User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive36

[edit] Revert on Israeli Apartheid

SlimVirgin, I was working on that section, with references to apartheid. Can you kindly give editors a chance to add to the article? Thanks. Ilan Pappe has plenty to say about Israeli Apartheid, kindly review in detail: http://www.imemc.org/content/view/17103/1/ Kiyosaki 04:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Did you know

Hello SlimVirgin. Just a notice that your nomination has been challenged on the grounds of POV. It was in line for selection on the next update. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I used to be keen before I found that a large number of images were being used under fair use, including by some administrators and stopped bothering. Regarding the monetary value, the image was published almost half a year back and if needed I can scale down the image, because I've cited a couple of sources that constantly criticize this image as anti-american etc. It's somewhat like the Muhammad cartoon. Of course it's not in the same scale but it was in the news for its caption specifically. It would be better to ask a couple of other editors who deal with images to comment on the fairness of the fair use of this photo. After all it's tough to get images from the other man's perspective. Idleguy 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Matthews

The article says "In 2000, he was named by Genre magazine as one of the most influential gays of the new century." It doesn't have a source and I'm wondering if it meant "gays" (sic) or guys? Idleguy 10:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad al-Durrah. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] introduction, questions, compliments

Hi SlimVirgin, we've never met but I'd like to introduce myself and give to you the honest compliment that you are one of my favorite editors here. I've noticed your work on Attribution, various policy pages, the noticeboards and so on, and I have been impressed. What do you think of this proposal Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles? An article I recently translated from the Italian Wikipedia Il Sistema Periodico would probably fail this as it is :-( so if you want to help me improve it, I would be very happy. I ask you this because you wrote much of the article Night (book), which is a page I've read a few times, and the two books have some similarities. Anyway, see ya around. Regards, DVD+ R/W 06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job on SS monkey page

Like your re-org on the Silver Spring monkey page, much nicer overall now.--Animalresearcher 13:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I aim to be law-abiding, and I have read the major Wikipedia policy pages, but not all the ArbCom cases. If you think I am in danger of violating an ArbCom statute that I am unaware of, I would appreciate a heads up, before you block me rather than afterward. --ManEatingDonut 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery Template

I've seen you did some edits on this. Any ideas, or do you know someone who might, on changing it so more than 4 images can be shown on any one line? Tom 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal liberation template

Noticed you removed the animal liberation template from the animal testing page. I thought perhaps this was not intentional. I actually dug through the revisions to see which vandal had done it, and was going to restore it. But, since it was you, I figured I would bring it to your attention as it may have been purposeful. --Animalresearcher 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Do you read French ? If so a good book came up in france - it is called "La Discorde" with intersting analysis of "new antisemitism" by Alain Finkielkraut . hope you are well. Zeq 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Sprotected2}}

Thank you for fixing the location of this template, but please, next time check before leaving the template with double (and triple) redirects like you did with this one. Also check the location of where the template is transcluding so..

#REDIRECT Template:Sprotected2

Doesn't appear at the top of the page either. Cheers! :) semper fi — Moe 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Take this standard message not so serious :)

Oh and I deeply thank you for your kind words on the talk. It's not every day I get positive feedback :) semper fi — Moe 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LEAD

do you think this Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#The_Holocaust has to be refelcted in some way in the lead of the article ? Zeq 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFPP

Hi! I changed (very slightly) your last entry on WP:RFPP. I changed your response to use the standard template for that page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree it's uncool to change someone else's comments! I only changed it because your text ("Done") didn't include any personalized comments, and it's much easier to scan the page and pick out the result of a protection request if the standard template is used. I've never seen it not used! But if you have an aversion to the template, I won't change it again. :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of DrL

Hi SlimVirgin—I'm not sure you noticed, but the article was protected two hours before your block, and DrL had not edited it for ten hours before that. DrL is in my opinion a good-faith contributor, and my understanding, like Nearly Headless Nick's, is that blocks are supposed to be preventive and not punitive. Could you take another look? Thanks, Tim Smith 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:DrL

