear to be an open proxy. On the other hand 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs), which was involved in a revert war with 209.123.8.125, is obviously an open proxy. Jayjg (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

While the edit histories are suggestive, there still is absolutely no technical evidence linking 209.123.8.125 with those userids, nor any evidence or indication that 209.123.8.125 is an open proxy. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish list

sorry about the rv, just saw the discussion. Arniep 15:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

there could be a snag here, as it might have meant his great grandmother was a Jewish immigrant which would have a different consequence for "the list".... Arniep 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
well if she was a Jewish immigrant, her children may have been brought up jewish, and their children etc., we don't know whether that was the case or not. Arniep 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin, could you have a look at my posting at User_talk:OwenX#User:StabRule, I feel very upset that this user has 3 times place sock puppet votes yet User_talk:OwenX says he will not warn User:StabRule as he says this may mean he finds more sophisticated ways of cheating the voting systems. I would also ask if you could reconsider your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) as I do not think that WP:V or WP:NOR are being violated as the Jewish information comes from published material. Thanks Arniep 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback?

What exactly was [3] for? --SPUI (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the comment before El C archived it. I do not appreciate your unexplained reversion. --SPUI (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I came across the page and decided to respond, as there was no way to see that it had not been modified recently without looking at the history. Your rollback simply exacerbated the problem; you should have reverted manually with an edit summary like "this has been closed for 3 days". --SPUI (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Apology accepted. --SPUI (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Emailed you. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Jews List

The user who put in the tag did not mention it or explain why on the Talk Page. Neither did you when you added the other tag just now. One of the tags says "help Wikipedia by providing sources". Well, sources for what? You or the other guy need to be specific in which names you are doubting, etc. and also the "original research" claim refers to what exactly? You can't just drop these general terms hoping they'll stick, you need to be specific.Vulturell 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] censoring the sources

It's actually quite funny how much some editors are willing to dance around the language of the letter from the reservists to avoid a term they don't like. i.e. "Occupied Territories". The word "occupied" and "occupation" occurs a total of five times in the actual letter. In reporting this letter, it should be represented in proportion to the language it uses. and "occupied territories" is how they describe where they serve as reservists, and "occupation" is how they describe what they are being ordered to do. There is no other way to look at attempt to misquote and misrepresent this letter as anythign other than POV pushing on the part of editors who don't like the term "occupied territories". It is not our job to censor the point of view of the sources we quote. FuelWagon 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you

