User talk:SlimVirgin/archive24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Wikibooks:errata

(responding to your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Blogs) Have you seen the Wikibooks:errata project? --DavidCary 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan cakes for you!

Hi Slim, with all you've been going through recently, I wanted to give you an award to tell you how valued and needed you are here. So, here are three honorary (and delicious!) vegan cakes that I hope help get this sentiment across. Babajobu 21:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Vegan cakes for Slim Virgin, one of Wikipedia's very best and most needed editors
Vegan cakes for Slim Virgin, one of Wikipedia's very best and most needed editors

[edit] Poetlister

Hi have you managed to read my message about this above? I would appreciate your thoughts on my message to Ambi and my rfc on Antidote. Thanks Arniep 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)


Happy New Year from Tony the Marine

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine

I wish you all the happiness in the world and remember, if an injustice is ever committed against you or one of your articles, I will always be by your side. Your friend Tony the Marine

Have a very happy new year and I echo Tony the Marine's sentiments.--Dakota ~ ε 18:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your RFA support

Hi SlimVirgin/archive24! I've just come back from a very refreshing wikibreak, so here is a belated thanks for your support in my successful RFA. I'm sure you're used to these, so thanks again, and have a happy new year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman talk 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should have told you

I moved the page back. BYT 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamofascism (term) page move

SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.

I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and people should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail.

Regards, Nandesuka 23:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews

Hello SlimVirgin: Finally, a discussion of possible policy changes has begun. Please see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy. I have posted all sixteen points we formulated. Thank you for your input and help. Best wishes for a Happy and Prosperous 2006! IZAK 12:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Can you look at Oscar Neebe and tell me if I am using the most recent style of footnotes. I am about to go through the obscure biographies I have initiated, and am the only contributer and add footnotes, but before I start I need a little help from somone with more experience. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:AbuNidalLockerbie.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AbuNidalLockerbie.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

I checked the investigation report [1] and this photo isn't in it anywhere. The source website has no source information on the photograph. It's source is unknown and likely not a free image.

--Wgfinley 18:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the source, that is not it, the image is not similar and it's what I have already uploaded: [:Image:PA103cockpit4.png]. I'm pretty sure it's an AP photo.

--Wgfinley 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I propose merging Islamist terrorism into Militant Islam , Dar al-Harb into Dar al Islam & Offensive jihad into Combative jihad, please comment if you have thoughts on the matter . Thanks . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Islamist terrorism, Enviroknot is back and even after being reverted by about 10 different people, he keeps reverting to his version. Yuber(talk) 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

Hi! I think this discussion about naming conventions for books is interesting, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titl(ing) books. Please participate! Cheers -- Szvest 22:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

[edit] Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia

I just started this proposed guideline, and would much appreciate your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I will really appreciate your insights on this... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Heya SV - can I get you to take an administrator's look at the last entry, for SavvyCat, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? Thanks! --Krich (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, SV. I've replied to your comments on both the 3RR violation page and at the Brandy Alexandre talk page. I don't neccessarily agree with you, but I appreciate the fair-handed treatment. I even like it that you gave SavvyCat a break on this one! --Krich (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reference quotes

Hi - would like your input on [2] as User:JesseW is suggesting including quotes from references within the reference section or on a subpage as verification. He added quotes from a college text as verification within the ref section (rather as footnotes) on Plate tectonics (diff [3]) which I removed and am discussing it with him. Thought you would be interested and could add your vast experience here. Thanks, Vsmith 03:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic fascism

Ok, you need to unlock the economic fascism article. It's been long enough. RJII 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please no. RJII has already begun reverting the economics of fascism to his preferred version, and will clearly move it back at first instance. I don't make the rules around here, but if immediately doing the thing that got you blocked as soon as your block expires is not disrupting the encyclopaedia, I'm at a loss to work out what would be. James James 06:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics of fascism

