User talk:SlimVirgin/archive26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] David Duke

Slim, do you have a problem with being more accurate than "many human rights groups"? That is misleading....it's not as if Amnesty Intl. cared about it, etc. What is your opinion?VizzieK 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And I would LIKE to remind you

that exactly how many edits I have is about this close >< to your bussiness. Remember that Jimbo Himself has not written many articles of late. I was simply reminding users of the wikipedia guidelines (there are NO official rules). So please dont bother concerning yourself about My affairs. Thank you darling pickelbarrel 01:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listen

Im not sure what your all pissy about, I was just triing to remind people of the guideline that I was made aware of. If you dont choose to follow it then fine, but dont go freaking out. If we are not allowed to delet things from our userpage that is okay as well, but I was told by an administrator that I could do anything I wanted with the exception of vandalizing my userpage, and was actually encouraged to take down a few of the things I did not like. If people are NOT allowed to delete things that they find offensive on there user page, then I have a list of people who decided they didnt care for my thoughts and took them right off. Lets just make sure everyone is on the same page here. As far as my work 45 edits in less than a two months is not ba especially considering that I took off a week to study under Jimbo. If you dislike my opinions then lets just agree to stay off each others pages...remeber blocking is not meant as punishment, but rather to prevent. If you wish to 'Prevent me from making further comments on your page, it would be simpliest to just not respond...oh yeah Ive been letting everyone know that Jimbo really doesnt care for userboxespickelbarrel 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Valentines Day!

♥ Happy Valentines Day! ♥ May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Quadell

[edit] Image permission

Go ahead. No problem at all.--Zereshk 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Valentine's Day postcard, circa 1910

Wishing one of my favorite persons in Wiki a "Happy Valentine's Day". Tony the Marine 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. That ain't me on the picture (smile), Tony)

[edit] Thanks

Slim, I appreciate you trying to get things in line re Sarfati and AA. We'll see if it works, but, I'll be honest, I don't have high hopes. But, since the peaceful approach is sometimes better than the sledgehammer approach, it's worth a shot. Jim62sch 02:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And now, a musical number...

...in the mornin', in the evenin', ain't we got trolls? Sing it with me! Now I know I'm sick... I am nursing a sore throat, couldn't sleep because of it (it's 2:40am here in DC) and so of course, what do I do? Go check my watchlist. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Hi SlimVirgin. I'm writing this on the behalf of Wikiproject History of India. Could you check the recent edits of User:212.32.112.253/User:212.32.79.55/User:Anwar saadat ? He's been putting 14 templates of various kinds all at once on various articles related to Indian history. He hasn't discussed his concerns (if he has any) in a useful way till now. Just take a look. Thanks a ton! deeptrivia (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Sarfati and AA

Hi. As far as can be told agapetos_angel is closely related to JS, and yet continues to make controversial edits to that page. This appears to violate the no-autobiog rules (which I can't find a the moment...). Do you agree? If so, what is the appropriate enforcement? And/or, where should I really be discussing this? William M. Connolley 22:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Will you help with Wikipedia:Disambiguation, we need a disinterested third or fourth party to look at changes and see if they should be kept or discared. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I think I'm done indicating the concerns.[1] I have to note that nearly all of the concerns I addressed on this talk/dispute page, that appear to be close to being resolved, are identical to the ones I was addressing in the original Talk. I'll continue to respond to the discussions as time permits, but I'm very weary of the related situation that continues to escalate. Thank you for all your assistance! (and, yes, you were right) agapetos_angel 00:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

Just messaging dakotakan ok wrong spelling and somehow drifted on to your user page - having lived just down the road from Prambanan for a year in the mid 90's, and having been a complete Borges freak in the early 80's just had to say hi, for no particular reason. Keep up the good work! SatuSuro 14:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of assume that when you take the odds, then think of the average person in the english speaking world, then the average person in the centre of the dominant culture/nation (usa), and then the average person who travels Java, then the average person who might even cotton on to the folklore of the Solo/Yogya area ( I seemed to have laboured greatly over the various forms of logic of the published folklore of the Yogya/Bantul area), then someone who might actually appropriate such, and somehow I sort of think of the offspring or rellies of the javanists - i think, are you nancy florida's youngersister, clifford geetrz's great neice, or ... maybe, you just read a guide book (!), I shall leave it and you all alone, allow you your privacy and compliment you on choice of name, and wish you coolness of stone, as my memory of prambanan in 85 was hotness of stone and drinking dirty water, and 95 was ramayana ballet in the moonlight with 3 small children having arrived by horse and cart!. Sigh two are teenagers now.  :) SatuSuro 12:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draize test

SlimVirgin, I appreciate you've been busy on the Pro-Test article, but when you have time can you wander over to Draize Test and look at the additional sources and information I put on the talk page? I'm hoping we might agree on some edits that would make this article, particularly the intro, more NPOV. Or maybe we should ask for peer-review, but I'm not sure what the procedure is? MedicalScientist 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Slim, need your help for a pressing admin matter. Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers is an absolute disaster in the making for us, we desperately need to start removing many of the covers from articles and the delete the image. The only magazine covers we should have are ones that specifically discuss the cover itself: this includes all the person of the year and century, as well as the first TIME cover. All the others, unless an article specifically discusses the image, should be deleted.