Wouldn't ANY List of Jews be COMPLETELY original research unless we copy and pasted the whole bleedin thing from somewhere else? The way you and your buddy are using these terms like "Original Research" indicates that placing ANYONE, even the grand high Rabbi of Israel, on a List of Jews is wrong unless someone described the guy as a "Jew" or noted that he "belongs on a List of Jews". The whole concept of List of Jews is an ORIGINAL CONCEPT in a sense and obviously any good encyclopedia requires some private thought, i.e. obviously if Wittgenstein is descibred as having three Jewish grandparents than he is 3/4 an ethnic Jew. It might not be stated directly but obviously that's the case. Calling that or anything similar "Original Research" is out-right misleading and wrong. Either the whole list is Original Research, in which case you can nominate it for deletion or something under that claim, or none of it is if there's a source that mentions the ethnic Jewishness of a person, even if it doesn't call the person outright a "Jew".Vulturell 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the problem here is one I have mentioned before. I previously pointed out that with these categories/lists that are labelled Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Russian Americans etc. these act as labels on people, and if those people do not use that label then it is not encyclopedic to include them. I proposed creating new categories Americans of xxx descent similar to People in Great Britain of Irish descent which does not place any label on the people included. If necessary you could keep xxx American categories and only use those for people who really do identify as that i.e. De Niro as Italian American , Woody Allen as Jewish American etc. Cheers, Arniep 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
DeNiro is a big stretch. You would have to have either one label or the other. Both is misleading, POV, etc. and we could get into endless discussions about who identifies as what.
Anyway, SlimVirgin, regarding the message you left on my page, it doesn't sound unreasonable as long as, under what you wrote there, Wittgenstein and Montbatten would have been included (if Wittgenstein was really British, I mean).Vulturell 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You haven't found a reputable source yet clearly saying either of them were Jews (which you know they weren't). But if you wanted to see they had Jewish ancestory, as Arniep suggests, I'd have no objection to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, of course I know they were both not religious Jews. Again I am telling you that "Jewish-British people" is an ETHNIC criteria, not a religious critera. And in that case YOU know that I would be correct since they are both ethnic Jews or part Jews. Oh, and that was a great point about the compiling of ANY Wiki article being original research as well - that is true and I should have used that argument against your "O.R." claims before. Original Research should really only refer to, say, me calling someone Jewish because their last name sounds Jewish, yet no source on the net mention any Jewish ancestry. Otherwise EVERYTHING ELSE is Original Research, except for out-right copy and pasting of a whole article from somewhere else, which we know is copy-right violation.Vulturell 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You're opening a can of worms trying to make the religious/ethnic distinction when it comes to Jews, which is why I wish you'd just stick to our policies, because the former is a complex issue. The Jewish people regard themselves as a "nation" if you like. Wittgenstein did not regard himself as a member of that nation for a number of reasons, and would not have been so regarded by any of the major denominations. To say that is not to make a religious point. You are confusing ethnicity with race. The point is, if you want to call someone a Jew, find a good source that says it. You might want to consider Arniep's suggestion because it would get round a lot of these problems. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind Arnipe's suggestion as long as we don't create TWO separate categories because we are going to get something like 3,000 separate arguments about who identifies as what, etc. As I explained it is in fact the whole "Identify/not identifyas something" argument that is crap, simply because it's not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is about precision - you can't measure the degree to which someone identifies or doesn't with something compared to someone else. Identification changes over time, as well, no question about that. An encyclopedia should be based on facts. I can say it's a fact that DeNiro is 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish, etc. and it is regardless of what he's claimed to identify/not identify with just as I can say that Wittgenstein is 3/4 Jewish ethnically - it is a fact and it's mentioned in almost every article about him that, that is his ethnic background. Just like someone's birth date is a fact. That's how ethnicity should be measured. Religion is different because it refers to personal identification with a faith, etc. But ethnicity is a biological concept decided before a person is born, just like one's birth year, date, and place. We should treat it accordingly.Vulturell 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You can't say as a fact that X is 1/4 this or that. X's mother may have had an illegitimate child, an affair while married for all you know. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia isn't truth, but verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
There are many people who regard themselves as Jews who aren't observant, and who are so regarded by others too. You're getting race and ethnicity confused again. Race is the supposedly biological concept, though if you read anything about it, you'll see it's an increasingly discredited one. My guess is that if you were to spend some time reading about these ideas, you wouldn't want to compile any more of these lists. But in the meantime, if the lists are to exist, saying "List of British people with Jewish ancestory" would make more sense than "List of British Jews," though sources would still be needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
We would call it "List of British people with NOTABLE Jewish ancestry", since I still want the 1/4 rule and it is pointless to list people with distant Jewish heritage since it most likely has no impact on their lives. Are you saying make that list INSTEAD of the current one, or both? Both would just be confusing. Well, OK, illegitimate child and all that IS original research. You're bringing up the possibility that something/something happened contrary to the reported facts. I.e. DeNiro IS reported to be the biological child of (forgot his name) DeNiro and Virginia Admiral. Wittgenstein is reported to be the biological child a Jewish father and a Jewish-German mother, racially speaking. You can say it's possible that ANY piece of info is wrong then, that DeNiro's birth certificate was faked and he was born in 1939 and not 1943, etc. I'm not sure why you said that, but the fact is that ethnicity/race and birth date and all that are reported on by official sources and should be regarded as fact until proven otherwise.Vulturell 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK this is what I propose change all the xxx-American categories to Americans of xxx descent (I have noticed other users including Willmcw? suggest this also) as that would be pretty accurately describe most the people in those categories, and restrict it to a grandparent as it is now 'except for Jewish Americans as it is a little different, calling Woody Allen of Jewish descent wouldn't make sense, but maybe you could create a category Americans of Jewish descent and move out all the people who don't identify as Jewish if you want. I think it's going a bit far to say you can't mention peoples heritage at all because maybe their grandmother was fibbing, otherwise we'd have to say De Niro identifies as an Italian American although his mother may have been lying etc. Arniep 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think Willmcw saw our discussion on my talk page which is why he mentioned your idea. But, I don't know why we should make an exception for Jewish Americans - you could get into more debates with who identifies/doesn't as Jewish, even for "fully Jewish" unconverted people like Sarah Michelle Gellar. Woody Allen may write about Jews in his movies, but I highly doubt he is a practising Jew in any sense. Allen just has a "Very Jewish" public image just like DeNiro has a "very Italian" public movie image, it has no necessary reflection on their personal lives. I think there should be just one category per ethnic group otherwise it will lead into too much confusion. And again this leads us into the current situation - "Americans of Jewish descent" CAN mean someone who is 100% Jewish, just like "Jewish Americans" doesn't necessarily mean the person is 100% Jewish. The terms are pretty similar, but I dunno. I think all we really need to do is buff up the descriptions on every "xxx-Americans" category page so people know exactly what we mean. The situation is different with Brits because most British people ARE British-British people and there is no such category, if we put in Jewish-British people it is a bit misleading. But there are no "American-Americans" and anyone with mixed ancestry would be under two categories or more so people know they are mixed. Arniep I think we should continue this talk on my talk page btw.Vulturell 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
When I mentioned people's mother's having affairs, I was only trying to break down the fact/claim distinction Vulturell was erecting. There are only claims, ones made by good sources, and ones made by bad ones, and we report the former.
As for listing the ones with 1/4 ancestory only, you're back into original research, with Wikipedia editors deciding the cut-off point. It should be anyone with any ancestory, although the reality is that distant ancestors likely won't be mention much in print. Also, to answer your other question, I think the ancestry lists should be instead of the others, not as well as. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. Arniep 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Robert De Niro an Italian American? He's supposed to have Jewish ancestry. Maybe he should be a Jewish American. Oh wait, I have a better idea; let's just cite sources, ok? Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official warning