Hi,

Dr. L has emailed me to ask that I review the active block, which Dr. L claims is preventing him from participating in active ArbCom case (presumably Pseudo-Science.) I don't claim to know anything about the most recent incidents (heck, I don't claim to much about anything whatsoever), but I do wonder if you'd object to an unblocking solely to deal with ArbCom, if Dr. L promises to leave all articles alone. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course -- no one would ever unblock without consulting the original blocker first, would they? ;) Besides, in my case, I'm in a confused fog 99% of the time, so I always need to double check. I have warned DrL that the unblock is for limited purposes only. Thank you for your super-speedy response! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of being pedantic, it's the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist case :) Guettarda 18:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Marsden page

Hi SV. I notice that you protected Rachel Marsden today, which has been a locus of dispute recently, including (as you probably know) an arbcomm case. I wonder whether in this case a semi-protect wouldn't have been sufficient, since all the trouble is coming from a single banned user who uses various Ottawa IPs (typically resolving to U. of Ottawa, as today, or to Magma Communications). Best wishes, Bucketsofg 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sad note

Just wanted to make sure you've seen User:Marskell. Sandy (Talk) 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

Click here and change "specialize in antisemitism" to "specialize in the study of antisemitism". Just a recommendation, you understand, but I think that wording is what you actually meant...although it's pretty clear that it could easily be interpreted as something else entirely... Your wording brings to [my] mind the likes of Lister and Göbbels...  :-p Tomer^talk 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

np. I'm here to serve.  :-) Cheers, Tomer^talk 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Adams

Hi Slim,

Can you check this bio article? It's rated A-class, but it's filled with passive voice and lacks in-line citations. Further, its wording is quite sensational and more historical than encyclopedic. I put an npov tag on the article because I attempted to reword a sentance in order to remove POV [1] and another editor insisted that the POV phrasing be used. I wanted to avoid an edit war. I think that this article's A-class status really needs to be rexamined. --Strothra 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Animal Lover

I've noticed that most animal pages don't have a map of there natural range, such as the Turkey Buzzard page.

[edit] WP:EL

I am disheartened by the lack of understanding about ELs. The status quo formulation is very misleading, and even contradictory to policy. I have attempted to explore a different wording but there is strong opposition from a couple of editors. Could you take a look and help mediate a resolution? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Marsden

I have considered writing a stubbed version of it in my userspace that meets all the policies/criteria: WP:LIVING, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. A copy is at User:SunStar Net/Rachel Marsden. You may wish to have a look. --SunStar Net^talk 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Posting here to not start yet another thread on your page on this topic. I have to say that I'm disappointed about your comments on this talk page regarding the neutrality of people who have become involved in the potential recreation of the article. Yes, I'm male. My politics, such as they are, are centrist. In my newspaper career, I've had politicians of all levels and viewpoints thank me for my neutral coverage. I had never edited the article prior to commenting on the talk page, and had no intention of being critical of Ms. Marsden. My hope was to do something that would be neutral; as I said on the talk page, however, it's obvious that it's just going to turn into a battleground again, so I'm done with it. I'm generally quite supportive of the work that you do as an admin and as an editor here, but those comments were personally disappointing. Good luck with whatever happens on the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 02:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Anti-semitism

Hi Slimvirgin,

Sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear but I was refering to this. [3] --Aminz 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What has happened?

Although our off-Wiki views, FWIK, are not particularly divergent, I have disagreed with you on-Wiki many times (not, to be sure, with the logical thinking underlying your valid conclusions, but rather with the policy-based precepts on which such conclusions might lie), but I find myself, as I proceed through the present ArbCom candidates, concurring not only with your !votes but also with the justifications therefor. You have, in many instances, stolen the words straight from my mouth, and I remain hopeful that this means that some sense has found its way into my head. My compliments, in any event, on what I think to be quite pithy participation across the several ArbCom election pages. Joe 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin advice

