User talk:SlimVirgin/archive20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Wiki-stalking

You indefinitely blocked User talk:SarahPhelpsjr. Please consider doing the same for User:Richardharrison and User:GordenWatts. Both appear to be sock-puppets attempting to disparage User:GordonWatts (note the second vowel). Marskell 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I (User:Benbest) request that you please also do the same for this link spammer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.122.51.203

[edit] User:Marsden

I am not supporting his behaviour, which I've criticised. However, I understand the frustration he feels. It's almost impossible to make headway on Israel issue articles and some of the editors involved need to have a hard look at their own behaviour, you included. I don't exclude myself from that, but I deal with it by largely giving that area the swerve. Grace Note 11:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that he did get his way on the occupied territories thing. To be honest, I tire of the bullshit way too quickly to hang around for the resolution. I remind myself that the article on Rachel Corrie still gives the opinion of a journalist on an event she didn't witness and knows no more about than you, I or anybody else when I ask whether the "opposition" is actually a problem. I also note that the article on what the world bar a vanishingly small minority calls the occupied territories is still called "the Occupation of the Palestinian territories" and is still biased. And worse, badly written! None of these articles is ever nice to read because the "opposition" prevents them from being written in normal, readable English, insisting on the circumlocutions favoured by one of the sides in the dispute. Still, it's true that I think that your POV should be represented. Just not as the basis of these articles. Grace Note 11:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

my pleasure. This Marsden guy is a real piece of work. Have you clicked on the User contributions link on his page and read the stuff he puts in? He attacks everyone and seem to be here only to harrass people and put his bias in articles. he keeps babbling about other people but he seems to be the worst user here. John McW 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did click on User contributions link for User:John McW, and guess what: He was "born" 25. sept -05..-and a high percentage of his contributions are about "This Marsden guy" on different talk-pages.....LOL!! Soooo: why don´t you tell us: what are your other names here? Hmmmm? :-D Huldra 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin: Some time back I did a few edits on Abdullah of Saudi Arabia..I therefore "watched" the page...saw that Marsden did a minor edit..then (almost) immidiately Jayjg reverted his edit (whithout saying so! Oh no, he was just "updating" ...a page he had never edited before)...then I started checking: you and Jayjg are obviously following Marsden around, changing all his edits (many on pages you have never been editing before). Wikistalking, I believe it is called? See: Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Suha Arafat, Gush Katif, Irene Kahn, Jacques Gaillot, Ometz Le'sarev, und zu weiter, und zu weiter. Now, this, I believe, is not against any Wiki rules (Its just very, very silly, IMO). However, what I find really hilarious is yours and Jayjgs claims about Marsden, e.g.: "he has pretty much stated that his only purpose for staying on Wikipedia these days is to revert me, which is inappropriate behaviour for an editor" (=Jayjgs, on newborn friend John McW talkpage). ROTFL!!! Oh, this is just soooo beautiful!! I´m not sure if you have in English the expression: "you should not throw stones if you live in a glass house"? Well, somebody must be wading in glass to their knees.... If you hear roars of laughter from Scandinavia -it´s just Yours truly, Regards, Huldra 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Hi. I have made a new suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#A new suggestion in order to try to overcome the present impasse. I would appreciate discussion of this on the talk page before we all get into reverting again. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 21:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AH vegetarianism

Slim Virgin, could I ask you to please do some research and carefully read the talk pages before making sweeping edits and reverts to these articles? Although Google is overwhelmed with the results of Rynn Berry's recent media campaign in the US to erase Hitler from the ranks of historical vegetarians, AH's vegetarianism (1931 or so to his death) is supported by virtually all of his serious biographers and even the new Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler documents this. Wyss

I read the pages in question. It's strongly disputed that Hitler was a vegetarian. I think that lists of this, that and the other should be very carefully drawn up and should not include those who are the subject of particularly vehement dispute. I don't see this overwhelming support in the page Wyss links to either. Quite the opposite. I see people who knew him well saying he ate liver dumplings. Doesn't sound like a veggie to me! Grace Note 10:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • So he was an inconsistant vegetarian. Me, I'm a lapsed vegetarian; but were I an historical or notable figure, it would be accurate to include me on a list of vegetarians (especially if my notable acts occurred between age 16 and age 48). So you're the kind of vegetarian/that only eats roses/is that what you mean/with your Beautiful Losers? (Leonard Cohen) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No such thing as an inconsistent vegetarian, JP. You're either implaccably opposed to eating your brothers and sisters, or you're excluded from the book of light. We accept no half measures, no slackers, no EXCUSES! SlimVirgin (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh! my BROTHERS! well, actually, when I was a vegetarian, I was quite strict within my sect. But I always had one exception in mind: family members would be OK should the opportunity arise. You'd understand if you knew my brothers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can happily and cooperatively disagree, Slim Virgin. Truth be told, the evidence indicates AH was totally off meat, one way or another, by around 1940 (see the cites in the article and its talk page). Also, I'd say many, many people on that List of vegetarians wouldn't stand the scrutiny AH is being put to here, nor comply with your definition, and that's selective neutrality IMHO. Wyss 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely...

...how cute! Thanks for good wishes, the card made me smile. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal editor

Hey SV. 80.41.183.233 (talk · contribs) has vandalized a couple of articles and my user page too a few times. Please block. I have warned him/her several times. Thank you. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WivesMuhammad

I was wondering if you'd want to help broker a deal there. I tried a while ago on the talk but it just seems like it has digressed into an edit war now. gren グレン 19:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] coy

Don't be coy, SlimVirgin, the "Courage to Refuse" group uses the phrase "Occupied Territories" in the URL provided. They don't say they refuse to serve in gaza or west bank or whatever, they say they refuse to serve in the "Occupied Territories". Changing it to anything else is your POV as an editor getting inserted in the article. But from you, I would expect no less. FuelWagon 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please explain

And exactly what do you find offensive? And WHY? Please explain. (But don´t expect an answer from me the next couple of days: I have a life:-)) Regards,Huldra 04:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite easy to get a high edit-count: just parttake in edit-wars? Huldra 04:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Also: I`m so glad that you do not find user "John McW" comments about other users offensive.... But of course: he is a user of such long standing...LOL! Have a nice day! Huldra 04:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, he doubtless is. It's not just "our side" who uses sockpuppets. We just all pretend it is. Grace Note 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re:User:John McW