I hate to do this, but I must: your reply to FuelWagon, no matter what the provocation, was simply out of line. Wasn't it Robert Frost who said, "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper?" Well, at this web site the civility policy is such that one must be MUCH MORE polite than others if you want to be defended from impoliteness.

If it was my web site, policy would be different. But this is the web site Jimbo founded, so I have to go with his concept of civility. Chill out, re-think your strategy and PLEASE find a way to collaborate without criticizing the other volunteers. Think about the ARTICLES and the READERS. Uncle Ed 02:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping by to say "hi", not sucked in by an interesting edit summary of anything like that, no, no wikistalking here...
So, now that I'm here: Anything you need? A sympathetic ear, even? (Well, eyeballs, actually, but you know what I mean.)
brenneman(t)(c) 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Animal rights

Slim - I was planning on doing some summarising as well as archiving, I'm reading over a print out of the page now to make sure that I understand what everyone is saying. I'll put a new section at the top?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

Although from your comments at my RfA it seems clear that I should not use your talk page at all, I hope you don't mind me using it once.

Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, you basically held against me that I reply to people's comments, which is what talk pages are for, so I assumed that you don't want me to use your talk page as well. Halibutt 06:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Too bad you didn't clarify that. Halibutt
Not really. You wrote that It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference. Less is more, in the case of RfAs., which hardly gave me any clue as to when am I allowed to respond to people's accusations or questions and when I am not. Halibutt 06:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] censoring the sources

It's actually quite funny how much some editors are willing to dance around the language of the letter from the reservists to avoid a term they don't like. i.e. "Occupied Territories". The word "occupied" and "occupation" occurs a total of five times in the actual letter. In reporting this letter, it should be represented in proportion to the language it uses. and "occupied territories" is how they describe where they serve as reservists, and "occupation" is how they describe what they are being ordered to do. There is no other way to look at attempt to misquote and misrepresent this letter as anythign other than POV pushing on the part of editors who don't like the term "occupied territories". It is not our job to censor the point of view of the sources we quote. FuelWagon 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you