Hey SV, I'm finally in need of some of that advice you offered! For over a month now I have been maintaining the intergrity of Robina Qureshi against what appears to be a single editor using a number of IPs and accounts. The editor is single issue - infact almost single article - and, while contributing some content, is very pro-POV. I've been happy to polish off the POV from their contributions, but now we have got to the point where the editor is continuously removing the only critical content (that is well sourced) and also removing citation requests without providing references (e.g. [4] [5] [6]). After a number of edit summary warnings, I now consider this vandalism per deleting content, and left appropriate warnings on one of the talk pages. However, his or her latest revert has an interesting edit summary [7]. I've left a final warning and have reached the point where, if it happens again, think a block of all the socks is appropriate for persistant disruption. However, and this is my question, although I consider his actions vandalism, one could argue this is a content dispute i'm involved in and thus I shouldn't use my admin tools. Do you think I should act myself, or in this situation should I request another admin intervene? Thanks! Rockpocket 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, SV. The editor backed off a bit, so i'll see how they go for a while. Rockpocket 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you

Slim -- left a question for you this morning on Talk:Zionism, hope you can take a look at it. Have a great day! BYT 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Abusive or mocking edit summaries like "what kind of editing is this?" in PETA edit history contributes to personal attacks. As an admin who accuses others of not following policies or being rude, this is more than just a rude remark.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Idleguy 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbcom elections question

The question does not break any policies and is a question. There for there is no justification for preventing it being asked. If the candidates view a question as unreasonable they may decline to answer however as long as the question is not say slanderious or a copyvio it is not for outsiders to due wether the question is reasonable.Geni 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the page after removeing the question is not dealing with a situation it is infalmeing it. Protecting a page when you are an edit war with a fellow admin is illogical (well not quite but it is a great way to ceade any moral high ground) and against policy. Slim you have voted. you are not impartial stop trying to make judgements that are yours to make. The judgment on the value of a question is for the candidates and the votes. Not for some power from above.Geni 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not takeing sides. Any question may be asked. It is not reasonable to make judgements as to a questions value. But the only thing that may be done on that page is asking questions. Comments should not be made there. So before I was removeing comments. Now I'm preventing the removal of questions. My position is totaly consistent. If we were to remove questions why not go to the next stage and remove candidates we don't like? Why allow non admins to take part at all. I may have taken damage but that is a price I'm compelled to pay in order to allow the democratic process to continue.Geni 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim, it's up to Paul August whether he wants to answer the question or not. You do not have the right to refuse to answer the question on his behalf, and I'm sure that if he was around right now, he wouldn't appreciate all of these under-handed attempts at making the question go away. He's a very fair and well-reasoned guy, and he will understand that a sentence in his candidate statement is a perfectly logical topic to ask a question about. Please put down your wheels of war and stop escalating the situation. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree in principle that users should be much kinder in to others (especially in this arbcom election fraught with quite a bit of incivility (posts such as this come to mind) there does indeed seem to be no precedent set for removing questions brought forth to candidates and they of course have the right to not answer. It is only making things worse by edit and wheel warring over this (and honestly the protection was indeed inappropriate with all due respect), so it's best to just let this matter drop. Cowman109^Talk 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please quit. Fred Bauder 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Lead paragraph of this article may be too long, please...' Tag

Hi, I would like to make a template to attach to articles with very long lead paragraphs, if there isn't one already. Please discuss on the WP:LEAD talk page. FrummerThanThou 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Here is the template {{LEAD}}. SlimVirgin made a very important point since slapping this tag on an article can scare new editors, and I think we should discuss the issue of the terms of its use fully. Articles tagged with this template fall into the. So far none of the articles I have tagged have recieved a negative reponse though some have been reverted. I propose to start a wikiproject to deal with the problem on the whole, please sign your support here [8]. I would also like to propose a comprehensive rewrite of WP:LEAD since the present draft is not very instructional the way it is organised now. Clear guidelines should be set out in the body. FrummerThanThou 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Disappearing gif2

Dear User:SlimVirgin, I found the above mobile image on your User page.

So I copied it from you.