At your request I have given a 15 minute block which will give him time to read the relevant rules pages then cancel out the longer block. If you have any other guideline pages that you think would help him please post links to them on his talk page so he can read them, I agree that he probably did not have bad intentions when doing this. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. I am still surprised he did that over an obvious accident. it wasn't very friendly or helpful, that is for sure. Would you be able to fix the problem I caused at the Israel page? I would like to say something there, but when I tried last time I messed the page up. John McW 03:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I will read through those pages. i still don't understand why the PLO can "liberate" Israel, but Israel cannot "liberate" the West Bank or Gaza. John McW 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

One would assume a strong affinity between the liberating forces and the population being liberated. :) El_C 04:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organic food and veggie people

Slim, I agree with you that from an ethical standpoint factory farmed dairy products are as bad as meat. Arguably even worse. The same is true of eggs from battery cage chickens, and other instances in which animals are not killed, but instead harvested in industrial conditions. But "organic" foods are not necessarily the same thing as cruelty-free foods. First of all, I don't believe that the regulation of the use of the term "organic" (at least in the U.S.) makes any stipulations about the conditions of the animals involved. It all has to do with pesticides, et cetera, just as it would if we were talking about, say, raisins (this is my understanding, it may be wrong). Of course, most often the organic products are the ones that are cruelty-free, but this need not always be true. And because "organic" foods are often pricey and sold at foofy health food stores, I tend to feel that it's just another form of conspicuous consumption for privileged people. Maybe that's unfair. Regardless, I would like cruelty-free products to be available to people of all incomes, even if they were loaded down with pesticides. Babajobu 20:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that all makes sense. And it indicates why there is a close association between organic animal products and cruelty-free animal products. Still, when I'm buying dairy products or eggs my concern, and what I investigate, is whether or not they have been kept in humane conditions. In theory, a cow could be loaded up on antiobiotics and fed pesticide-ridden foods, but still be allowed to graze and live a basically decent life. I would drink milk from that cow. But this is an academic distinction, I suppose. And you are probably right about cruelty-free foods not being economical on a large scale, but I have to say that in California (I don't live there) Trader Joe's manages to sell cruelty-free dairy, and animal byproduct free soaps, shampoos, et cetera for a very reasonable price. If we could get these things available around the world at Trader Joe's prices, I'd be satisfied with that. Babajobu 22:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Mertz

Hi Slim,

A user named Tanya Ravine has started doing weird stuff to the WP article about me. As I put on the talk page, I have no idea why, nor who s/he is. I reverted once just now (and another time a couple days ago), but I'm definitely the wrong person to get into an edit war on that page (autobiography and all). I think you did the most cleanup on the article, so if you'd take a look, that would be great.

Thanks, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving discussion from Talk:Israel to Talk:PLO

Sorry.... Ramallite (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

please comment on your proposed change to policy on the talk page. Mozzerati 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWagon

I will support an RfAr against this user if need be. I long thought good faith but have since realized (or at least consider) otherwise. When he is annoyed he acts annoyed—unilaterally and without regard to consensus. Marskell 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, you and Gordon both continue to misuse the term "consensus". A three-to-one vote is not a vote that can be called "consensus". This already came up before on teh Terri Schiavo article a while ago when Gordon tried to call a 4-2 vote (then turned to a 4-3 vote) to be "consensus". He complained to an admin or someone and they explained that for a vote to qualify as "consensus", it would need dozens of votes and the result would have to be overwhelmingly to one side's favor. So, I haven't acted "without regard to consensus", because there have been no votes around Terri Schiavo that got consensus (other than the FA nomination got consensus that the article should not get FA status and that the article was too long). And if you have a dispute with me, for example thinking that I violated consensus, you need to bring it to me first before you go to arbcom. You've said nothing to me about this. ever. FuelWagon 04:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon quoted you as saying that you are monitoring his contributions. Since you did not disagree, I assumed that you agreed. If not, then it was just a useless comment on his part that you ignored. Jayjg has shown the evidence of what FuelWagon is doing. We can agree that the RfC talk page should be used for discussion of specific RfCs and of the RfC process.
I am hesitant to say that FuelWagon is stalking you, given that the definition excludes following a disruptive editor to clean up their contributions, and that FuelWagon has concluded that you are a disruptive pro-Israeli editor. However, I do see that what he is doing is disruptive in itself. Robert McClenon 14:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] dispute

"FuelWagon, I'm writing to put you on notice that if you continue (what I see as) your campaign of harassment against me, and the recent wikistalking, I will file an RfAr against you. You've insulted me on several talk pages,"

I'd challenge you to point out "several" insults on several talk pages. There are none.

"and seem to do so whenever there's the slightest passing opportunity. You're maintaining an attack page about me."

I'd challenge you to find a single "attack" on my user pages. There are none.

"You're following me to articles you've never edited before within minutes of my making an edit, and reverting me."

Oh, I think I could likely make the same charges of you. I won't be bothering arbcom about it though, unless you wish to bring it to their attention.

Your sudden interest in the Bensaccount RfC a while back was most peculiar given that you had absolutely no interaction on the article in question, or with the RfC itself for the first week. Your attempts to supress criticism of your behaviour back then was less than stellar.

Truth be told, you've been harrassing me ever since I filed that RfC against you. You made clear what you think of a user RfC, and you've been pushing that into the RfC instructions ever since I filed my RfC against you. And you're the one who's pushing POV in the instruction page. I've been trying to separate facts of policy from your horrendous opinion of policy, but you won't allow it.

Your attempts to change the "words to avoid" and remove "however" as soon as I criticized one of your edits for using "although" is an interesting approach as well.

"As you know, in order for a case to be accepted by the arbcom, there must have been prior attempts at dispute resolution. I consider the RfC you filed against me, and the exchange of e-mails that I initiated, as fulfilling that requirement,"

The RfC I filed against you dealt with your edit of the Terri Schiavo article, and I withdrew certification to allow it to be deleted. You've made no attempts to resolve anything via the RfC, if for no other reason than you are complaining about stuff that happened a couple months after I allowed my RfC against you to be deleted. You've made no attempts to use any step of the dispute resolution system to address these insults that do not exist, the talk page with no NPA violations on it, or my completely legitimate edits of your POV pushing.

Of course, you've got friends in arbcom, so jumping straight to arbcom has its advantages for you. So, claims that you've tried other steps in the dispute resolution process have now been retroactively declared by you.

"though of course if you have further suggestions, or want to try again, I'll be happy to work with you. I don't want to file a case with the arbcom, because it will mean a lot of work for both of us, but I will do so unless this stops."

There is nothing to stop. There are no insults that you can point to. There are no NPA violations on my talk page. there is nothing wrong with any of my edits on various articles other than the fact that you don't like them. You've pushed some bad edits into some articles and I fixed them. And you don't like that, so you're threatening to bring your friends into the picture and gang up on me.

