User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2

File:Animalibrí.gif

File:Animalibrí.gif

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Talk archives 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 File:800px-PotbellySeahorse TNAquarium-cropped.jpg Image on {{Sprotected2}} Can I use the older image, the bronze padlock, on the aforementioned template since the current one appears too similar to {{Protected2}}?  ~Steptrip 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Personal attack? Howdy, quick question about this edit. You described the text removed as a personal attack. While I think it was probably a baseless claim and an inappopriate inference, I'm not certain it's a personal attack, unless there's more to the story I'm not aware of. If this is the case, please be careful to use more precision when redacting comments like that in the future to avoid having your talk page swarmed by herds of angry weasels. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Chairboy, thanks for your note. That edit refers to a series of personal attacks made against that editor on WR, and I feel the new editor who posted it was using the thread as an excuse to allude to those claims. I was bearing in mind that this is a new account who has already posted an RfCU against another established editor. He's out to make trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Ah, roger that. Thanks for the clarification, was just dotting the T's and crossing the I's to make sure! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Just in case I think this is an empty threat [1] - but even as a threat it is sure a violation of policy. In case I a m blocked please comunicate on my talk page to resolve. Thanks. Zeq 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Cla68's RfA I voted on that RfA, so I'm interested in the new developments (new for me, that is) regarding that attack site. As you offered Denny to e-mail it: may I ask the same favour? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, it seems to be that WR forum. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) After having read the site in question it's clear to me that it's indeed an attack site and must not be linked to. But changing the wording of an applicable policy while directly and personally involved in that situation, indicates a considerable conflict of interest. Even a newbie like me can recognize that, and I wish you hadn't done it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I understand, but it's still a manifest COI. But nevermind, it's none of my business. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) puppy butting in: I believe you may be misuderstanding what happened. SV went to check the policy, which does indeed prohibit linking, saw an ambiguity, and while she was there corrected it. The edit she made has no bearing on the current situation; if she had corrected a spelling error it would have been just as much not coi as the current series of events. AGF, and examine what exactly was edited, please. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I do assume good faith on almost anyone's part all of the time. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) SlimVirgin, just to get this straight, should I appear to not have assumed good faith with you, I hereby apologize. I'm in no position to critize any long-time editor over an issue I don't have sufficient knowledge of, let alone someone who has contributed to this project like you have over the years. I'm sometimes a bit overhasty and have been told so before. Sorry again. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Perplexed by RS "It's a pity about the poor wording because I saw a few comments from people saying they'd opposed because they didn't want RS to become policy." Poor wording, OK—sorry if it's my own. But I'm completely dumbstruck by the implication in general. Part of the purpose of ATT is to make RS policy. (Isn't it?). Or, at least, part of the purpose is to eliminate it as a guideline, so only policy describes reliable sources. Do you honestly think it was wrong to ask about RS? How else could it have been stated? That ATT "abandons" RS is probably a better description than ATT "merges" RS. But this is semantic, given the desired result: when you type WP:RS you're led to a policy page, not the unruly guideline people cite so often. For days we had as a second option "Which pages, if any, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" with RS as one of the options. You never stated that you did not believe RS was being merged and I am wondering why you would imply it was a bad idea to ask about it in the poll. People opposed because of it? Well OK, those opinions are now in the open. Marskell 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I understand it was a repeat. I re-read it today and it's largely redundant, as it's always been. Which is why I ask the questions above. Do you honestly think it was wrong to ask about RS in creating the poll? You observe disapprovingly "I saw a few comments from people saying they'd opposed because they didn't want RS to become policy." Which means what? It was always policy. It is policy. But a guideline describes it. So. So, why shouldn't we have asked about it in the poll? Sorry, I was punched in the gut. Marskell 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Well, I don't need to pose a question thrice. Khalas, as the Arabs say. Marskell 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Maybe of interest http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846006.html Zeq 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) NPA Where was the personal attack, I was merely quoting a news story on my own talk page.... So what's your interest in my contributions Slim... Mossad is it? Or maybe just Shabak but you want to aspire....? --Asucena 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)