There is no way I've reverted anything more than three times. I copyedited the article to a new version altogether and I have not reverted any edit that was previously in dispute more than three times. I have been careful because I know that RJII, rather than collaborating on the article, is trying to bully me away from it by entrapping me into more than three reverts. I asked you for action on WP:AN/I and you left him a note. He carried on the same behaviour and is now trolling the 3RR board. If I'm blocked on the request of a disruptive user, my next edit to Wikipedia will be a goodbye message. I'll undertake not to make any more edits to the article today but if you want the article reverted to reward RJII, then you'll have to do it yourself.James James 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the diffs? They are not anything like the same edits. I'm trying to work on the article, and he keeps pushing the same POV. In fact, he has reverted more than three times to his previous version -- I did mention that on AN/I, and you thought that the correct action was to warn him, which, as you can see, didn't work, but has encouraged him to think that he can simply carry on with it. You'll note, if you actually read the history, that all of his reverts are to the version he created as a POV fork at economic fascism. Mine are fresh edits, continuing the process I have tried to pursue and have outlined on talk. You did read the talkpage, right? You've seen that I've tried to create a discussion? The difference between me and him is I clearly mark each reversion as Rv. He doesn't. He pretends they are new edits. If I'm blocked, I hope you will unblock me. I've already said I won't edit this article any more today. In fact, I'm thinking that given how difficult it is, it's a waste of my time. I spend more time reading some guy shouting personal attacks at me than I do actually working on the article. James James 07:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't realise it was three reverts of any kind. He's clearly done more than that but because I've marked mine rv you can see it.

This is all just nonsense. I'm trying to edit the article, move it forward, get everything sourced. He's putting in the same old stuff, over and over. I'll be more careful in future. James James 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Actually, I was already aware of not only that page but also the arbcom proceedings against RJII. To be honest, I don't really think the dispute proceedings are something I'm very interested in. Editors who are so contemptuous of the collaborative ethos are not likely to allow a dispute to be resolved by any means. And I've already wasted far too much time on the whole thing. It's a big encyclopaedia and I've recently become bogged down in a few niggly little things. I'd rather be doing constructive editing than wasting too much time on this stuff. James James 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that another editor has reverted him he's back to the death by a thousand cuts: "economics of fascism" becomes "fascist economics". The whole point of his editing is to be able call interventionist economic policies "fascist". Sigh. James James 07:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last request before a wiki-break

Hi, Slim. I'm about to go on a Wiki-break until the middle of the month, and (if I have sufficient self control!) won't even be logging on! I've been neglecting some research, and just have to get it done. Before I go, I want to ask you if you could take a look at this. I'm sure it was started in good faith, but it seems wrong to be voting when he hasn't accepted the nomination, and it seems even worse (in bad taste, anyway) to be piling on the oppose votes. Ed hasn't edited since 11 December, and probably doesn't know about this. I feel it should be deleted, if that doesn't break any policy, but I'm not sure exactly what the rules are. I don't like the thought of Ed coming back and discovering that a lot of people have said nasty things about him. (I refrained from voting, but since other people had voted, I added the nominator's vote so that at least the tally would be correct.) People are arguing now on the talk page as to whether or not it should be closed. If you can't delete it, perhaps you might weigh in and give an opinion on the talk page about whether or not the voting should proceed unbeknownst to the nominee. And Happy New Year, by the way. See you again later in the month. Cheers, AnnH (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I just made a note that the RfA is invalid and voting should not proceed. I intend to protect if people continue to vote. [[Sam Korn]] 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobblewik discussion

Hi SlimVirgin, there has been some further comments from admins about my blocking of Bobblewik. Perhaps you'd like to read them? They are at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bobblewik and User:Talrias. I hope you're having a great new year. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SHAC

I'll be around - I'll try and have a look at some AR stuff at some point. I am pro-animal rights but I think it should be NPOV as the cause speaks for itself.-localzuk 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help addressing improper behavior and Censorship

Hi SlimVirgin, can you help me address these issues? It may be enough to address the specifics of censorship and stalking. However, if needed, I can fully document a pattern of both individual improper behavior and collusion.Doright 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies#Censorship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther#Admin_warning_unheeded_Censorship_Continues

Thank you in advance for any assitance you may be able to provideDoright 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for getting that edit removed. I've been unsure of whether to push for getting those edits removed so the real person whose name it is doesn't get harassed or whether pushing would just convince them that it is my real name and make them all the more eager to harass... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your threat

What disruption? James James 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah okay, it seemed a little aggressive in the circumstances, but I understand now! James James 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got to ask you to act on that threat. RJII didn't like the opening sentence of the article, which correctly said that the theory he is discussing is proposed by libertarian theorists. Fair enough, he doesn't want the idea labelled as what it is and that's a theme of his editing. But he has left this: "The theory that the fascist regimes of the 1920s and 1930s shared economic policies, practices, and characteristics, creating a definable economics of fascism."