You continue to make these vague accusations against me and refuse to point to a single violation. If you had a legitmate dispute, you could resolve it by pointing out an insult or a personal attack. But you continue to ignore those requests for specifics while making more accusations. Because there isn't anything I've done that needs resolving. You simply want to get me banned, so you can edit the RfC instructions to be the way you want them and so you can delete the sourced quotes I put in a couple of articles that you happened to be working on. You've probably wanted me banned since I filed the RfC against you two months ago. And you're going to jump straight to your friends at arbcom to do it and claim that my RfC against you was your attempt to resolve something I'm supposedly doing now.

You want to show attempts to "resolve" the dispute? Try pointing out "several" specific insults and see if I apologize or not. The only thing is there aren't any, is there? Nor are there any NPA violations on my talk page. There are no policy violations that you can point to. Not a single one. The only problem here is that I edit the RfC instructions to report the facts of policy and you want them to emphasize your personal opinon of RfC's. The only problem here is that I inserted some sourced quotes in an article you were working on, and you didn't like that text being there. You and Jayjg deleted a sourced quote as "POV pushing", when the quote was clearly reporting the point of view of the source.

This is nothing but a number of unrelated content disputes, and you're trying to play hardball by threatening me with arbcom to get your way. Dispute resolution around content disputes is to file an article RfC, not go to arbcom. But you don't want to resolve a content dispute. Your version of compromise on the user RfC instruction page was to revert to your preferred version and act like you were reverting to Sam's compromised version. You want it your way or you'll go to arbcom to get it.

I seem to recall you questioning the legitimacy of teh RfC against Bensaccount because the attempts to "resolve" the dispute didn't meet your satisfaction. You said we should have offered a compromise, worked towards a specific solution, something to that effect. What compromise do you bring? What solution do you offer? All I hear is "stop or I'll go to arbcom". You want a solution? Point out "several" specific insults on various talk pages or retract the accusation. Point out an NPA violation on my talk page or retract the accusation. You want to show that you've attempted to resolve anythign, point out a specific instance that you're accusing me of insulting you or violating NPA. FuelWagon 03:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Slim, I just wanted to say that however hotheaded I might sound on the verifiability page, I have only the highest respect for you and for your judgment in every other case I have seen. At the top of your page, you quote "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost" Well, I see this proposed policy as anti-education and that may be a reason why "almost" is in the quote. Also, I really do not think there was a pre-existing consensus, rather, sources tend to be in English because of the systematic bias of the net and because that is extremely natural in an English work. With the natural tide going so strongly in one way, other sources should be encouraged, not discouraged. I've already seen people saying that they only have a source in X language and are not putting something in - it may have already done damage. I have seen you mention the original form of the idea several times on Arab-Israeli conflict etc. pages, and I do not recall a single person agreeing with you. So in the original form do you really think there was a consensus? - which should have been proper before making it a policy without discussion.

I have also planned for a while to make an important and ticklish edit -one of many- on a featured article page that could fall afoul of the translation requirements, which I find incomprehensible. In short the main source of a featured article, the Yom Kippur war page is Rabinowitz's book; in my opinion, and I think you might have noted I never talk like this, he is a professional liar, one of many repeating the same standard lies about the background of this war, who also misuses his sources. A major piece of evidence I have for this is the English translation/paraphrase in the book Politicide by Baruch Kimmerling, a respected scholar, of a short passage from the second edition of Dado, the Hebrew biography of David Elazar, by Hanoch Bartov. According to Rabinowitz, Dado is the second most important source he and everyone else uses for the war - but he only refers to the first edition, when the second edition came out well in time for writing his book. Why? - imho because it apparently decisively contradicts the picture he paints. Egypt repeatedly offered peace treaties to Israel, and Israel repeatedly refused them, wanting to keep some of the Sinai. According to Kimmerling, Dado 2 quotes a meeting of the kitchen cabinet where Israel Galili says, 6 months before the war "if we refuse Sadat's generous offer, there will be war". To this, Dayan and Meir replied, "so what" utterly confident that they would win with ease. So the war was not really a surprise after all, what was a surprise was that the war was not so easy to win after all. What would this obscure translation policy say in this case? Is it more important than information?

As I have repeatedly said, the only good thing is that the policy, if it has any content at all, will be unworkable and ignored. Just another source for useless wikilawyering. I think you are greatly overestimating the efficacy of rules over gentle and rational persuasion, which makes no sense, as you are hardly unskilled in the latter. Finally, have you ever seen any scholarly resource with such a policy? It really makes Wiki look unscholarly and amateurish to me. I hope I have explained my feelings a bit better - it really and honestly did not and does not look like consensus to me, and still seems to me something that can only result in harm. My highest regards again, John Z 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not see the email, and still can't find it. I have some additional objections and will post them. My second paragraph above is based on a misapprehension of what the translation policy says; I still find it very badly worded and simply do not understand it, and would probably oppose it if I did. :-) I am just extremely conservative about changing rules, and this really seems to be a major change to me. Regards again,John Z 12:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
From looking at the talk page, glad there's some convergence; I guess I am moving a little too, I just like to move very slowly. As for fear of being ignored, no. (I had decided to be bold there), Fear of the men in white coats, yes. RegardsJohn Z 15:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

E-mail for you, SV. a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] email

Nope - just checked - nothing.

Ok got it, thanks, and I have responded. Have to get going now, have a good day :) Ramallite (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common-use argument

Thank you! I so tired I can barely keep my eyes open but I liked reading your comment and will get back to you the next time I'm awake. --saxet 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday

Could you take a look at the Holiday article please? I tried to NPOV a recent insertion, but it probably needs more work. Jayjg (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spokespersons

You're quite welcome. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] definition of sic

Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally. [1] (bolding added by me) Wyss 18:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well...

I'm sorry you find me dismissive, but I really can't take that argument seriously. We are having an argument about whether we should title a page by a name that is in common use, but which is objected to as inaccurate by one of the parties to a conflict. Now, I think there's arguments to be made on both sides on this, but comparing this to a question of whether or not we should say that women are inferior because a lot of people believe that isn't helpful. It seems to me that your example is more about riling people up with an emotionally resonant example than it is about actually making a point about the issue under discussion. Even ignoring the whole naming question, do you really think that saying women are inferior is analogous to saying that the West Bank is occupied? Would Ms. refer to women as inferior? The Jerusalem Post, as I've repeatedly noted, has been prone to use "occupied territories." How disputed can a term be when a right wing Israeli newspaper and right wing columnists within it uses the supposed left-wing/pro-Palestinian term? john k 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas, etc

The Hamas argument was, I think, more a propos, and you're right that I didn't end up addressing it. So, I'll give it a whirl now. If there were no other way of disambiguating the terrorist group Hamas from another group called Hamas, and both were similarly well known, I would not object to Hamas (terrorist group) as a title. That said, there would be other ways of disambiguating - Hamas (Palestinian militant group), for instance, would seem acceptable. I would add that for parenthetical disambiguators, the "don't use neologisms" rule doesn't apply, because the disambiguator isn't (in my view, at least) part of the formal title.