I assume that was OK.

I found it not only pretty, but also useful to bring particular ATTENTION to an important spot in my busy User page.

Now it is deactivated! Why? Does it violate some rule?

Finally, is there anything that can be done to bring it back?

• Yours truly,--Ludvikus 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Disappearing gif2

Dear User:SlimVirgin, I found the above mobile image on your User page.

So I copied it from you.

I assume that was OK.

I found it not only pretty, but also useful to bring particular ATTENTION to an important spot in my busy User page.

Now it is deactivated! Why? Does it violate some rule?

Finally, is there anything that can be done to bring it back?

• Yours truly,--Ludvikus 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

/me points above - I hope you don't mind. :) Cowman109^Talk 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3337805,00.html

[edit] Hi

Long time. Zeq 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

what do you think: [9] Zeq 07:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Dear SlimVirgin,

We are finalizing edits to the Ohio Wesleyan University article and are being careful about paragraphs being inserted into it at this point. I have a request: could you take a look at the following paragraph let me know what the POV parts are and/or suggestions for improvement (there are actually some factual discrepancies about the percentages but I am aware of those...I am more concerned about the POV language):

About half of Ohio Wesleyan's students are involved in Greek life. This percentage has fluctuated significantly in the history of the university: for a time in the 1870's, fraternities were explicitly banned, but by the 1950's, the Greek system had grown to include about 90% of the students.^[1] Currently, the twelve fraternities and seven sororities on campus are visibly involved in many service and philanthropic programs, and boast a higher average GPA than non-Greek students.^[2] In 2006, the local chapter of Alpha Sigma Phi received the North-American Interfraternity Conference's Award of Distinction, its highest honor, given yearly to one of over 5000 participating chapters.^[3]

Thanks for the time! WikiprojectOWU 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some history for U

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judea&diff=94064274&oldid=93907273

Look up hanuka and photos in http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-arch-of-titus.htm Zeq 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Smile today

Dakota has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] WP:ATT

So what happened? Will it not survive the cradle? Marskell 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night

My understanding was that it was an autobiographical novel, with a strong non-fiction drive narrative, hence the change. Either name is fine with me. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] court rulling

could you review this: [10] - I thought there was no such article (other than redirect) but found one existed and was deleted somehow. In any case the rulling today is interesting. Zeq 20:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

If things changed (you know). You were to gain weight. Would you change your user name? Culverin? ^Talk 08:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin opinion needed

Hi SlimVirgin: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kendrik, just so you know

I have discussed these issues with him on his talk page before. I do not think he is a bigot, just very naive on this subject. I post this to you just so you know that while his edits are irritating, I do think he is editing in good faith. Jeffpw 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

I seem to be inching my way back into Wikipedia (though trying very hard not to let it take over). Hope that everything's OK with you (though the fact that your Talk page is semi-protected is a worrying sign; have you been having problems?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A startlingly quick response, as usual; are you sure that you're not really a team working under one name? (A highly dedicated and talented team, of course...) I'll stay as long as I can keep my involvement to sensible levels; the main reason for coming back was exhaustion after two weeks of interviews (we've just had the Admissions process), doing about double my normal stint; I just couldn't bring myself to work on papers or book, and thought that this was better than staring into space or playing computer games. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340657,00.html

Carter wrote that "apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence." He called it "contrary to the tenets of the Jewish faith and the basic principles of the nation of Israel."

Carter wrote that the letter's purpose was to reiterate that his use of "apartheid" did not apply to circumstances within Israel, that Israelis are deeply concerned about terrorism from "some Palestinians," and that a majority of Israelis want peace with their neighbors.

Zeq 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

btw, the apartheid article shold be redirected to "Criticism of israel" - this is the proper name for such article. see Criticism of islam Zeq 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existence of dispute denied ?