This tactic of mangling sentences and then rewriting them with the edit summary "grammar" is a roundabout way of pushing his POV and reverting by the backdoor. He's done it several times. He can argue that he's not reverting because he is "rewriting". But the sentence only requires rewriting because he buggered it up.

I can't revert it to something sensible because I am being careful not to revert, as we discussed. I'd agree to "by some, mainly libertarian, theorists", which is a fair characterisation, but RJII should in any case be censured for his behaviour. James James 02:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So your threat was entirely toothless?

I'm having a bad couple of days. On Melungeon, a guy repeatedly removes a link to an article that's the source for part of the page. He's doing it because the guy who wrote the article was his predecessor as president of a historical society! Me and Badagnani, an editor in good faith from what I can see, have replaced it several times. It's a perfectly decent source for the article's assertion, allowing for the lack of academic interest in the subject. But when I asked for help, I received none. And here, RJII is permitted to break the 3RR at will, so long as he is sneaky about it.

I know that you guys are tremendously busy making sure that users don't advertise their love of Taco Bell ;-) but when you have editors who say well, it will come down to who has the most tenacity, it's looking a lot like they're right. James James 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadell's RfB

I think that withdraw of Quadell from the RfB was a hoax, since it was made by an AOL IP. [[4]] -- MicahMN | μ 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, Slim, I just wanted to say thanks for this comment. It's always nice to be appreciated. I do share your concerns about the quality of some administrators, and I agree that desysopping is a long and difficult process for those concerned and can be quite distressing and painful for the administrator. I do hope a better "screening" method can be found; I just don't know what it is. And I wish I could think of some way to make RfA less toxic—there are many awesome editors who aren't (yet) good administrator candidates or who wouldn't make good admins, and I hate to see them driven away. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen

ROTFLOL ! Bishonen | talk 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway

Hi, I moved this one to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3. Do you have any ideas of what should be done with the redirect which was left behind? Putting up a disambig "Tony has been the subject of three RFCs..." just sounds entirely horrible, but should it redirect to his first RFC? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Please stop calling my good friend (BrandonYusufToropov) an Islamist"

I didn't, I said that's the kind of things Islamists say. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speciesism article

Please check out the tone of the speciesism article. To me it seems that the aim of the article is to subtly convey a speciesist message itself. deeptrivia (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-archive

Hey, I had a stupid idea! Don't spread the word! All the best, El_C 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Why is this talk page all widey now? El_C 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Jews Copyright

Dear Slim:

Did I answer your question satisfactorily? --CTSWyneken 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible request for comment

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [5] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And why is this talk page all widey — please don't respond! El_C 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why is your page all widey? Anyway, thanks for your advice which I shall follow. The fact is, the whole page is a mess and frankly I think it should be deleted. It used to be truly awful, but after a few rounds the user in question stopped making any major changes to the article, and instead has taken to filling up the talk page with content that manages to be abstruse, silly, and offensive. Ah well. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this talk page is a mess and should be deleted. Although, wideying has been solved (yes, it was that link, no may about it!). El_C 20:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My actions over Marsden's block duration

Hi, SlimVirgin, I have created an RFC on myself so you can express any comments you have about my actions regarding the block duration of Marsden. I've attempted to fairly summarise the events and I've justified my actions. Based on the outcome of the comments given on the RFC, I'll take appropriate action afterwards. Thanks in advance for any comments you make. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] qejhfdsggf1341111

Hey, I have other stupid ideas, too. DO NOT ARCHIVE THIS!!!!! El_C 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will not do. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] virago