Reading your discussion with saxet, I agree with you fully about the human article, and that it's ridiculous to say that because most people in the world believe that humans have souls, that should be mentioned. This is because I don't think in terms of a "common use" rule for article content. As far as I am aware, there is no such rule. What we do have is a rule to "use common names." This is different, in part because it only applies to article titles. I fully agree that the article we're arguing about shouldn't just say that the West Bank and Gaza and the Golan Heights are occupied - it should explain that this is disputed. But I don't think these kind of issues can come to play so much in article titles, unless we can come up with another title which is a common name and which is more NPOV.

In terms of Iraq, this does seem problematic to me. I would suggest, however, that the problem is more on the side of not describing America's current position in Iraq as an occupation than the other way around. (I would suggest, though, that if it is necessary to describe the Iraqi government as a "puppet regime" to make the case that the US is an occupation regime that there are clearly strong POV arguments on both sides). I will go on to suggest, though, that the question of whether Israel is occupying the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights is not the same question as whether the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are collectively referred to as the Occupied Territories. It is perhaps to be noted in defense of this that nobody (I think) would deny that the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon after 1983 was an occupation, but that these areas were never referred to as part of the "occupied territories" - in some sense, use of this term seems to have escaped from the conventional meaning of the term "occupied" to be almost a proper noun referring to territories which may or may not be occupied. john k 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely what I said. Whether they are technically "occupied" is entirely moot to the question whether they are called "occupied". No one has suggested any problem with a correctly sourced discussion of whether they are. Grace Note 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversal of unblock

I agree with your decision in light of policy review. I honestly did believe I was consulting with a fellow administrator when I promptly informed Rama of my action. This I felt was appropriate ex post facto rather than previous to the unblock as the user by all accounts was not trolling or being vandalistic and upon reinstatement would not go off on a spree of poor behavior.

Regardless, I was in the wrong and apologize for creating a problem by not taking it upon myself to be more informed before engaging in administrative action. I have sporadic use of wikipedia due to other obligations and am not as up to date with policy as I was previously. I will make every effort to be fully informed and be more reserved to take administrative action in the future. If you wish to report this occurrence to the arbitration committee that is your right, I hope this will be seen as the honest mistake it was. I have given a more detailed response on Rama's talkpage. Thanks and happy editing. Arm 21:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yom Kippur War

I'm very disappointed not to see you at Yom Kippur War. I'm applying the principle you argued for at Occupied Territories (Israeli) but I'm meeting fierce resistance from a POV pusher. Surely you agree that "Yom Kippur War" is a POV title? You must be aware that the Arabs call that war something different. You argued at the "Occupied Territories" page that we could not name a page with a title one of the factions disagreed with. I think the obvious conclusion can be drawn if you do not apply the same logic to Yom Kippur War. Grace Note 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your WP:POINT has already been refuted on the Talk: page of that article. Furthermore, no-one disputes that the Egyptians and Syrians attacked deliberately and specifically on Yom Kippur, so your analogy is specious. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open gaming (protected)

On the comments page for the Open gaming article, you state that I have been disrupting that article since February 2005. That is not correct: User:Axon has been disrupting this article, dating back to December of 2004, when he began using this article as his soapbox[2]. It's unfortunate that you did not take a few minutes to read the history of the article before protecting it. Okay, let's say for sake of argument that you are just too busy to bother reading the edit history of the Open gaming article, and all you have to go on is the word of two editors. Let's suppose that you don't have the time to investigate the vandalism complaint I made against Axon -- since you obviously didn't check the facts before summarily deleting it.

Why on earth would you assume that one editor's complaints are valid and justified, and the other's are completely fabricated? Why would assume that one editor, whose only contributions to this article have been a) to revert other editor's contributions (primarily mine, but not just mine[3] [4] [5] [6]), and b) to post unsubstantiated opinion laden with weasel words?

Why would you assume that the complaints of the other editor, who has actually contributed much of the article's current content, and who has actively sought discussion on said content, are baseless?

For pete's sake, can't you exercise just a little effort before you declare that one editor's opinion should be enshrined as the incumbent version of the page? I even provided you a link to the last undisputed version[7] of the page! Do consensus, verifiability, and NPOV mean nothing to you? I am more than happy to discuss Axon's edits -- but you'll note that he doesn't discuss them. He has never discussed them, and you people do not do anything about it! That's part of why I took a break from Wikipedia for so long, out of frustration and disgust (other than taking a few minutes once a month to revert Axon's latest vandalism [8]). Of course, once I was no longer actively participating in Wikipedia, Axon was free to claim all kinds of things without fear of anyone contradicting him. It's easy to claim that you want to discuss things when no one is around to take you up on the offer (I won't even address his other slanders during that time, all of which you appear to have taken at face value). You'll note that he still isn't actually discussing anything. What he does (which seems to work quite well) is "contribute" his unsubstantiated opinion, and then complain to you when anyone else makes any edits at all. And, incredibly, this tactic works, because you are either too busy or too indifferent to check the facts.

Will you READ the edit history of the page before giving preferencial treatment to one editor's unsubstantiated opinion? Or if that is simply too time consuming, at least read the section on the Talk page titled "Time to get serious" (which gives a brief overview of the current status of the Open gaming article)? PLEASE?