Can you please cite a policy on this? All tags are created by us and are supposed to explain the dispute as accurately as possible. --Aminz 07:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chelsea Tory

Hi. I wonder if you could have a look at the contributions of this user and come back with your opinion. His/her edits seem very politically motivated and I'm concerned about the tone of some of his/her comments on peoples talkpages, they seem very provocative. I ask you as you are aware of the 'Gregory Lauder Frost' contreversy earlier in the year which led to my reciept of a solicitors letter and I'm worried that this user may be attempting to provoke other users into saying things which may later prove useful to his/her friends in a court of law. Thanks--Edchilvers 12:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Apartheid

It's interesting that you consider my edits to be "censorship". I rather think that "restoring balance" or "ensuring fair treatment" would be a more accurate description, particularly insofar as the disputed section does not appear in the main article.

While I don't doubt you'll be able to find 15-20 editors to agree with your preferred version, this doesn't make the current wording (I'm assuming that you've already reverted the text) any less inappropriate. CJCurrie 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anything I write will change your mind, but I'd nonetheless ask that you turn your attention to the following section of Wikipedia:Undue weight: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This is the wording currently under dispute: The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israel an "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some to criticize Israel's policies toward both Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.

I do not believe that any neutral reader would consider this to be a balanced assessment of the term's usage, particularly in light of the policy cited above.

You wrote: The edit describes what critics say. It's not for you to provide what you see as "balance" to what critics say. Are you truly unable to understand that? Should I go to New antisemitism and edit what Finkelstein said, in order to change it to what I wish he had said?

My response: We can describe "what critics say" without weighing the language toward either position. The disputed passage in this instance is a two-sentence topic introduction and our focus, accordingly, should be on an economy of language and the avoidance of hyperbole. I suspect "Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive and a political ephithet used to delegitimize the State of Israel" would be both accurate and sufficient for the second sentence.

I suspect that my words may leave you unmoved, and I have very little desire to continue a back-and-forth discussion on this front. You know my position, I know yours, and I've responded to your complaint. Perhaps we should request mediation (whether formal or informal) if no solution presents itself. CJCurrie 02:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou

Hi SlimVirgin: Latest chutzpah at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

By the way, you said you would provide links to articles about left-wing figures where you added, or clearly supported the addition of, lots of criticism, as you've done at Rachel Marsden and elsewhere. You said you would provide the links to show that you're capable of writing for the enemy and that your approach to criticism in BLPs is consistent across POVs.

I was planning to ignore this challenge because I consider it ridiculous, but if you really want an example please review the page entry for Mike Davison (which is almost entirely my creation). Davison is a former social-democratic legislator whose public career was destroyed by an unpleasant sex scandal.

Now, will you tell me why you removed the "roads" section from the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article? CJCurrie 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I respond to your next challenge, could you please respond to mine: where are the page diffs showing that Kiyosaki's bigotry was always manifest? CJCurrie 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Choosing only one of your talk pages to post this to, I'm doing it here without prejudice...may I suggest both of you take a breather? Jog around the block instead of the blog. I consider both of you to be highly valuable contributors with whom I tend to disagree on a great many things... That said, you seem to be presently involved in a mutually triggered melt-down here. Perhaps a shared cup of tea is in order? Tomer^talk 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your reverts...

Hi! I'm .V. I recently made changes to Holocaust denial and Template:The Holocaust. In the first article, I changed "most scholars think..." to "(this particular scholar) thinks..." because I found it was more in concert with [weasel words]. On my second article, I added a "controversy" section to the template, much like in other templates such as in [Scientology Template], among others.

My first concern was that I think you may have reverted a bit too quickly. Keep in mind [Wikipedia policy for reverts], which states "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." So perhaps you'll join me on these articles respective talk pages to have a good faith discussion regarding the nature of these edits?

You can find the talk pages in question [Here] and [Here]

Thanks, and I look forward to chatting with you about your edits. :) .V. 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ich der leiber!