How'd you solve the widey thing? Anyway, please consider this[6] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that. She archived, again! El_C 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Trolling. Beyond my control, as with so much else. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, stop trolling already, SV. Remember, terrifyingly harsh & brutal penalties (I trust that you remember the whip) El_C 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd almost forgotten about the whip, and I'm so excited that you mentioned it. I recall moments of great tenderness between Func, Bishonen, the whip, you, and me, but then Func left, you and Bish got bored, and I was left alone, as before, with my sick fantasies. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder whether Mistress Selina Kyle would be interested. She's certainly pissed off enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Tenderness? I'm not sure my own sick fantasies could be described in quite so..., erm, tender terms! El_C 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps your sick fantasies aren't yet quite sick enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Aren't yet quite sick enough? Hah! I appreciate your attempt at humor! El_C 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
My attempts at humor aren't yet quite humorous enough? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, they're midly humorous — the reference was to my sick fantasies, though! El_C 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
ick ick ick --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That's the cleverest comment so far. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Cleverness has nothing to do with it, my dear. El_C 02:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice please!

Hello, I (Sansvoix) have become involved in the dispute at Economic fascism (I noticed you are moderating that page). I am hoping you will be able to give me advice of how to continue, but if not, hopfully another professional editor will read this! I'll give you the full story from the start: (sorry!)

I found the page on "Request for Comment" where I made the point that "fascist economics" is a non-existant field. I then watched User:James James endlessly try to inform the author of the flaws and biases in his interpretation, which seems to of resulted in James James going off the wall. I then decided to get somewhat involved in the article, but I obviously don't want to go in the same direction as James James! I recently filled an application for deletion, which I now realise was a mistake. Doing something with this propaganda article is still is important for me... I wouldn't feel comfortable just walking away. Thanks, --sansvoix 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Hey! I thought I stayed reasonably close to the wall ;-) James James 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


must you ALWAYS mess with whatever i edit?Gimmiet 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serena

Ok, you guys are invited to here, hopefully I can step in as a third party and settle this. karmafist 04:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username change request

Can you move everything at User:Aaron Brenneman to User:Professor of Gynaecology and Doctor of Misogyny Aaron Brenneman?
brenneman(t)(c) 04:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that username is already called for, perhaps User:Professor of Gynaecology and Doctor of Misogyny Aaron Brenneman777 ? El_C 05:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images in (userbox) templates

I removed a bunch as per my understanding of policy but when I saw this discussision I figured it was better not to get into anything controversial (I hadn't thought it was controversial before that). When I went to lookup policy on WP:FUC I found that it agred with me... but... there had been a revert war between karmafist and a few others. Are fair use images allowed in templates? Or should I sit this one out until the bickering of the userbox generation is done? gren グレン 05:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought removing fair use images was safe until I looked on that talk page. Sheesh. Well, let's give it a few weeks and then we can write an encyclopedia.  :D Thanks for the advice. gren グレン 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamist Terrorism cited material

I am going to be putting the material back up shortly, as no editor has bothered to discuss the matter in a few days, and none in my mind have given satisfactory answers that override your assertion that Frontpage Magazine is a usable source. Just letting you know.Queeran

I strongly challenge the assertion that Front Page Magazine is a legitimate source for anything other than the opinions of US-based neoconservatives and I am especially puzzled when you claim it is accepted in WP. This search in Google [7] shows only a couple of dozen mentions, almost all relating to the magazine itself or its columnists. --Lee Hunter 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you would join the discussion on the talk page (under "Enviroknot's edit") as your earlier comment is being used as the sole justification for one side in a revert war. I can't understand why you say that FrontPage would be a legitimate source given WP guidelines on (sourcing from partisan websites, the proof required by exceptional claims, the dangers of false authority, and the value of secondary sources). --Lee Hunter 02:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp

Sarah, on the mailing list you note that you have a couple of concerns over possible omissions on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp. I don't remember seeing those (maybe because I've inadvertently missed them). Could you elucidate on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/temp? Whilst I know we have different ways of phrasing things, I think we essentially agree on what we mean by Verifiability and its importance to Wikipedia, so I'd welcome your comments. Kind regards, Jon jguk 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with an Image dispute