This is a huge favour to ask of you: it's a massive job and I just don't have the time to go through all the images. I'm asking other admins I know and trust to help me with this one: I suspect that we are going to have lots of trouble unless we do something about it ASAP. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Slim, I know this isn't really the place for it - and i don't mean to imply you are a poster-girl for the movement - but i wonder if you could answer a philosophical question that has been puzzling me. If one cites scientific reasons for disagreeing with testing human medicines on animals (i.e. the species differences make it meaningless and instead suggesting humans should be the source of any experiments, be it tissue in vitro or human trials etc), where does one stand on the testing of veterinary medicines? If you follow the same scientific rationale, surely they should be tested on animals. Or is the basis that an animal can't give informed permission enough to rule that out, morally - if so it would follow that veterinary medicines should not be tested at all. And that seems at odds with any philosophy promoting animal welfare. I must say, interacting with informed individuals on the "other side of the fence" has been very enlightening for me. If you had any information on this apparent paradox, i'd be most interested. Thanks. Rockpocket 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your interesting reply, Slim. That makes a lot of sense. I have often puzzled over the logic of using, for example, dogs in painful or terminal tests for specific dog treatments/food. Its very hard to justify in any moral way - though i suppose one could try on utilitarian grounds. I suppose its not morally dissimilar to justifying the use of convicts in medical trials in some countries (except, of course, one might argue dogs have done nothing wrong). Thanks again. Rockpocket 07:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Test page

Hey SlimVirgin. Regarding the Pro-Test article, why is the Animal Liberation Front described as "an extremist group"? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If i may be so bold to intrude, it was I who wrote that. I thought "terrorist group" might elicit some disagreement, so wrote extremist (as in more extreme in their tactics than the majority of activist groups). If you can think of a better word to make that point, then i will not pro-test. Rockpocket 09:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gush Katif &Image:GushKatif1.jpg

Hi, could you please add a description to the image you added? Which beach, when taken, etc... Thanks, --Shuki 09:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:GushKatif1.jpg

Shuki 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germaine Greer

Er, why did you revert my edit to this article and then go ahead and make the same change? I wouldn't find this so annoying except that you used a reversion tool which gives the impression you were reverting vandalism. -- JLaTondre 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. -- JLaTondre 15:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: Apology not required. I make enough mistakes so I don't expect others to be perfect. Thank you for taking the time to explain what happened. -- JLaTondre 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] red links

Um no... Please don't remove red links just because "they look untidy". That's not a valid reason. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev

Can you take a look at this AFD, and vote or comment as you see fit? Seems to me like deletionism run amok, esp. in light of my additions to the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your message

Am I banned from contributing to an article purely on the basis that I might be involved, even if I have something constructive to add? You seem to have your own agenda for pages on this issue, I've noticed. I don't mean to be rude, but I will continue to contribute to the article wherever it can be improved. I pride myself on being able to write in a NPOV manner even on articles I have a stance on. Thanks for your concern, though. --ProTestOxford 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universism

I'd appreciate your weighing in, based on your post on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Universism Thank you. Universist 11:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universism DRV

Hi, SlimVirgin, you voted to undelete the Universism article last year. The outcome of that VFD shelved the article until March 2006. However, the issue has come up again just shy of that date, the article is again undergoing a DRV. Since last year, Universism has been featured in many media outlets, including the LA Times and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. Would you please vote again in favor of undeleting the article? --Mindbender 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenging the "in whole or in part" clause added to 3RR

Just a heads up. Discussion on the talk page here.

StrangerInParadise 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pycroft

Do you not think it outside summary style to note that the Pro-test founder was (apparently) visiting his girlfriend and sitting in a coffee shop when he had the brainwave to start Pro-test? Given that you've reinserteted this over-specific information twice, I'm uncertain as to the direction you feel appropriate. I'm firmly of the opinion that this should be a stub and I suspect you think so too--so why give a blow-by-blow of how the group was founded? In this case such detail is unwarranted. Marskell 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I shortened rather than deleted the sentences, to be fair. This is partly stylistic taste, but there's a Wiki-issue at core. Does it matter he was sitting at a coffee shop. No, it doesn't. The story may be more interesting in three days, so we can wait and see. The "stretching for notability" will be replaced with genuine notability, and if not send it to AfD. Marskell 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So no compromise huh? Marskell 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the objection—it's irrelevant—was pretty clear. But yes, I suppose I'm a minority of one. Marskell 10:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Anderson

Hi, you removed the animal rights activist category fron this page. The page quotes In 1999, Anderson received the first Linda McCartney Memorial Award for animal rights protectors. The award was given to Pamela for her campaign against fur. and In 2003, Anderson stripped down for PETA's "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" advertising campaign.