But you won't. You refuse to read the page you've protected, nor the Talk page, nor even check the citations where I give you easy, one-click links to Axon's edit history. Any editor can recognize weasel words: you don't need to know "the issues" to spot them. Any editor can choose to protect an undisputed version of a page rather than being completely snowed by an editor who has never discussed their edits despite MONTHS of outright begging that he do so, but who is obviously better at "playing the system" than I am. Is it any wonder that I'm frustrated? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

On Talk:Open gaming, SlimVirgin said, "How can you call your version undisputed?" Oh. My. God. The most recent undisputed version -- for which I've given you the link at least THREE TIMES (make it four now[9]) -- was from a completely different user, predating any conflict between myself and Axon. Not only have you not read the page you're making decisions about, or the Talk page where most of this has been explained in detail over and again, you don't even read the Talk comments that you're replying to! AAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH! -- BBlackmoor (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC against AVD

I noticed at the RFAr page against this user, you was able to get into a agreement with AVD and another user to stop the RFAr. I wish to tell you that a RFC has been filed against AVD and it is pretty much over the same stuff, except with a different user. It can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon. Zach (Sound Off) 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Since this seems on going nowhere, I highly suspect that another WP:RFAr will be filed against AVD very soon if he does not calm down. Zach (Sound Off) 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I filed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ArmchairVexillologistDon_-_Reopening. Zach (Sound Off) 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

No, of course I don't mind. I have (unfortunately) promised a friend to help him move, but I'll send you an email as soon as possible. Cheers. --saxet 19:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope everthing is allright. My email adress is dervishtsaddik at yahoo.com (if yahoo doesn't malfunction again), sorry I didn't have the time to reply to your ideas regarding common-use. Best regards. --DTemail 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Bank barrier

Dear Slimvirgin. Thanks for your note.

I am very willing to contribute and I learned the rulls as we go. Your help is appriciated. The subject is hard and there is much misinformation about it. I am very willing to cooperate with Ramallite and any other editors) but please make your best that he does not insert non relevant info or uses "copy edit" as an excuse to delete properly sourced information.

Strongly suggest that you read the latest israel court descision. many of the facts about the barrier were reviwed in an court procedure where each side got to present it's case and the court rules based on facts.

[edit] Heads up: your friend was right

I told the idle guy that "You are vindicated on the vegan article page: I repaired the damage my friends, SlimVirgin and Viriditas did --but you ALL were wrong to not cite your sources: I fixed that as well --yes, as a struggling vegan myself, I too find it hard to deal with gelatin caps, but I listed the alternatives -and cited my sources.--GordonWatts 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

--GordonWatts 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counts

93. User:SlimVirgin (16784)
94. User:Willmcw (16774)

Hey, I see you're just ten nine edits ahead of me! Watch out, I'm gaining on you! -Willmcw 06:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I may be pulling ahead in the overall edit count race, but you seem to have a clear lead in the drawing-fire competition:
  • 25 points, User:Willmcw, 103 days admin, 9 times reverted
  • 44 points, User:SlimVirgin, 200 days admin, 31 times reverted
Thanks for taking the heat. -Willmcw 10:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] west bank barrier 2

Thanks for your advice slim. I read what you suggested and appliied it (see section about the 2nd supreme court rulling)

If the criteria is that "no one should think what the editor opinion on the subject is" then with hi degree of certenti I am surprized that you are reverting back to ramallite revisions and dismiss everyone else. Surly you know what he thinks on the barrier by reading his contributions.

I am surprized that weeks after the court rulling no one bothered to update that wikipedia article. Since I am familiar with the subject (and don't assume you know my viwes) I decided to help.

My goal is to have an accurate, balanced article on a subject that has many POV and non neural propeganda about it.

So I want to work with all of you toward this goal. I would expect to learn on wkipedia from you.

I hope that the pratice of just reverting other people work (when it is quotes which are well sourced) without proper discussion is not what you want me to learn. So thank you for setting a good example. Zeq 19:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin - just wanted to say thanks for your words on Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier regarding my edits. I think that Zeq is slowly going through the learning curve, hopefully things will turn out okay. Thanks again! Ramallite (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block revert

FYI, I've reverted the block on User:EKBK as there was no "justification" aside from an accusation of sockpuppetry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It'd be easier to avoid reverting your blocks if your blocks had some explanations attached to them. Please see Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks for some examples on how to avoid having people summarily revert your blocks for a lack of justification. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"sockpuppet used to evade block" and "sockpuppet used to evade policy" are not sufficient explanations as far as I'm concerned. If you'd actually reviewed the policy page to which I directed your attention, you would have seen the following:
4. Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the "reason" message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.
5. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.
I see no justification of your acusation that EKBK is a sock puppet. I have only your word (and, until I questioned you, not even an User: that you asserted was using EKBK as a sockpuppet) that it is so. I do not even have a peak at your reasoning. I do not care if EKBK is a sock puppet, procedure is important. We cannot simply block whoever we feel like blocking and write "sockpuppet" in the block log. That just won't do. I exhort you to, as amends for your violation of procedure, revert your OWN block, bring the issue to the Admin Noticeboard for consensus, present your case and see what the community has to say about the issue. I have indeed received several of EKBK's emails, and he/she does have a point. EKBK has been blocked unilaterally with no evidence offered as to him/her being a sockpuppet based simply on an assertion by one administrator. Sockpuppet or no, attempt to disrupt or no... this is unacceptable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Having been involved with the whole Zephram Stark affair, I can state with near certainty that EKBK is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Zephram. EKBK's first edit was to Talk:Terrorism to support some of Zephram's original research. The vast majority of EKBK's edits have been to pages that Zephram edits or to Zephram's talk page. After not editing for a full week, EKBK appears mere hours after Zephram was blocked for personal attacks and disruption. I think it's quite likely that EKBK is actually a meatpuppet, but the policy on meatpuppets states that "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." It also states that "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." I support this block and I believe that Wikipedia policy also fully supports it. Carbonite | Talk 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
THIS is precisely the sort of rationale that should have been associated with the block from the very get-go. I believe I made it quite clear that it's not the block itself that's the problem, it's the failure to follow procedure. I *still* believe that the appropriate thing to do is follow procedure, despite assurances from individuals as to the merits of the block. Between your and Jpgordon's explanations below (and my review of the relevant pages... which I was not even AWARE of prior to now... hence my complaint about procedure) I accept the prima facie evidence that EKBK is possibly a sock or meat puppet... there is certainly a pattern that fits. However, given the ArbCom case against Zephram, it probably makes sense as Jpgordon says below to allow the ArbCom to deal with the issue of potential sock/meat puppetry by EKBK as well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent (I've been saying a lot recently). It's blazingly obvious to anyone who has spent too much time at Talk:Terrorism that EKBK is just another one of ZS's legions of puppies (most of whom show up for one edit, support Stark, and then just coincidentally vanish again.) However, it's also the case that few people with any regard for their own state of mind spend much time at Talk:Terrorism. At any rate, the case of Zephram Stark (and, thus, his alleged sockpuppets) is under arbitration now (it wasn't yet when Slim blocked EKBK); blocks and such should now be under the direction of ArbCom, preferably in the form of temporary injunctions, until the case is resolved. I also believe that a "sockpuppet for the purpose of circumventing a block" is ipso facto blockable; am I mistaken about this? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, what's blazingly obvious to those who are "in the loop" is completely opaque to those of us who aren't and are presented only with a block log message that states "sockpuppet" with no corroboration. We are simply to take SlimVirgin's word for it... something I am loath to do (with ANY admin, not just SV) when the issue is a perma-block. THIS is why it is so important to follow procedure and leave a "paper trail", as it were, so outside parties can understand what the heck is going on. As for blocking a sockpuppet used to evade a block, those are certainly blockable, but there is still the issue of KNOWING rather than SUSPECTING or ASSERTING that the account is a sock before the actual block occurs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears you took issue with my last message here (which you unceremoniously reverted, IMO without cause), so I'll try a different tack. All I've done is respond to a user who claimed to have been unfairly blocked. In an attempt to examine the situation, I researched as much as was possible regarding the block. The sum total of information available to me indicated that the block was inappropriate, so I reverted it. You then re-blocked, and opened a dialogue. I've been rather patient, haven't re-reverted or done anything to antagonize you. In return, I've been accused of accusing you of acting in bad faith (an error on your part) as well as leaving inflammatory messages (if you note, the last two comments are not even directed to you, but to others who chose to comment on this issue), and (apparently) summarily blocked from leaving you messages on your Talk page. I've not impugned your character or done anything untoward. I've attempted to appeal to your fairness and reason as an administrator. Kindly inform me as to precisely what it is that I've done to incur so much defensiveness and ire on your part. I've patiently explained every one of my actions and rationale behind my motivation. What more do you want? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saxet block