Dear Slim. Your admin experience is needed in an image dispute I am having with CltFn regarding an original photograph I uploaded of Asra Q. Nomani. CltFn has declared that I cannot prove the photograph is mine and that the source of the image is "unverifiable" and he/she has repeatedly removed the picture from the Nomani article and replaced it with a blurry screen shot of far inferior quality. This reversed your own edit in preferring my picture. CltFn has also altered [8] [9] my photograph license to { {no source|3 January 2006} } with no justification whatsoever since the source, me, was noted from the very start. Moreover, CltFn failed, both times, to notify me, the uploader, of this action as he/she is obliged to do under the rules. CltFn may also be employing a sockpuppet, which you have confronted him about in the past when he appeared to be evading an edit block, to bypass the 3RR. The IP addresses (70.156.141.155 and 70.156.187.157) are very similar and of the same provenance. Both this anon editor and CltFn have used the same term, "lampoon" in the article and Talk edit summaries. Please review these summaries, histories and related Talk discussion and let me know if you can help. If there are disciplinary and/or Wiki review actions that can be taken against CltFn, then I wish to proceed with them. Thank you. --AladdinSE 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish lists and categories

Hello, I have made a compromise proposal at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion. Regards Arniep 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ditto

Same here. Keep up the good work.--Dakota ~ ε 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use on your userpage

I understand that you think Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg is okay because it is a promotional image. However, as has been said many times to those wanting fair use images on their own userboxes/userpages, Wikipedia policy is stricter than the applicable laws. The same promotional argument could be applied to any of the logos that have been removed from userboxes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What a shemozzle. Even Kelly has bloody fair use images on her user page. My mother always said not to pretend to get sick or you will. But that's not why I'm here. Just scroll down 3 millimeters. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As nothing has been done, I have listed your user page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SlimVirgin. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it not still being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SlimVirgin_.26_fair_use_images_on_her_user_page? If so should it not be left be?-localzuk 12:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idle hands are the devil's tools

Well, lots of loose ends are getting tied up near me. My ArbCom has drawn to a end, and discussions at WP:WEB are bubbling along nicely without me. WP:DRV is really working well, and I'm almost ready to present WP:AFD365.

Soo... I'm like to get to the big priority that's been lurking for ages: Dispute resolution. It's really broken. Not in the way afd is, you know "we don't like it and sometimes it sucks but it more or less gets the job done" broken, but more like "it almost never produces any positive outcome and is either ignored or used to inflame, crush, and destroy" broken.

I'd like to help fix that.

brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Hi Sarah. Please could you remove the fair use image from your userpage. I understand your rationale for keeping it, but you are an administrator and keeping this image creates a rather bad precedent for other users who would seek to exploit the fair use guidelines. Thanks, [[Sam Korn]] 12:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bluebonnetfield.jpg and Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg. I do realise they're promotional images, but Wikipedia's copyrights rules don't allow "with permission" images, which is effectively what these are. Thus the only possible way they could be included is through fair use, which doesn't apply on userpages. Thanks very much, [[Sam Korn]] 12:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm basically asking it because it came up. However, there are various other people who have fair use images on their userpages whom I have aksed not to use them over time, such as User:KF. "For promotional purposes only" is not a free licence, only permission to anyone to use these images in a promotional way. That does not conform with copyleft, and is impermissable on Wikipedia. As to the other, perhaps you could just remove it until the copyright situation is clarified? I know m:Avoid copyright paranoia, but this is more setting an example to those who would seek to exploit fair use guidelines. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 13:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Sorry my response has taken so long; I was eating lunch (one thing I don't do with Wikipedia). Good luck with finding out the licence of that image! [[Sam Korn]] 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Bluebonnetfield.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bluebonnetfield.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

See it's talk page for more info.