Please provide evidence for removing the category. Thanks Arniep 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi I think the two quotes above are pretty good evidence that she is. Can you give any evidence that she has worn and advertised fur? Arniep 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the fact she has a Linda McCartney award for raising the profile of animals rights is enough evidence to call her an activist. Maybe she doesn't get in with the crowds or bomb people's letter boxes but most celebrities don't do that kind of stuff. If you want to remove the category you'll need to provide evidence she has not been sincere in her activism by wearing or promoting fur. Arniep 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are being unreasonable. Unless you have evidence to challenge the truth of the quotes I posted you should not remove the category. Arniep 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] terrorism and the 9/11 article

Sorry to bring this up.. but someone has claimed terrorist is an accepted neutral word on wikipedia. Do you know where is this said? I can only find Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). All I seem to get is abuse. -- max rspct leave a message 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how are they unacceptable to wikipedia.. theres no rules? Well how can it be unacceptable eh? -- max rspct leave a message 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not making sense. Almost certainly? though it would depend? Are you not aware that one of the biggest debates in American academia at the moment is over 'little Eichmanns' and the validity of the WTC as a target? LOOk at the terrorism article. Yes I do wish you could be more helpful! -- max rspct leave a message 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found

Here [2] while checking [3].--Dakota ~ ° 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey you're welcome.

Just watching [4] and thought of looking for that colour on commons and there it was.--Dakota ~ ° 01:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarfati

Many thanks for letting me know about your edits to Jonathan Sarfati: it's something I was just thinking of suggesting, and fully meets my concern that the article suddenly seemed seriously one sided. It looks good, and can improve with the normal process. I've a couple of ideas for small edits, the main one being to make the Hugh Ross refutation bit more informative in line with the description in the AiG biography of Scarfati, and hope it will be acceptable for me to edit the article rather than first setting out drafts on the dispute talk page. The article still has no link to Creation science though this is clearly set out on the AiG website: I understand from the Wikipedia articles that young earth creationists are often proponents of Creation science, but don't need to be and can equally hold a purely faith position. However, Scarfati is clearly content with the label. This is something I think should be made clear in the introduction to the article, all of which can be sorted out in normal editing. The whole area is outwith my professional expertise (sound familiar?), but my hope was that an outside viewpoint could help break the logjam, which you've now done. Hope that all parties are not too disgruntled, thanks again, ...dave souza, talk 16:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you in

I did it [5] but I don't see it on the main page if you are in.--Dakota ~ ° 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I did do it right so you can disregard the previous.--Dakota ~ ° 00:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flower

I don't really do barnstars and I can't find the flower image but I thought someone should mention that you did a fantastic job on the Sarfati mediation. So here's the word "flower". My apologies for not being logged in. I'll sign this properly when the problem I'm suffering is fixed.Grace Note 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Young Earth Creationist, right? Here are some flowers, at any rate! El_C 07:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of organized naturism and nudism

I think Criticism of organized naturism and nudism should be deleted. What do you think? WAS 4.250 07:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beat me to it

I've actually never reported anything on 3rr and I had two windows up and running in my first attempt... At least we agree on something ;). Marskell 11:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A pageful of nonsense

Hi, Slim. Could I ask you, as a more experienced administrator to have a look at Robert John Balestrin. An anon blanked the entire page, and I would have rolled back that edit as vandalism, except that the page looked to be such utter nonsense that I didn't really think I should roll back to that. I have actually done two rollbacks already on that page, while doing RC patrol, without really examining the entire content. I see from the history that it had some kind of deletion tag on it, but not one with which I'm familiar. It wasn't speedy delete, and it wasn't vote at AfD. I'm concerned that the blanking of the page may mean that it doesn't show up as a candidate for deletion any more. Could you look into it, please? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. E-mail to follow. I know I owe you one. :-) AnnH ♫ 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

We edit conflicted its AM again.--Dakota ~ ° 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wittgenstein

Why did you revert my changes from US style to international style. According to Jtdirl, anything related to international, and certainly European, subjects should be in internationalized (i.e. 26 April), not (April 26).

When I was changing nominals from international to US style, he (Jtdirl) laid out those specific instructions, and I realized he was right (although personally we do not get along).

So why I am being rverted for no reason?? Rms125a@hotmail.com 20:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But Jtdirl (I don't know his personal name, though he knows mine) told me not change the nominals from European style (i.e. 24 January) to US style (i.e. January 24), and that that was the Wikipedian administrative consensus. Why don;t you contact him.

I don;t mind doing the work, and I think it adds consistency, US style for US and Canadian stuff, and international for the rest. Please check with Jtdirl. I really resent doing this work to improve Wikipedia, and having my edits reversed without even contacing me, or being labeled a "vandal" by somebody who hasn't even checked the edits or the nature of the edits.

Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The format used is simple.