Hello, I just sent you an email in response to your email to me. I'm not sure I expressed myself that well, so I thought I'd supplement my response here. Basically, I don't see how unblocking someone who was apparently unjustifiably blocked for a reason having nothing to do with the page in which he and I partially agree about a page title dispute is an abuse of admin powers. If anyone abused admin powers, it was David Gerard for banning someone for using sock puppets in a way which, so far as he has yet detailed, is not in violation of policy. You will note that I did not unblock saxet until after David responded with his justification. Given that two users questioned the block, and specifically mentioned that use of sock puppets alone was not sufficient to justify a block, David's response - reasserting that Saxet was using sockpuppets - was completely inadequate. Blocking a user indefinitely is a serious matter, and should be very clearly justified. David has failed to do so, and I made a judgement call to unblock Saxet. This was a use of admin powers, but I don't think that unblocking is to be scrutinized as closely as, say, page protection or blocking. Users shouldn't be blocked without good reason. David has yet to provide one. If he can, in fact, provide a good reason, he can reblock saxet, and I would accept that.

As to my personal connection, I feel that this is very tenuous. Saxet and I agree that the Territories under Israeli control article should be renamed to something based around the name "occupied territories." We may incidentally agree on some other subjects. As far as I am aware, that is all. Saxet is not, I think, a terribly eloquent or helpful advocate for the views which we agree on. I have no particular connection to Saxet beyond this single article. David's reasons for blocking Saxet had nothing to do with his behavior in the one article in which I have had contact with Saxet (Saxet did not use sock puppets in that article that I am aware of. If he did edit as different users, which I'm not completely sure he did not do, he always signed as Saxet, so there was no intent to deceive). Frankly, I don't see how the fact that I agree with Saxet on one particular content dispute means that I am unqualified from unblocking him. I've seen unblocks made on much more dubious gorunds in the past. john k 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for awarding me the Oddball Barnstar Award! I hope this is the right place to contact you! devotchka

[edit] Gimmiet block

I'm sorry, I won't unilaterally undo a block again, and I was misinformed about what's considered a "revert" and what isn't. Having mulled it over, I now do think that, regardless of whether or not it truly violates the injunction, deleting the tag a second time was highly inappropriate and deserving of a block. Sorry about that. ~~ N (t/c) 05:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Username Großhauptsturmführer

You have banned my previous username, Großhauptsturmführer. Though I feel your ban may have been POV motivated, I am going to assume good faith and give you an oppurtunity to apply your rules equally. I find User:V. Molotov's username to be offensive because it obviously refers to genocide accessory Vyacheslav Molotov. Banneduser96 18:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • V. Molotov's page says Hello all, my name is , and I had once went under the name "Dbraceyrules" but have now changed it to V. Molotov after - well, not the Soviet politician - but the Molotov cocktail. Even a marginal student of Soviet history will tell you that Molotov cocktails were called that as a symbol of defiance to Molotov and his lies during the Winter War. On the other hand, your invented term "Großhauptsturmführer" is obviously a Nazi reference; around here, you need to keep your Nazi affinities a bit more subtle, since, like most decent people in the world, we don't have much respect for the needs and feelings of professed Nazis. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a policy in wikipedia that forbids users to express a controversial personal belief? Just wondering. I have seen several users with Nazi signs, anti-religious symbols, etc. on their user pages.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Not as such. But see Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames. Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory or offensive user names. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks jp and SV for making that clear. Now about this issue. If this particular user's name is offensive, does that mean that names such as user:JerusalemISIsrael are also since they might offend Palestinians? For me, this is just to become more familiar with wiki policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Now that you have openly admitted you POV bias against me, I feel it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself and unblock my username at this time. The other user's name is V. Molotov, not Petrol Bomb, Molotov Cocktail, or even simply Molotov. If we are to accept Molotov's disclaimer on his/her userpage, may I continue to use my username if I provide a similar disclaimer, distancing my name from any Nazi organization? I don't think you would find the term Großhauptsturmführer anywhere (a google search turned up no results [10]), let alone in Nazi history. Or is it only acceptable to allude to the mind behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and genocide (Stalinist purges), so long as one is alluding to a communist?
As an admin, you have voluntarily undertaken addition responsiblity. You must execute your powers in an equitable manner, without regard for your personal opinions. If you do not feel you can execute your powers in an equal manner, you should resign. Banneduser96 22:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You don't read very well, do you? The allusion to Molotov cocktails is, as are all reference to Molotov cocktails, opposition to Molotov and his evils. But keep trying; it will be amusing to see what you can invent to show that a "great" or "big" Nazi Storm Trooper Captain is somehow not an allusion to Naziism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear fellow primate

I'm really perplexed by your anger over edits to primate and ape. I avoided duplication one-page-to-the-other but absolutely no info was removed. In fact, taken together, the concept has been expanded upon, particularly given that the ape page previously made no mention of the topic. I also tried to make clear that Ape is not synonomous with Primate. It's an important point which people often miss. To address a few of things:

  • "It strikes me that you're personally dismissive of the idea and therefore feel it has no place here..." Not at all! It's an absolutely fascinating topic which deserves a mention. Two things. First, again, apes are not primates in the same way dogs are not wolves and my main concern was which page does this belong on. Secondly, great pains have been taken (particularly by Uther, who deserves a lot of credit for his fastidiousness on animal articles) to cover taxonomy and biology comprehensively first and then get into other considerations. He actually moved legal considerations back down, not myself.
  • "If you've inserted it wholesale into Ape, you'd better adjust the figures in it to cover only apes." I didn't insert it wholesale and mentioned no figures. I moved the expanded paragraph about what the "Great Ape Project" is to ape because it makes sense there and left the stats about research on primates on primate (and for what it's worth I never added the "there is no discomfort" line which is indeed a joke as you said).
  • "And yes, people are very serious about extending the notion of personhood, a legal concept, to lemurs." I have read around this topic and I have honestly not seen any reference to lemurs and monkeys being included (as I recall I have encountered comments about dolphins in this regard!). I apologize if it came off as glib to say "Source?" as a single sentence, but I'd honestly be curious for the source. I did search around and can't find one.
  • "You're now engaged in WP:POINT, deliberately inserting false material elsewhere." I'm sorry but that's just not true. I really haven't inserted false material anywhere.

As an ancillary point, do we have a "grandfather" article along the lines of Legal status of animals which we could point to in discussions of this sort? Can't find one in the animal cat. It's certainly an interesting topic and I'd help if you want to make an article. Marskell 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long-winded follow-up point

Apes are primates but the term ape is not synonomous with primate (like again, dog is not synonomous with canine). That is, apes are one type of primate (and actually a quite limited one, if you exclude the 6 billion us).
If there is a truly mis-apprehended word in this regard, it is "monkey". We are not monkeys. Apes are not monkeys. But of course, an off-the-top-head discussion of evolution inevitably includes "hey, we're monkeys!"
Anyhow, there is some POV on my part and I'll admit that the previous edit summary "placing legal status at bottom and removing great ape project ref. should lemurs be considered persons under law? a) no b) i don't care. save it for the ape page" was hasty and sarcastic. But again, it goes back to apes versus primates. To go over quickly what I view as a starting point for discussion.
  1. Apes (or maybe just chimps--disputed) appear to have self-recognition, passing the "mirror test."
  2. Apes may have theory of mind (again disputed); that is they appear cognizant of what another is thinking and will act on that knowledge. Knowing "you" basically being the step after knowing "I".
To my mind, if you pass both tests you are a person (POV obviously, but not out of nowhwere). Trees don't pass either. Dogs don't pass either (place a mirror in front of them and they get ready to fight the "intruder"). And the vast majority of primates (as far as I know and I'm not claiming expert knowledge) may pass the first but not the second test. Only chimps come close. The Great Ape Project says this without saying it IMHO. Their declaration is clear but their reasoning is not and they don't clarify the "before this why not before that point" (ie, you include chimps so then you include gorillas and orangs—why not all primates, why not all mammals, why not insects, and on and on until hydrogen ought to have personhood...). My getting uptight about the edits has a lot to do with this reasoning; again it's POV but it's not non-thought-out or over-general. I really do think the paragraph I placed on ape makes more sense there than on primate because the project has, to this point, only sought to demand rights for apes.
Anyway, I'll chew over the suggested addition of Legal status of animals. It shouldn't be added in the "just a stub everybody add an incidental point" fashion because it could wind-up badly. Well-done it could be a good addition.
Finally, after much long-windedness, thanks for your gracious comments on my talk page! Marskell 02:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More long-windedness

Thanks for your post; all of your points are well-taken.

Before proceeding I thought I’d make a general clarification about persons in law versus persons as such. An infant is and should be a person in law though I wouldn’t actually consider them a person as such—just a loveable bundle of neurons. I’d make a similar argument for the severely disabled. Sorry if this is a bad example considering other issues, but I’d suggest Terri Schiavo essentially ceased to be a person as such when she entered a PVS (though again, she was and should have been a person in law). I don’t mean that to be callous—I mean it to be intellectually consistent.

In general, it is possible to hold pain and personhood distinct. I can acknowledge an animal feels pain without granting that they’re a person as such. If you want to take pain as your starting point for personhood, OK—"the answer could be pain," as a teacher once said to me—though I won’t agree.

If not, then what is the starting point? What is a person as such? And how can the GA project present a declaration on personhood in law without taking a stab at defining the term more generally? I’m sure individuals take a stab in the book but their declaration doesn’t. Similarly, in the statement of goals from GRASP we find: "Nonhuman apes meet the generally accepted criteria for personhood." And then they fail to define those criteria [11]. Note, that I actually agree with all of the points in the declaration from GAP but my reasoning is this: apes are large-brained, intelligent mammals with a robust sentience and a relatively robust emotional sense; I don’t see we have the right to hold them and we sure as hell don’t have the right to torture them. But note I’m not asserting that they’re persons; if accepting the points as law makes apes de facto persons legally, fair enough, but in the ontological sense I'm not obliged to consider them such. And the "if this, why not that" point still holds. What about Lesser Apes, Gibbons? (Did you see my happy Gibbon picture on the ape page by the way :)?

"Theory of mind…is a dodgy concept in general." Far from it—it’s a valid point of scientific distinction and it’s discussed in philosophy. Robin Dunbar is one needs-to-be-destubified scientist who has worked on the issue recently. I haven’t pushed it on any page but I think it as valid a criterion as any. I will definitely admit the Theory of mind page needs work (as does intentionality). I’ve never, incidentally, bought the idea that an average autistic doesn’t have theory of mind (particularly after my sponsor’s autistic son took my by the hand and said "I love you Mr. Tim!" :)

"I may not have the same theory of mind as you." Yes, in the "I can’t disprove a solipsist" sense but not true in more practical ways. Here is a statement: "Marskell wants Slim to know that Tom’s brother Joe is aware that user:Mary has been lying about Tom’s edits on the Main Page." I think we can both follow that sentence and in more or less the same way; if we didn't follow it in more or less the same way we wouldn't be able to communicate. It’s five orders of intentionality, about as much as an adult human being can intake without getting confused. This IS something that’s tested and I see nothing dodgy about saying the fact that human beings can apprehend such information and no other animal can is one reason we differ in kind from other animals. OK to underscore similarities but we can’t ignore the differences.

Well now, this has become quite lengthy. Take care and of course respond as you please. Marskell 10:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occupied territories again...