Ich de leiber mein herren! I vould love to continue our chattinks, but I go now on vikibreak. I expect the you to be thwarted in you attempts to replace the Main page with the dreaded banner of Zion by my agents, and although I have passink concerns with about their competence, do not be fooled if they tell you they "know nothink". Hail to Victory! Oops, I mean -- Happy Holidays!!! -- Kendrick7^talk 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Palestinian rabbis

What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion

Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I thought you would be interested by this if not already aware of. Bradipus 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist spammer

Dear SlimVirgin:

Thank you for removing the spam from my talk page. I have no idea who the culprit was, and I don't recall editing any Israel- or zionism-related articles. --Eastlaw 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for voting for me at my rfa. I am flattered.--Berig 11:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights issues

Hello, I have posted some comments on the talk page for the animal rights article, better explaining more of the substance of my concerns and the reason for the dispute flags which I have added. Here is another link which you might find helpful. RegardsTrilobitealive 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sinjytrok

Hi. I thought you might like to know that this user is editing against consensus in David Irving and has invoked your name in doing so. They have also issued me with a tit-for-tat vandal warning. Anyway I thought you would be interested. Best wishes --Guinnog 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis

FYI: Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Frummer creates User:Jesus

Hi SlimVirgin: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created [11] a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus#Problem with your user name. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

1. No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
3. So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
4. What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
5. Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
6. It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
7. Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi SlimVirgin: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel575

He is back yet again. I opened a case at suspected sock puppets, this will be his third sockpuppet. His current IP is 169.132.18.248 this is his work IP. Yossiea 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EB Antisemitism Article info

Dear Slim:

I see you've added this article to a footnote in the Martin Luther article. Do you have the author of the piece (it should be signed at the end of the article)m a link to the article oor the page number of the physical edition? That information would be quite helpful to have in the note. I'm away on Christmas holiday, so I do not have immediate access to it. Thanks! My wishes for a happy holiday season and a safe and prosperous new year. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Paul Raj violating block

Hi, Paul Raj has violated the 24h block you placed for 3RR violation: [12]. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bon mot

That from here is too perfect not to go somewhere. WAS 4.250 08:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw this

Hi Slim, wasn't sure what this was, wanted to alert you as to its existence: User talk:SlimVirgin/tmp/SJC. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your kind attention

You might be interested to know what's going on in your backyard. – User talk:SlimVirgin/tmp/SJC. Cheers! Whoops! Already deleted — Nearly Headless Nick 10:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

/me drops a hammer on Samir's head. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Irving

Hi Slim. I believe we've had discussions in the past on Irving's status as a 'holocaust denier'. I'm most forgetful, however. Did you revert the lead from "David Irving is an historian" to "David Irving is a Holocaust Denier" because you agree that he should be labeled a "Holocaust Denier", because he shouldn't be labeled an "historian"? --Otheus 10:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Atheism is a specific kind of belief system which clearly and explicitly states the existence of no god. In general usage, particularly in the field of cultural anthropology/history of religion which I had been involved in, this qualifies it as a religion in the same way that Mormonism qualifies as Christianity; specifically, it does not accept the entirety of the existing canon of thought (in the case of atheism, it almost completely rejects it), but it does produce substantially similar results in its adherents, and on that basis it is generally considered beneficial to compare like to like. Also, frankly, when I was in the process of setting up almost the entire Project Directory, I did have to find a way to "pigeonhole" just about every project. Religion seemed one of the most reasonable places to put Atheism, and I even specifically contacted the members of the Atheism project for their input. On the basis of my not having received any, it seemed to me that the members of the Atheism Project themselves accepted that designation. Also, there have been specific creeds in the past which are classified as religions which do not acknowledge the existence of any sort of divinity. Certainly, some splinter groups of Buddhism qualify as such. They are still counted as religions, however. Lastly, the majority of the proponents of atheism are specifically, as it were, atheistic of the particular kind of belief which is prevalent in their society. Certainly, I have over the years met several atheists who, after hearing them propound their specific beliefs, clearly fall in the general category of religious people. They simply believed in a set of assumptions (call them what you will) which were out of step with the dominant religions of their cultures, and, because of their own faulty understanding of the subject, concluded that they were atheists, when their own speech clearly indicated they were not. However, once again, I will make the offer to you and the members of the Atheism project to move the listing of the project in the Directory as you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please feel free to do so. Certainly, I have no objections to having one less Project's articles to assess. However, as you have not provided any information where it belongs in the directory, I humbly suggest that you relocate it where you wish to put it yourself. As stated before, I received no objections from the project when I first notified them of the directory, and would feel somewhat out of place relocating it on my own volition to some other location. Badbilltucker 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Chairboy, could I ask you please to consider unblocking Giano? The block will only make things worse, and he was arguably provoked by an editor he's been in conflict with leaving a warning template on his talk page, which was guaranteed to heighten tensions. It would go a long way to quietening things down if you were to unblock him yourself. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin, I'm not familiar with the provocation you're talking about, but I don't see any connection between it and the reason I chose to block him. Please review the diffs, including the message he left for me immediately above yours, his calling me childish when I asked him to be nice, etc. I'm an uninvolved third party, and he's being disruptive and incivil. Unblocking him would be absolutely improper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hizb ut-Tahrir