• British, Irish and Commonwealth topics — use dd/mm/yyyy
• American topics — mm/dd/yyyy
• topics belonging to neither camp — format used by first author.

However I do think it makes sense to use the dd/mm/yyyy format for international pages, given that hardly any country other than the US and a handful of others actually use the mm/dd/yyyy form rather than apply the US version internationally when most people never use it and it simply puzzles international readers who don't know why a form of dates they have never seen or used appears all over. While Americans are familiar with both the American and international formats, most international users are totally unfamilar with the American one — the only time it is ever used is in the dating in the masthead of newspapers, and that is a hangover from the pre-computerisation days: newspapers used that form for ease in binding old copies together in archives by month. (As they used month, the put it first, just as we here put country then type of election, here in election articles as the series is Irish presidential elections or French general elections, etc with the year at the end for disambigulation.)

However the Wikipedia agreed policy doesn't go that far by using international dating automatically for international articles, as American users went ballistic when non-Americans tried it before. (The set preferences option was created to get around the problem and endless edit warring between Americans and non-Americans.) The agreed compromise is the one mentioned earlier.

Part of the problem on Wikipedia is that many American users go through international articles and replace the international date format that has been a longterm feature of the article, with the US-preferred one. (Lest their be many misunderstanding, Slim, I'm not accusing you of that. It is others who do it.) As Wikipedia grows, it becomes harder to spot these changes. When it is spotted later and and original international format reinserted, it often produces edit wars from Americans.

RMS would be wrong to change any American articles to the international format, but if he is changing non-American articles back to the original non-American format used then he is quite correct. If he is changing articles that are international into international format from American dating where they always were in American dating, perhaps he is simply highlighting the illogicality of writing articles on popes, on German history, or whatever in a form of dating rarely used except in the US. I certainly would not revert such edits. They have logic behind them though I have not advocated doing that. Reversions I made to dates usually involved removing American dates from UK articles, removing international dating from American articles (I had to go through the George Bush article to change all the dates to the US format from an untidy mix of ISO, US and international dating.) or reverting US editors from changing dates on international articles that always were written using the international format until they came along and changed them.

I hope that clarifies matters. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If my memory serves me well, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) used to be fairly clear about this, but the relevant guidance is now under the subheading Dates in article titles which obscures things, so I've suggested on the talk revising it so that the relevant advice comes under Date formats related to topics. .... 19:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC), corrected ...dave souza, talk 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Computer problems

Slim, sorry to hear that about the link. I've not had any other communication about that, and never heard of such a problem! I haven't followed the links from the WP Image page in the past, but that doesn't sounds good. I'm afraid I can't help on the computer front, as I don't know much about Macs, or viruses for that matter. I will remove the image from my user page though, at least until I find out what's going on.

Is there something we should do to flag this on WP? Spaully 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That could really get annoying :). I'd be grateful to know what's going on. Spaully 18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gush Katif &Image:GushKatif1.jpg

Hi, could you please add a description to the image you added? Which beach, when taken, etc... Thanks, --Shuki 09:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with the copyright problem. Now, could you please provide more information about the picture? --Shuki 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:800px-Lavender_field_in_Provence3.jpg

Hi Sarah. What's the name of this image on Commons? It needs to be linked from the image description page to provide attribution. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sure you'll continue to make mistakes, thus forcing others to correct them—It's one of your most endearing qualities, in fact! :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic (dialogue) - sprotect?

I've just blocked 71.118.32.15 for 3RR etc. Do you still want the sprotect on that page? William M. Connolley 11:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged sockpuppetry for investigation

Hi SlimVirgin - since I've known you to be a scrupulously fair admin who has no interest in the underlying controversies, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind investigating this allegation:

Just to let you know, User:Midgley appears to have registered himself today as User:The Invisible Anon. He is now editing as User:The Invisible Anon and following me around and adding edits as "The Invisible Anon".

Here is his original IP address for the sock puppet he first started editing with on Wikipedia. This has to be him because only he would know where it is. The diffs clearly show him associated with his recently registed user IDs the User:Invisible Anon and User:The Invisible Anon:-

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=14287194
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=16799973
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41250577
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41457405

Here is the link to his history of contributions and if you follow them you will see what he is up to:-

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The+Invisible+Anon

Here is some of his mischief on the MfD page:-

• brackets

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:86.10.231.219, for reasons that aren't clear to me, has decided not to register a user name but assures everyone he/she has a static IP address but has instead used a signature called Invisible Anon. Midgley first put in this anonymous user's page for deletion as an AFD, but this was moved here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:86.10.231.219.

It seems to me that whoever did this is probably guilty of sockpuppetry and certainly guilty of impersonating another user. If it is Midgley, then he is guilty of pre-empting an MFD. Not wanting to assume culpability from Midgley, I asked him if he knew anything about the matter, and the response is here - he deleted the question and simply thanked me for pointing it out. --Leifern 16:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

You might want to take a look.[6]. Not sure I can revert it.--Dakota ~ ° 18:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting banned users

Notwithstanding the policy to revert banned users on sight, I have asked before that I be allowed to see their edits to my talkpage. I'm not saying "don't revert them". I'm saying, please let me know that you've reverted an edit. Grace Note 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of curiousity...