Wouldn't ANY List of Jews be COMPLETELY original research unless we copy and pasted the whole bleedin thing from somewhere else? The way you and your buddy are using these terms like "Original Research" indicates that placing ANYONE, even the grand high Rabbi of Israel, on a List of Jews is wrong unless someone described the guy as a "Jew" or noted that he "belongs on a List of Jews". The whole concept of List of Jews is an ORIGINAL CONCEPT in a sense and obviously any good encyclopedia requires some private thought, i.e. obviously if Wittgenstein is descibred as having three Jewish grandparents than he is 3/4 an ethnic Jew. It might not be stated directly but obviously that's the case. Calling that or anything similar "Original Research" is out-right misleading and wrong. Either the whole list is Original Research, in which case you can nominate it for deletion or something under that claim, or none of it is if there's a source that mentions the ethnic Jewishness of a person, even if it doesn't call the person outright a "Jew".Vulturell 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the problem here is one I have mentioned before. I previously pointed out that with these categories/lists that are labelled Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Russian Americans etc. these act as labels on people, and if those people do not use that label then it is not encyclopedic to include them. I proposed creating new categories Americans of xxx descent similar to People in Great Britain of Irish descent which does not place any label on the people included. If necessary you could keep xxx American categories and only use those for people who really do identify as that i.e. De Niro as Italian American , Woody Allen as Jewish American etc. Cheers, Arniep 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
DeNiro is a big stretch. You would have to have either one label or the other. Both is misleading, POV, etc. and we could get into endless discussions about who identifies as what.
Anyway, SlimVirgin, regarding the message you left on my page, it doesn't sound unreasonable as long as, under what you wrote there, Wittgenstein and Montbatten would have been included (if Wittgenstein was really British, I mean).Vulturell 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You haven't found a reputable source yet clearly saying either of them were Jews (which you know they weren't). But if you wanted to see they had Jewish ancestory, as Arniep suggests, I'd have no objection to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, of course I know they were both not religious Jews. Again I am telling you that "Jewish-British people" is an ETHNIC criteria, not a religious critera. And in that case YOU know that I would be correct since they are both ethnic Jews or part Jews. Oh, and that was a great point about the compiling of ANY Wiki article being original research as well - that is true and I should have used that argument against your "O.R." claims before. Original Research should really only refer to, say, me calling someone Jewish because their last name sounds Jewish, yet no source on the net mention any Jewish ancestry. Otherwise EVERYTHING ELSE is Original Research, except for out-right copy and pasting of a whole article from somewhere else, which we know is copy-right violation.Vulturell 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You're opening a can of worms trying to make the religious/ethnic distinction when it comes to Jews, which is why I wish you'd just stick to our policies, because the former is a complex issue. The Jewish people regard themselves as a "nation" if you like. Wittgenstein did not regard himself as a member of that nation for a number of reasons, and would not have been so regarded by any of the major denominations. To say that is not to make a religious point. You are confusing ethnicity with race. The point is, if you want to call someone a Jew, find a good source that says it. You might want to consider Arniep's suggestion because it would get round a lot of these problems. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind Arnipe's suggestion as long as we don't create TWO separate categories because we are going to get something like 3,000 separate arguments about who identifies as what, etc. As I explained it is in fact the whole "Identify/not identifyas something" argument that is crap, simply because it's not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is about precision - you can't measure the degree to which someone identifies or doesn't with something compared to someone else. Identification changes over time, as well, no question about that. An encyclopedia should be based on facts. I can say it's a fact that DeNiro is 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish, etc. and it is regardless of what he's claimed to identify/not identify with just as I can say that Wittgenstein is 3/4 Jewish ethnically - it is a fact and it's mentioned in almost every article about him that, that is his ethnic background. Just like someone's birth date is a fact. That's how ethnicity should be measured. Religion is different because it refers to personal identification with a faith, etc. But ethnicity is a biological concept decided before a person is born, just like one's birth year, date, and place. We should treat it accordingly.Vulturell 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You can't say as a fact that X is 1/4 this or that. X's mother may have had an illegitimate child, an affair while married for all you know. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia isn't truth, but verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
There are many people who regard themselves as Jews who aren't observant, and who are so regarded by others too. You're getting race and ethnicity confused again. Race is the supposedly biological concept, though if you read anything about it, you'll see it's an increasingly discredited one. My guess is that if you were to spend some time reading about these ideas, you wouldn't want to compile any more of these lists. But in the meantime, if the lists are to exist, saying "List of British people with Jewish ancestory" would make more sense than "List of British Jews," though sources would still be needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
We would call it "List of British people with NOTABLE Jewish ancestry", since I still want the 1/4 rule and it is pointless to list people with distant Jewish heritage since it most likely has no impact on their lives. Are you saying make that list INSTEAD of the current one, or both? Both would just be confusing. Well, OK, illegitimate child and all that IS original research. You're bringing up the possibility that something/something happened contrary to the reported facts. I.e. DeNiro IS reported to be the biological child of (forgot his name) DeNiro and Virginia Admiral. Wittgenstein is reported to be the biological child a Jewish father and a Jewish-German mother, racially speaking. You can say it's possible that ANY piece of info is wrong then, that DeNiro's birth certificate was faked and he was born in 1939 and not 1943, etc. I'm not sure why you said that, but the fact is that ethnicity/race and birth date and all that are reported on by official sources and should be regarded as fact until proven otherwise.Vulturell 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK this is what I propose change all the xxx-American categories to Americans of xxx descent (I have noticed other users including Willmcw? suggest this also) as that would be pretty accurately describe most the people in those categories, and restrict it to a grandparent as it is now 'except for Jewish Americans as it is a little different, calling Woody Allen of Jewish descent wouldn't make sense, but maybe you could create a category Americans of Jewish descent and move out all the people who don't identify as Jewish if you want. I think it's going a bit far to say you can't mention peoples heritage at all because maybe their grandmother was fibbing, otherwise we'd have to say De Niro identifies as an Italian American although his mother may have been lying etc. Arniep 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think Willmcw saw our discussion on my talk page which is why he mentioned your idea. But, I don't know why we should make an exception for Jewish Americans - you could get into more debates with who identifies/doesn't as Jewish, even for "fully Jewish" unconverted people like Sarah Michelle Gellar. Woody Allen may write about Jews in his movies, but I highly doubt he is a practising Jew in any sense. Allen just has a "Very Jewish" public image just like DeNiro has a "very Italian" public movie image, it has no necessary reflection on their personal lives. I think there should be just one category per ethnic group otherwise it will lead into too much confusion. And again this leads us into the current situation - "Americans of Jewish descent" CAN mean someone who is 100% Jewish, just like "Jewish Americans" doesn't necessarily mean the person is 100% Jewish. The terms are pretty similar, but I dunno. I think all we really need to do is buff up the descriptions on every "xxx-Americans" category page so people know exactly what we mean. The situation is different with Brits because most British people ARE British-British people and there is no such category, if we put in Jewish-British people it is a bit misleading. But there are no "American-Americans" and anyone with mixed ancestry would be under two categories or more so people know they are mixed. Arniep I think we should continue this talk on my talk page btw.Vulturell 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
When I mentioned people's mother's having affairs, I was only trying to break down the fact/claim distinction Vulturell was erecting. There are only claims, ones made by good sources, and ones made by bad ones, and we report the former.
As for listing the ones with 1/4 ancestory only, you're back into original research, with Wikipedia editors deciding the cut-off point. It should be anyone with any ancestory, although the reality is that distant ancestors likely won't be mention much in print. Also, to answer your other question, I think the ancestry lists should be instead of the others, not as well as. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. Arniep 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Robert De Niro an Italian American? He's supposed to have Jewish ancestry. Maybe he should be a Jewish American. Oh wait, I have a better idea; let's just cite sources, ok? Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official warning