Hey Slim,

You say over at Talk:Yom Kippur War with respect to the Territories under Israeli control article:

The issue there is that the article is in part about whether the territories are rightly regarded as "occupied," under international law.

Seeing it put like that, I am all the more convinced that this is not a valid way to go about deciding article titles. I say this because we use the term "war" in article titles for conflicts which may not be regarded as wars under international law, or, at least, where there have been arguments made that they are not wars. I think specifically of Korean War, which was officially defined by the US as a "police action," and which, I believe, may have been so defined by the UN. It seems to me that the American position that the Korean War was not a war is quite analogous to the Israeli position that the Occupied Territories are not occupied. Many other wars fought by the US are also officially considered by the US not to be wars, notably the Vietnam War and both conflicts in Iraq. Under international law, any of these conflicts may or may not be considered wars - I'm not really sure. But it's a fact that the official position of the United States government has been that none of these are wars, because only Congress has the power to declare war, and the last time Congress did so was in 1941. Therefore, ipso facto, these conflicts are not wars. And there are various justificatoins as to why - Korea and Gulf War I (and perhaps Gulf War II...) are UN police actions; Vietnam was an effort to aid a friendly government against an insurgency. Our articles on these wars should certainly deal with these issues. But our article titles are very properly at Korean War, Vietnam War, and so forth.

To get back to the "territories under Israeli control," the issue you are having seems to be that whether or not the commonly used name is technically accurate is a matter of dispute, with one side maintaining that it is and the other claiming otherwise. This is evidently true. At the same time, the fact that the technical accuracy of the most commonly used name is under dispute, with POV arguments being made by both sides, does not make the name itself POV. So, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Korean War as not being a war, the name Korean War is still NPOV. Analogously, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Occupied Territories as not being Occupied, the name Occupied Territories is still NPOV. It is the name of the article not because wikipedia is asserting that the territories are occupied, but only because this is, as a matter of fact, the name which they are given. Another example: according to the reigning legal theory in the United States, the Confederate States of America never existed. Secession was illegal, and thus, either a) those individuals in state governments who attempted to secede were behaving illegally, and the southern states never actually seceded at all (Lincoln's position); or b) the southern states were in illegal rebellion, and had no legal right to form a sovereign confederacy, even though their rebellion temporarily deprived them of status as states in the union (the radical republican position). Thus, one might say that there is a POV dispute as to whether or not the Confederate States of America existed. But that does not mean that it is POV to have an article titled Confederate States of America.

Anyway, I won't go on, but my point is basically this: even if the Occupied Territories are not occupied under international law, that doesn't mean that it is POV to use the title "Occupied Territories" when this is how they are most commonly known, and when there is no other commonly used name available. john k 19:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open gaming and User:68.10.113.7 again

Hi SV,

Once again, 68.10.113.7 (talk · contribs) continues to disrupt Wikipedia and is repeatedly reverting and deleting content to the Open gaming page every other day despite multiple attempts to open a discourse on this subject[12][13]. He is also mismarking legitimate edits as vandalism and resorting to personal attacks in his edit summaries[14][15]

I would also note that this IP address was involved in an attempt to game and meat-puppet this page[16][17] for which the user was previously blocked[18]. I appreciate if you are reluctant to get involved, but even if direct action is not possible I would appreciate some help or advice here on what I can do to resolve this issue. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your attention in this matter. The user (quite likely User:Bblackmoor) did indeed start an RfC (which found in my favor) and an RfAr against me, which was rejected by ArbCom. I would note this user is the author of said license (OOGL) who, for reasons known to himself, is motivated in erasing all mention of the license. When he did not succeed in convincing RfC's and ArbCom that the section on the OOGL should be deleted he "swore off" Wikipedia and started using meat puppets, but now continues to delete content from Open gaming anonymously. I'm not sure what to do if he continues to delete content or disrupt the page after the block expires but I'm pretty sure he will start again. Any advice you can offer would be great. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for removing me from the Vandalism in Progress page: I hadn't even noticed he had reported me for vandalism. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do would be to see what happens next and keep blocking him if he continues to be disruptive. If he does use circumvent the block, protecting the page would seem a likely candidate, but I'm unsure if you can protect a page for longer than a month, which would be diserable in this situation to counter his "long-term" strategy of reverting the page every month-or-so. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that this user, now logged in as User:Bblackmoor has once again reverted the content from the Open gaming article[19] without prior discussion on the talk page and despite multiple warnings. While he has started a weak attempt at discussion on the talk page (without waiting for anyone actually to respond), it seems almost completely unrelated to the dispute at hand. Axon (talk|contribs) 17:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Axon seems to be under the impression that his edits are the only edits which can be made without discussion, consenses, or citation, and that any other edits must be approved by him beforehand. Furthermore, the only "contributions" User:Axon has made to the article Open gaming for most of the past year consist of reverting other people's contributions (primarily mine, but not just mine).[20] [21] [22] [23] It would be of benefit to Wikipedia, and the Open gaming article in particular, if a Wikipedia admin would disabuse User:Axon of these notions, and remind him of the Wikipedia policies concerning citations, verifiability, and avoiding weasel terms. See Talk:Open_gaming and the Open gaming edit history for more details.

Incidentally, if it becomes important to know the most recent undisputed version of the Open gaming page, I believe it was this edit by User:Liftarn, from 2004-12-02. -- Bblackmoor 18:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that that version is "undisputed": it is BB's stated objective to remove all mention of the OOGL from the article, so effectively that version is disputed and I'm suprised that BB would not mention this in the above when he knows it is a central point of contention. Please see my reply on the Open gaming talk page for more information.
I will admit, when re-adding my deleted content from open gaming I have sometimes inadvertantly reverted other edits for which I apologise, but such is the nature of reverts that sometimes other edits are included be accident of expediency. I dispute BB's characterisation of this (especially compared to his own tactics) and i have always endeavoured to include edits not related to the OOGL section where possible, incuding BB's own[24]. I would also note that BB has at times reverted construtive edits unrelated to the dispute when reverting himself. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
"I dispute that..." Of course you do. But dispute all you like: I am done with this back and forth with you. I am focusing on the content of the article and improving it, regardless of what version SlimVirgin decides to annoint as the "protected" version. Others may join that discussion, or not, as they please. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pardon

not trying to be rude, but my last edit to ['[Jenu]] might be seen as a revert, i aint sure, and it got undone by an anon, calling it vandalism, when all i did was remove the merge tahg and tghe ciutation needed thingee, the latter becasue the information is in the book noted as a reference, and the former becasue it will be added to soon to be a full article. if you see fit, could you restore ( at least some of) the changei made?