Why not write Loro Jonggrang or SlimVirgin? :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Backfire

Hi Slim - i'm feeling very browbeaten today, even when trying to justify an edit you made i seem to accused of POV pushing by others (which would make me very schizophrenic). Perhaps its something to do with my tone, but over the last few days i seem to be drawing conflict even when trying to be concilatory. Thats a bit of an operation backfire of my own! Anyway, i think i'll take a break for a while until everything calms down, its no fun trying to justify myself all the time and i'm beginning to feel paranoid and defensive.

However, i wonder if you could do me a favour. I've been reading up about the FBI's Operation Backfire [7], which sounds like a witch hunt that has reached a worrying level with the arrest of Coronado. I think everyone should be worried when people are facing 20 years for publically discussing a past crime. Don't get me wrong, i think Coronado has done plenty for which he deserves to be jailed, but not for that. Anyway, it sounds to me like something that could make a nice article, except there already is an Operation Backfire from WWII. I'd quite like to sketch up some information on the FBI one, but i don't know how do do disambiguation pages and don't want to mess anything up. If you have a chance, could you disambiguate it for me and i'll get working on the content? Thanks. Rockpocket 08:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Its not your debate that drains me, i gave as good as i got there ;), its more that even when i wanted to get back to a more serious matter at hand i seemed to draw fire when i wasn't even trying to be contentious. Thats not good. I'll be back, but i'm just going to stay away from contentious issues for a while, i may contribute to more mundane things instead. I'm leaning that being a mainly one issue editor is not a positive thing in the eyes of others. Thanks for the disambig though, it may take me a few days, but i'll get onto expanding that when i can. Your editorial oversight, as always, would be most welcome once it gets going. Rockpocket 09:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aldgatetube.jpg

Hi. Just to let you know I'm listing this image for deletion. It's labelled crown copyright but the website says:

"Unless expressly stated the copyright... in any material provided on the TfL websites remains the property of TfL ...TfL owned material....may not be printed, copied, reproduced....except for the user's own personal non-commercial use."

It's orphaned anyway, so deleting it isn't reducing the quality of any article. Best regards Mark83 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category_talk:Midian#Vote

Please take a look and weigh in with your opinion.

[edit] SlimVirgin

Well, SlimVirgin, how lovely it is to be in your presence again! No, I will absolutely not stop talking about other lists. Heck, if I don't talk about them, no one else will. And I ask you to never communicate or try to communicate with me again. You voted "Yes" on IZAK's policy, despite the fact that it would mean deleting the British Jews page, which I had just sourced at your request. You didn't even let me know that you did or that IZAK proposed that gutter crap policy. I had to stumble on it by accident. Thank you and goodbye. Vulturell 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com circumventing block

Hi,

I noticed you blocked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com earlier today for a 3RR vio on List of Catholic American Actors. This user has returned before the expiry of their block and is continuing to edit that page and others under 24.136.99.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Demiurge 10:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I think I miscounted is it today or tommorrow? Today is the first here. Wiki time is much different than mine.--Dakota ~ ° 17:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vulturell 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On blocks, disruption, gray zones, etc.

Without mentioning any names (I think you know which case I'm referring to), this is certainly one of the most difficult situations to handle. The outright trollish vandals like Willy on Wheels are easy. We just block them and nobody complains. The good contributors are easy, they are treated with all the dignity and respect they deserve. It is this gray zone which causes trouble...

I was not entirely sure about what I did when I unblocked. The person who had been attacked leading up to the block also requested leniency, and another admin had already tried to unblock but failed. I just feel more comfortable with blocking when it is really, really obvious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is really obvious. Looking at the respective block log and her contributions would have been quite an laudible cause for complaint. As for the talk of gray areas, I think an extreme case of dark gray would be enough, and the consistsy of her breachs in regard to the well-being of the encyclopedia and complete dis-regard for other's thoughts must die. It is quite hard to concieve why this user has been given the grace of so many chances, but it has to stop. I recomend an year-long ban at the minimum. -Zero^Talk 15:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I agree. I'm posting here the note I left for Skakkalle. "I agree with you, but feel that this is one of those obvious cases. A look through the contribs shows nothing but trouble, and very few constructive edits. There has been vandalism, personal attacks, particularly against Muslim editors, trolling, obsession with user boxes, posting of personal details, attempts to publicize a website critical of WP; and then on that website, very serious personal attacks (rising to the level of libel) against a number of editors, and the publication of their supposed real names. The off-site behavior is in itself close to warranting an indefinite block, under the provision of placing users in danger, and when combined with the on-site behavior, it's indicative of no respect for the project or for the people who contribute to it. I take Jimbo's view that this isn't a playground, and it especially isn't one where we go around attacking one another." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Hi SlimVirgin,

I'm writing here because I saw that you've edited the Wikipedia:Verifiability page. I, among others, am trying to better the Canada article, and the first step for me is to add references. One of the statements in the article is recent regarding a sponsorship program in Canada that has led to allegations of illegal behaviour by the government and led to increased support for sovereignty in Canada. I am not the one who added the statement to the article (even though I've clarified it), but I do want to reference it to make the article better. I've referenced it with a book detailing the facts found through an inquiry, the Gomery report. Another editor keeps taking the reference out. I've told him we need to have references for every statement, and that if he can find another reliable source he can replace it, but he just keeps taking out the reference. I was wondering if you could please comment on the Talk:Canada page under the "Sponsorship Scandal" section. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi SlimVirgin, please see my response here. Thanks for taking the time out. --Bhadani 16:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome again. --Bhadani 17:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User review

This template was not recreated. The original reason for deletion was not a criterion for speedy deletion; therefore it was out of process and I speedily undeleted it. The deletion review discussion will clearly result in the template being undeleted. —Guanaco 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		No one should have to suffer the unpleasantness you have been subjected to. For your patience, kindness and decency, your help with difficult pages, and above all your much valued friendship, I'd like to give you this barnstar. Grace Note 06:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you! Hi SlimVirgin/archive26 thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 15:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and I will. I am reading the instructions but will have questions.--Dakota ~ ° 15:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you check Musicals talk page. I hit save three time and still nothing.--Dakota ~ ° 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Think so too, it's happened a couple more times.--Dakota ~ ° 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I just want to seriously thank you for removing the cat from my account. I am really upset over the Rajput article but shouldn't let my emotions overtake my judgement. Thank you again. Gorkhali 08:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just one more thing

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, haven't had much of chance to go through everything, however I try. I was bullied in the Rajput article so I left, but I would always pop back to see what was up. The "Hindu" side was fairly rude but the "Pakistani" side was equally rude, the difference between the two? The Hindu side cited valid sources, while the Pakistani side cited none (what I mean to say is that they didn't even cite a source and muscled their POVs). To further create a mess the admin involved got pretty nasty and made some racist statements which ended up making my blood boil. The admin gave the Pakistani side a free hand and was really sympathetic towards them.

The Hindu side ended up getting banned in an arbitration (spelling? Sorry its 4 am right now, couldn't go to sleep) and guess what, I spoke up for what I thought was justice and got banned too and categorised as "The Hindu only side". It was as if no one bothered to read my evidence or anything, just threw me into the group. I was honestly very upset. What kills me is that one of the Admin's friends named Zora said she was using a book to better grasp an understanding of the topic (before that they were all arguing with their POVs without any knowledge on the topic, that to me is irresponsible), however this is the best part, the book is by Malvika Kasturi, a professor of South Asian Studies at the University of Toronto, no one bothered to read my profile that Dr' Joseph T. O'Connell, the famous Harvard Hindu scholar (primarily to do with Bengal) is Prof. Emeritus of the same department and University and is my mentor in that field. I am still very much in touch with him and his family.

The whole experience was like a slap in the face. I feel as if in Wikipedia, its not about accuracy its about who's has more friends and muscle. I read your profile and was really impressed so I took the time to write to you. Is there any way I can get unbanned form working on Rajput?

I am sorry if I troubled you, and tahnk you sincerely for editing my profile where I was clearly misguided.

Dr. ChauhanGorkhali 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reply

Dear Slimvirgin, thank you for your prompt reply. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput and see under the subject heading presently the two most recent ones; Banned and Bibliography, you'll see that the admin, for whose arbitration I was punished, admits that I was not guilty and should not have been banned.

"Gurkhaboy got banned? He is a Western University educated scholar on the Rajputs. People like Dr. King, Dr. McCleod, Dr. Malvika Kasturi and Dr. J. T. O'Connell know him or of him. I think this article is gonna take a really bad turn. ~~ Daniel Ponzi

it couldn't be getting much worse, could it? These people didn't get banned for being clueless, but for misbehaving. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Dab, you know fully well I didn't misbehave, nor was I insulting, so get off your high horse. I could have brought a lot to this article but I left when I saw Shivraj and you guys just go at it. But when I saw the Pakistani side not cite even one reference and your comments about Hindus, thats when I got involved. Go through your arguements and I rarely come up, never used a sockpuppet, didi,'t say that its "Hindus only", nor did I revert the article like others did. How old are you anyways? What do you mean by "These people"? Just because you were made an admin doesn't mean you should demean others. You just got away with misbehaving with your comments and being partial. An admin has to be held to a higher standard, something that you lack through your comments. And instead of being gracious about the matter you can't refrain but give snooty remarks. Are you just an angry person? You could have made this article amazing, but because of your disgust for Shivraj you began blindly acting into the hands of one side which does not have an legitimate arguement, thus you compromise your judgement and the integrity of the article. You should learn to keep yourself cool even if the likes of Shivraj.Gorkhali 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

wait a minute - I apologize, I didn't mean you. I never even listed you as part and parcel of the "Hindu trolls". You appear on the "good faith Hindu side" in my book. I did not realize before now that you were banned, I mean I saw your name on the remedy, but I didn't check back with the evidence. So I apologize for my statement above as not referring to you. I am unsure why you were banned, in fact I would be prepared to ask for clarification, especially concerning ban expiration. As it is, I certainly welcome you to continue constructively contributing via the talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab I would love to work with you, but I am banned and that makes me fear this article being highjacked again by sock puppets and Pakistanis. You understand my concern.Gorkhali 12:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)"

"I apologized above: I didn't claim you misbehaved in the arbcom case, and did so above only by mistake. My comments were never intended to be anti-Hindu, they were anti-nationalist and anti-fundamentalist, and it seems appropriate to apologize to you now if they appeared otherwise to you. I do not think that there is a higher incidence of fanatism or irrationality in Hinduism than in the other major religions, and the problems we were having here are no different from the problems we get with fundamentalist Christians or Muslims on other articles. My attitude towards Hindu fundamentalists is no more hostile than that towards fundamentalists of other religions. The problems at this particular article are especially severe since religious dogmatism meets ethnic pride, a combination that tends to bring out the very worst in any people. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot take bans off anyone any more than imposing them on anyone. But I assure you that if you constructively point out issues here on talk, citing your sources, I will make sure to defend them against "Pakistani teenagers" if such should be trying to sneak in bias. It is true that bad behaviour doesn't make your point any more false than that good behaviour makes it true, but I am not aware that I have taken anything on hearsay even from the most honey-mouthed editor. Both sides need watertight verifiability. Even better would be, however, if there were no "two sides" but a many-faceted collaboration towards exhaustive coverage of the topic. dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC) "

Please help me. I sincerely appreciate your taking interest in my situation.

Gorkhali 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks needed

Hi, SV. Can you block these Zephram Stark sockpuppets: History Repeats (talk · contribs), Intellibot (talk · contribs), and Gay Cowboys Unite! (talk · contribs). See notice board for details. And a rvt on Declaration of Independence (United States) would help, since I've already used up my 3 rvts today. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cecropian thanks!

Thanks for the very kind words, SV. I hardly feel worthy of the praise but I'll try to live up to it and hope I'll continue to earn your confidence in the futrue! Cheers, Cecropia 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aziz

Nice work on the Tipu Aziz article - it reads very well. Rockpocket 07:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Scare

Hi SV. Sorry to bother you again, but i wonder if you could have a look at some of the offshoot articles of Operation Backfire and Green Scare. One editor appears very keen to mention the so-called "snitches" involved in the case in great detail. I've tried to keep it reported as neutral as possible and am not adverse to mentioning that there are informants but am not convinced one of them, Jacob Ferguson, merits his own article. Especially as the only source it was based on [8] pretty much puts a bounty on his head. I've cleaned it up a little, but am tempted to propose its deletion on grounds of non notability. What do you think? Rockpocket 02:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the AfD information. I'll put it to Dumpster on his/her talk page, if i don't get a positive response in a day i'll nominate it. Rockpocket 08:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I got confirmation that he is happy to delete on his talk page (plus he removed all the text from the article himself). However, i don't know how to delete the pages itself.... Rockpocket 08:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Hi SV I would like to convey my deep appreciation to you for collecting the Ten Commandments for an ideal Wikipedian. Recently, I copied the same to my page, without your permission, of course. Do you know? I can imitate better than a monkey? - I was just describing myself in her words. My overdue thanks to you!!! --Bhadani 10:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anons, editing, and respect.

Hi. Could I get you to look at Talk:One_Piece#His_name_is_ZORO.21? The surface issue is not terribly compelling, but I find this argument that one of the editors is using to be disturbing: summarized, it's "anonymous editors don't count." I seem to be having some trouble communicating why this is seriously anti-wiki, and I'm looking for backup, to see if perhaps if more people explain it, he will get the message.

Alternatively, if I'm being an idiot feel free to just tell me. Thanks. Nandesuka 12:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche

Hmmmm. [9], [10], [11], [12], Something amiss?--Cberlet 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

as a general rule, my friends, surreptitious surveillance of people that you are having disagreements with demonstrates bad taste. I find it doubly-distasteful since this comes after CBerlet's agreement to give Northmeister a chance (2:10 vs. 1:29). Hypocrisy never sits well with me. and I can't even speak to the fact that you did it in the open, rather than back-channel; that just strikes me as bizarre (unless you were intentionally trying to tweak Northmeister into doing something unfortunate).