--Wgfinley 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bluebonnetfield.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bluebonnetfield.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I still don't believe putting where you got it qualifies as a legitimate source when that site has no source listed for the image and it's pretty clear to me that is a professional photo and likely a stock image. I'm putting the image on PUI so others can give their take. --Wgfinley 14:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Question

BTW, I replied to your question on my RfA, I appreciate the very fair question and that any wrangling we've gotten into over images hasn't crept into this. --Wgfinley 14:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies for editing your page

Hi SlimVirgin, my apologies for editing your user page. I understand that you may have felt that I was deliberately provoking you by editing it. Please be assured that is not the case; I meant only to remove fair use images following our sensible policy. I was probably the wrong person to do so. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Not "probably", definitely.
  2. Suggest, don't just alter.
  3. AGF, especially with exemplary editors like SV. Guettarda 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Jeremiah Duggan

No, that's fine. I was going to revert the anon edit myself, but figured I could try to make something of it. But you're right, and I have no problems with it.--Sean|Black 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ron Karenga

Hello SlimVirgin, currently there is a bit of a dispute going on with which you may be familiar with at the Ron Karenga page. An anonymous user is refusing to discuss their edits and I've tried to discuss them on the talk page with this person. The dispute is over the opening sentence with the 'avowed marxist/felon' bit. I am wondering if you have advice on what I should do next? Facts 20:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Another motion to move Yom Kippur War

I just wanted to notify some of the people who voted in the previous poll a few weeks ago that another motion to move Yom Kippur War has been made. See Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Requested_move - Raul654 23:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the lists arguments

It's hard to read throughout that whole fight you guys are having, but your name comes up ALOT. Can you explain to me your side of the argument??

[edit] Hey!

I liked the garden better - too many folks are using the purple flowers. Again, you have a really nice user page and thus, my GREATEST compotetion here in Wikipedia. (You have to admit that are user pages do look good). Your's still beats mine, though. : ) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illnesses of Ariel Sharon

Hi SlimVirgin: I have nominated Illnesses of Ariel Sharon for speedy deletion because it's sheer bunk. Anything of value is already in the main Ariel Sharon article. IZAK 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of laboratory animal breeders in the UK

Hi, I have created an article, List of laboratory animal suppliers in the UK but it has been suggested for deletion, see here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_laboratory_animal_suppliers_in_the_UK. Can you offer any advice regarding keeping this article? Would it be better if I added it to an existing page? Or wrote it differently? Arfan2006 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the page would be better renamed as "Laboratory Animal Suppliers in the United Kingdom" but my account is too new to rename it. Would you be able to rename it for me? Arfan2006 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Jews in Iraq

SlimVirgin, if you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at an issue I'm having on the History of the Jews in Iraq article? An editor there is making extremely biased used of generally poor sources to completely POV an article. He appears to have managed to scare off Goodoldpolonius2, so I was hoping you could read through the Talk: page and make some comments. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see you've been involved in the page for a while now. My memory is getting worse; either that, or my eyesight. Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa thanks

Hello SV. Thank you for supporting my Rfa and your comment! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright desk

A user submitted what looked like a copyvio but claims it is his own work (Hooshang Heshmat). I know there's some place where you officially submit that you are the copyright owner. Could you provide a link to that place since I'm drawing a blank. gren グレン 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Throw me another bone, arf arf

I know you must prioritize your efforts, but how about getting back to adding martin luther, Martin Luther and Antisemitism and On the Jews and Their Lies to your list of major contributions? I’m becoming discouraged because it seems that a tiny group can have total ownership over the content of the article without regard to rational discourse.Doright 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure that your contributions are in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability. --لæmäļ al diη 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Jamal, Thanks for the advise. Has that been a problem? Can you identify which of my contributions are not "in line with" Wikipedia:Verifiability? I'm very interested in improving the quality of my work here. Also, why do you post that advise on this person's talk page? I'm just starting to learn wikipedia. Would it not make more sense to post it on mine or better still the offending article page?Doright 01:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The note was left for SlimVirgin on her talk page because she has been here more than a year and should know better. --لæmäļ al diη 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you to Slim!