I've asked for full protection until editing disputes have been worked out on the talkpage. I hope this will be amicably resolved, but I doubt that it will. KazakhPol 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Slim Virgin, forgive me. I noticed an edit on Bad Bill Tucker's talk page as I was getting ready to leave a note for him. Atheism is not, in fact a rejection of religion. It isn't actually the rejection per se of anything, though many atheists reject religion and/or any conception of God, just simple non-belief. There are even religions that can be described as atheistic (not against God/s, just a non-belief in them), such as my own (which has been described this way often), and Buddhism in general. Forgive me again for the snooping and general buttinski-ness. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aggression?

You've read this all wrong. I'm just trying to be patient with the newcomers. I'm not making substantial contributions to the article at the moment a) because when I tried to do so you and Jay immediately started making accusations and b) because I am taking my time to weigh what, if anything, can be done about the POV that still, to my reading, pervades the article, despite your willingness to play by the rules and write for the enemy. That doesn't prevent me from making constructive suggestions on the talk page. I always try to assume good faith of everyone and respond well if it is reciprocated.Itsmejudith 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll all assume good faith all round. But an article like this will continue to attract those who want to write mini-essays, in the same way that the articles chav and even solar power attract vandalism of the immature type. Tiresome, but part of the wiki format.Itsmejudith 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I don't believe that I have reverted the 3RR: I did not " undo, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors" in the edit I made at 0:50. CJCurrie 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on past experience, I won't be completely surprised if FeloniousMonk suddenly appears out of nowhere. Please note that I will consider any 3RR block under these conditions to be unjust in the extreme, as I have not broken the 3RR. CJCurrie 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I will repeat that I did not violate the 3RR. I reverted the contributions of other editors at 7:53, 0:45 and 1:00. My 0:50 edit was not a revert. If I've somehow misinterpreted the policy (and I do not believe that I have), please direct me to the relevant text.

Second, I completely disagree with your assessment of this situation. I am not "reverting because I didn't get my way", I'm removing text that has no business being in the article. Please continue this discussion on the article talk page, if you wish. CJCurrie 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice the bullet changes, and I don't particularly care about them one way or the other. Are you seriously indicting me for a minor style change?

(I should clarify, in case there is still any doubt on this front, that the change SlimVirgin has chosen to highlight on my talk page is the 1:00 edit mentioned above. No 3RR violations were involved.) CJCurrie 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, I decided to add the "TotallyDisputed" tag to avoid a nasty revert war. Since you deleted the tag without giving a valid reason, I decided that I was justified in returning it. My preference would have been to leave the original notice up, and take the discussion to talk. Apart from the fact that there was no technical 3RR violation, there was also no "system-gaming". Btw, I didn't apologize for anything. CJCurrie 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfc

thanks for the message. I've added one more diff. There was already one diff with my edit under this heading. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 03:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HT

When you are mentioning RadioFreeEurope, the full title is "RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty." Please use this when referencing. KazakhPol 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[