I understand you don't like LaRouche people; that's fine by me. but right at this moment I am considering closing this case with a notation that you are acting against wikipedia policy and in bad faith, and suggesting to Northmeister that he go straight to arbitration against the both of you (thus allowing me to wash my hands of the two of you for the rest of history). can you give me a good reason why I shouldn't? Ted 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

let me add, on a personal note, that this is not the behavior I would anticipate from someone with a Rumi quote capping their front page... Ted 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's look at this way: Editors, acting disruptively, have to be dealt with. That happened with the previous ArbCom case(s). Now we have to accomodate new disruption and determine how to deal with it, whether via enforcing previous ArbCom decisions or (preferably) just resolving the matter through discussion. Really, it's unfair to force editors to deal with those who routinely violate policies and disrupt articles despite the attempts by others to teach them. Do I know how to resolve this particular dispute? No, not really, because I do think that everyone is acting in good faith, and that it's too general to really be "resolved" in the traditional sense. But I don't see how the ArbCom can help at all (and I think they'd reject the case, personally, but you're of course free to file it ).--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted is a new editor, who has made 98 edits to the encyclopedia, and is not, so far as I can tell, involved with the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee. He has simply decided to involve himself, even though there is in fact no dispute, and that involvement has reached the point of disruption, so I hope it will stop now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-17_Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche, but I otherwise agree.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Sean, I'm not going to file anything on Northmeister's behalf. that's his business if he wants to follow it; not my problem in the least. however, I do think it's unfair that SV and CB seem intent on excluding him even after he's promised to try to act in good faith. worst case scenario, he goes back to his old ways, we all agree that it's a bust, and the ArbCom ruling(s) can be applied to him with a clear conscience. their resistance to this is causing more trouble than the issue is worth, if you ask me, and if it keeps up for another couple of exchanges I'm bowing out and closing the case as irresolvable, but I'll close it in a way that supports Northmeister if he wants to try more formal approaches. other than that... <shrug...> Ted 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But I think it would be pretty failry fruitless. Anyways.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

probably.  :-) but still, I gotta call it like I see it. honesty is my greatest virtue and my worst vice.  :-| Ted 05:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:PAFhimah1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PAFhimah1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. Stan 05:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] syllogism vandalism

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to syllogism. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ted 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

there are more appropriate ways to deal with your irritation at me. we could discuss the matter, for instance. in the meantime, please stop senseless reverts of long term work.

Ok, you win. I'm not going to edit war with someone like you (because you are obviously better at it than me). I'll just withdraw for a few weeks. when you've decided that you're going to stop ruining pages just to make my life uncomfortable, let me know, ok?  :-) Ted 23:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You should apologise to Ted for disrupting an article to make a point, in violation of one of the standards of wikipedia. You should also state your case before reverting hours of work. It is unbecoming and in violation of the spirit of wikipedia what you have done. Further, if you have problems with an article, you should discuss the particular problem on the Talk page first. Be aware of that for future reference. --Northmeister 02:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just had a couple of hours of work reverted with the false and confrontational edit summary "rv: To page before vandalism and violation of wikipedia", I was interested to see Northmeister's strictures above. Having chosen to live in a glass house, perhaps he should give up his stone throwing? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can I sprotect my own talk page just 24 hours or so due to vandal complaints?--Dakota ~ ° 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you do it this time just for maybe 24 hours. I have had to remove several comments lately. In fact I will email you later about one of the more interesting ones of them. --Dakota ~ ° 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you are cool.--Dakota ~ ° 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISM

Can I ask why you reverted my changes to the ISM page? I'm newish to Wiki, so I don't want to do anything further without asking first. I don't particularly see the relevance of a Hamas spokesman's comments regarding Rachel Corrie to the International Solidarity Movement. Quotes from ISM officials make sense, or quotations about the role of the ISM make sense, but if we stray from that it seems as if the article ends up being too much about the Rachel Corrie incident rather than about the ISM itself.

Also, the bold emphasis seems to be very POV to me. It kind of screams "look how outrageous these people are and how they were just using this woman." While that's a valid interpretation, adding emphasis to certain parts of the text seems to be adding a nuance there that we have no real basis to add. Are there other instances where certain parts of quotations are bolded? Thanks. Bibigon 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So shouldn't an admin be civil in the first place?

I admit that probably wasn't the right response despite knowing that he could probably be baiting me needlessly. As an admin, Mel Etitis should have known better than to accuse others of "making it up". Mel has violated Wiki policy of civility by accusing others as being dishonest and shouldn't there be some action against an admin?

I still think you've confused that "graduate student" term with my understanding of policies. I understood the policy regarding sources, but as I explained before, it didn't say anything about the source being in a "peer reviewed journal" when I removed it, so it caused that communication gap. While my responses may be artless, I don't in any way intend to be abusive. I am also not here to take abuses from an admin just to become one myself.

I understand what you have had to say, but I haven't been rude lately and only saw it fit to defend myself against a crude comment from an admin. Also, you might want to talk to Anonymous editor whose responses to other editors seems to be driving out good Wikipedians. One chap left and another (Bhadani) almost left. Atleast my comments don't make anyone to leave Wikipedia. Thx. Idleguy 06:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recreates

Got a rather uncivil message [13]which was the