Hi Slim, thanks so much for your support in my RfA! I'll do my very best to be a good and fair admin, one who is consistenly of good service to Wikipedia. As I stated in my answers to the RfA questions, I am not going to use my admin privileges in articles relating to Islam or animal rights. I think I would be able to use the privileges fairly even for those articles, but not doing so just seems like the safe way to go for a number of reasons. Any way, if there's anything I can help you with, or any actions of mine about which you have questions or concerns, please do let me know! Thanky thanky, Babajobu 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Greetings,

Im not sure which email youre refering to, because I get lots. If you mean the email about the Sassanid pic, if it's OK, I'd rather not have that one used in any printed publication. As long as the pics are used on the web, I'm totally fine with them being used anywhere. But for anything than web applications, I would much rather refrain. There are reasons for that. If you notice, some of my pics are in slide format, some in digital, and some are scans of hard copies. Some, I was the photographer of in a joint project, some I did for myself, some I did for the ICHO, some the ICHO gave to me, some I did for faculty at U of Tennessee, and some U of Texas (example: [10]).

Thanx again.--Zereshk 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEWilco

Hi - I just reverted his latest back to your earlier revert (edit conflict on that one, so you beat me to it :-). I have left a note on this obvious violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As I read the Arbcom decision it requires 3 admins to block for a violation of his parole. So - not sure of the next step. Thanks, Vsmith 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My bureaucrat nomination

Thank you!

Thank you for your kind words on my nomination for bureaucrat. I'm disappointed with the results, but heartened by the support I received by so many fine Wikipedians. As a wise woman once said, "you're one of the good-uns". – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue pertains only to Bish and HW. It was Bish who made the initial block and it is Bish who decided all HW's edits should be reverted. Everyking 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking

Thank you for enforcing this ruling so strongly - I really appreciate it. Phil Sandifer 19:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel it was too harsh - I can see why you did it, but I think that Everyking has to be able to make comments on some situations. He didn't question Phil replacing the block, only the original block by Bishonen (please let me know if I missed something). He was arguing the original block and not mentioning Phil at all, so I think this shouldn't stand. I'm going to remove the block - I hope you will understand -- sannse (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I came here to ask if you'd be OK with my removing EK's block, but I see Sannse got there first. I don't think he was violating the ruling against getting at Snowspinner, I think he just hadn't been doing a lot of research, and thought the blocking all came from me. At least until I told him about Snowspinner's block in a message on my page, but he had already done most of his going on and on and on by then, and he's been careful, since then, not to say anything remotely to do with Snowspinner's block. I'm pretty mad about EK's incessant imputation of bad faith to me, like when he says I've applied for the injunction because I "don't want my block to be questioned"—oh, yeah, that's probably why I keep telling him to take it to a much more public forum (=the RFC)! It's like hearing HW herself sometimes. :-( But I still don't think he was getting at Snowspinner—honestly, Phil, I think that was an accident. I'm against blocking him. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC).
When exactly does he do research with these never-ending complaints? This hostility is most tiresome. El_C 19:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[Reply to my talk page:] Oh I certainly know that Everyking is the master at gaming rules, but I think that we occasionally think he is doing so when he isn't - simply because he has done so so many times in the past. In this case, I think he is being annoying, and I sympathise with Bishonen having to deal with him, but I think his issue is with the original block and not with Snowspinner. Snowspinner is (as far as I can see) a silent participant in this and I don't think a criticism of Bishonen's block is also a criticism of Snowspinner. I had already taken off the block but will not under any circumstances fight over this. Maybe the solution is to get another (non-involved) admin to look at the situation and to re-block if they feel that is appropriate? -- sannse (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[Reply to my talk page:] In this case I disagree. Snowspinner being involved on the periphery does not, in my opinion, stop Everyking questioning Bishonen's reasons for blocking. I don't regard that as commenting on Snowspinner (even indirectly). Which is why I'm suggesting we ask an un-involved admin to look at the situation. I did discuss this with another admin before unblocking, and Bishonen herself feels the block should not stand, but I'm still happy for a non-involved admin to be consulted. We have different opinions, why not let someone else give input to help in this situation? -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My concern, simply put, is if Everyking is moving his treatment of me to other users who have supported calls I've made, or are in some way peripherally involved. Considering that, since the parole, he has spent a lot of time describing how the arbcom is a failure and now this does not give me hope - coincidence or not, he seems to still be locked into my orbit, as it were. Phil Sandifer 09:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[Reply to my talk page:] I don't consider this a wheel war, I have said clearly that I will not unblock if the block is reinstated. But I unblocked immediately as I felt that was the fairest thing to do having looked at the situation. I sorry you find this inappropriate, but I would do the same in a similar situation. I will post on AN/I to ask for the opinion of another admin in this. -- sannse (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utterly confused

Since I've interacted with you a few times, and (as far as I can recall) always reasonably productively, can you please explain to me what is going on at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2#Restrictions_on_SEWilco? It looks like SEWilco is being blocked for making an edit I would more or less have made myself; indeed, I have made many similar edits. There's a detail or two I would have done differently (I always keep notes and references separate), but it is still a massive improvement, from blind links (which are deprecated at Wikipedia:Citing sources to annotated links. I've asked about this before on the talk page of some arbitration, but received no response. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, the arbcom has ruled that SEWilco may not change an article from one citation style (e.g. embedded links) to another (e.g. footnotes). The ruling was a consequence of his having done this a lot against consensus and against WP:CITE. (I'm not sure what you mean by blind links being deprecated at CITE because they're not, unless I've misunderstood you.) He changed the citation style at Sea level rise yesterday, reverting against one of the editors on the page, and was therefore blocked. Someone has suggested that, in future, if he wants to change a citation style, he should do it on a draft page, and ask on talk whether anyone agrees with him. If they do, they can paste the changes into the article. But the point is he shouldn't be the one to change the article. If he only wants to improve citations, there's nothing to stop him, but in that case he has make the improvements within whichever citation style the page currently uses. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe not exactly deprecated, but "anyone who takes a random sample of these will find dead embedded links. Also, such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be difficult to rediscover the cited material, which is why it is particularly important to include a full citation in the References section." That's not exactly praise. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What that section means is that a full citation must be added to the References section. It's the same with footnotes. You wouldn't add a number to the text, but then not add the corresponding footnote in the Notes section, or add a Harvard reference and not add a citation to References. All three styles deliver exactly the same information if used correctly. But that's a separate issue. Regardless of which style anyone prefers, SEWilco should not change from one to the other, simply because he did it so much that people complained about it, and so the arbcom made their ruling. Let me know if that's explained the block to you, or whether I'm still missing something. I'm very willing to give him the benefit of any doubt, but I couldn't see any in this case. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Still seems miserable to me (things like having your browser freeze when you click to follow up a link that was a PDF, but you didn't know it), but if he was being a dick about it, I guess these things can happen. Still, I've made many such edits myself, and can't remember ever getting a significantly bad reception. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp

I've posted on the relevant pages a request for any further comments before the rewrite on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp goes live. I don't want to rush things, I just want to be clear as to whether there are any outstanding points, and if so, what they are. Please put any comments on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/temp. I know some days ago you still had a couple of reservations, but I don't know whether the more recent tweaks have addressed them. If you do have further comments, please add them. Kind regards, Jon jguk 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User against jews vs. Template:User against scientology

Okay, I am at a loss. Despite the title of the first one it says "This user is vehemently against Judaism." not against Jews... it mirrors the text of the latter. I am bothered because it seems that we (some) have gotten into the business of judging the merits of a religion. I couldn't care less about Scientology but there is no reason that something for Scientology should be kept while we have to speedy something for another religion. As you can tell by my putting the latter on TfD I don't want either of them... but, we can't speedy one and not the other. You know, Islam is a religion of moon God worshippers and as low as Scientology... so we can have "this user is vehemently against Islam" ~_~ There is no line and we aren't going to make one. That would be completely unreasonable. Please, bring some sanity back into this all for me. gren グレン 12:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Gren, if Wikipedia were a Scientology project, the Template:User against scientology template would be deleted, but Wikipedia is a Jewish project, so Template:User against jews is the one that gets the axe. Always keep in mind who you're working for. --لæmäļ al diη 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Who are we working for? --