I hate to do this, but I must: your reply to FuelWagon, no matter what the provocation, was simply out of line. Wasn't it Robert Frost who said, "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper?" Well, at this web site the civility policy is such that one must be MUCH MORE polite than others if you want to be defended from impoliteness.

If it was my web site, policy would be different. But this is the web site Jimbo founded, so I have to go with his concept of civility. Chill out, re-think your strategy and PLEASE find a way to collaborate without criticizing the other volunteers. Think about the ARTICLES and the READERS. Uncle Ed 02:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In light of this, I have to say, this sounds unsettlingly like the pot calling the kettle black... TomerTALK 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just dropping by to say "hi", not sucked in by an interesting edit summary of anything like that, no, no wikistalking here...
So, now that I'm here: Anything you need? A sympathetic ear, even? (Well, eyeballs, actually, but you know what I mean.)
brenneman(t)(c) 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Animal rights

Slim - I was planning on doing some summarising as well as archiving, I'm reading over a print out of the page now to make sure that I understand what everyone is saying. I'll put a new section at the top?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

Although from your comments at my RfA it seems clear that I should not use your talk page at all, I hope you don't mind me using it once.

Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, you basically held against me that I reply to people's comments, which is what talk pages are for, so I assumed that you don't want me to use your talk page as well. Halibutt 06:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh-