User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales [1]

File:Pikachu2.gif Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost And in the (increasingly likely) event that you're here with a personal attack: "Any time something is written against me, I not only share the sentiment but feel I could do the job far better myself. Perhaps I should advise would-be enemies to send me their grievances beforehand, with full assurance that they will receive my every aid and support. I have even secretly longed to write, under a pen name, a merciless tirade against myself." — Jorge Luis Borges "[W]e ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn't shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? So it can make us happy? Good God, we'd be just as happy if we had no books at all ... A book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us."— Franz Kafka Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 apples vs. vegetables hi thanks for your note, it really made me laugh, but what are we are discussing is plants vs. animal products not apples vs vegetables. do you not agree? i'd like to correct the definition of vegetarian, based on the definition in the dictionary. please let me know if we can proceed, as the way it stands it's not logical. thanks  :) michelle Kingdom_of_Israel I thought you would be interested in the latest controversy over at Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel#BC.2FBCE_-_reminder_of_sitewide_de_facto_compromise. Jguk is misstating WP policy regarding BCE/CE vs BC/AD. When confronted, he claims he has trouble understanding the policy as stated but given his obvious command of English I find this very, very hard to believe. Note too his changes to the Khazars article this morning and his invention of a policy mandating such changes. I think his behavior is increasingly disruptive and in violation of policy. I don't want to be the one to block him though, as I've involved myself in the argument with him. What is your position on this? --Briangotts (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Rumi Quote That is a great Rumi quote on your user page, just wondering where you found it and if you have a cite. "Three short phrases tell the story of my life," Rumi said, "I was raw, I got cooked, I burned". — © Alex756 05:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Quick note Just a quick note to say that I chatted briefly to Mark Pellegrini on IRC last night, and he confirmed what I thought was the case - (i) that ArbCom really does not want to revisit the BCE debate; (ii) they meant their ruling to mean "no changes" full stop - no get-out. I hope this means the recent differences can soon be resolved, jguk 07:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Thanks I had my doubts when you first became involved in the Open gaming nonsense, but regardless of how that turns out, you've been enormously helpful in assisting me to understand the Wikipedia way of doing things. If someone had assisted in this manner a year ago, I suspect a great deal of unpleasantness could have been avoided -- I know I would have been more pleasant. :) So, thanks. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Hizb ut-Tahrir Article Hello Admin SlimVirgin, I'm rather new to the Wikipedia process but it seems to me the HT thread has some issues which need to be resolved. User Kaashif is making changes without any real justification, I was surprised at his ad hom attacks against me which I felt were inappropriate, and there is a citation needed notice which is aging. I was hoping since you have played an active role in the article you could act as a sort of mediator or judge and bring some of these issues to a conclusion... or at least decide which arguments have real merit - rather than allowing us to simply go back and forth with NPOV notices and semantic games. Thanks! --141.195.143.145 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC) (Sorry if I posted this in the wrong place) Ann's Wikibreak Hi, Slim. Just to let you know that Wikipedia is taking up too much of my study time, so I won't be back until my exams are over - late next week. I'm even temporarily removing Wikipedia from my Favorites menu on my browser – as an aid to resisting temptation! Please leave my user page protected in the meantime. I'm going to archive my talk page just before I go, but if you're around you might check for anything strange that might appear. There was a "friendly" post from a "former piano student" that was almost certainly SarahPhelpsjr, but there was nothing sinister in it. See you in a week from now, and hope nothing heats up too much in the meantime! Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Template talk:WivesMuhammad If you have any advice on where to go with this I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not really in either camp fully but I have my leanings of course... and, well I think talk with Zeno has just failed miserably. Just want to know your view whenever you have a chance. gren グレン 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Your revert on Dhimmi It is a view of almost all scholars that the Dhimmi concept comes from the Pact of Umar. Why are you denying this? Yuber(talk) 01:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC) AVD User:ArmchairVexillologistDon has violated the ArbComm's injunction against him twice now since the RFA was reopened (Zscout moved that it be reopened. Fred warned AVD that the injunction was in effect and posted an advisory on the Requests for enforcement page re AVD). I've told AVD that each violation he commits will result in escalating tempbans so I banned him for 24 hrs the first time, 48 hrs the second. I don't think I should be the one implementing the ban though so I've lifted it. Please keep an eye on him though and consider tempbanning him if and when he violates the injunction again. Homey 04:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Autobiography It concerns me that an anon editor with no edit history would change the policy/recommendation page while a vote is underway on its talk page to decide its status. Such a language change would apparently invalidate all the votes case by editors who were unaware of the new page version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC) It was my addition, somehow I got logged-out mysteriously when I pressed submit. Anyway, I do not edit policy and guidlines pages often, so I'm not sure if it is against the rule. Although, citing Jimbo's comments seems to be a common practice in wikipedia namespace. --Vsion 08:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Arbitration accepted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin has been accepted. Due to the length and complexity of the original request it has been placed on the talk page. Please make brief statements regarding the issues at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin and place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence. Fred Bauder 14:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Problems at Talk:Otherkin Hello, you don't know me but I've noticed you were involved in a lengthy discussion on original research and verifiability as it relates to the article on Otherkin. It seems the same issues remain a problem; DreamGuy is still pushing for information on Clinical Lycanthropy to be present in the article, even though that is certainly Original Research and his source points only to information on lycanthropy itself, not a medical source which relates lycanthropy to the otherkin community or vice versa. Also, Agriculture and Friday continue to maintain that the article is not properly sourced simply because the sources are not scholarly, when you clearly refuted this in the prior discussion, as did Antaeus Feldspar in a separate conversation in which Friday supposedly agreed that the sources were appropriate. This, coupled with Agriculture demanding the article be "rehauled from a factual point of view stemming from recognized psychological studies of this "sub-culture" and the inherent problems with the claims they posit, if not deleted outright", and DreamGuy claiming that the only objections to his mention of Clinical Lycanthropy are from "pro-Otherkin POV-pushers [who] took it out because they didn't want any mention of medical problems whatsoever.", make me think that certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to either destroy the otherkin article or rewrite it from a critical POV, as otherwise it seems unlikely we would be seeing the same positions that had already been refuted come up again. Is there anything that can be done to address this? Thank you for your quick reply. I wasn't sure if proper etiquette was to reply to you here, or in my own talk page, so I decided to reply to you there and put a quick note here in case you hadn't seen it. Jarandhel (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Six-Day War Dear SlimVirgin, Could you express an opinion on whether you think User:Heptor's deletion of sourced content and re-organisation of the article is legitimate. I'm tired of trying to improve the article. --Ian Pitchford 16:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Help, Please Slim, as you know, I have made some references to and written some articles concerning ideas of Michael E. Berumen, a philosopher who is not an academic and is admitedly not well known as a philosopher, but who has nevertheless published a book on philosophy, spoken widely to various audiences on various subjects, including ethics, and is prominent in the California business community (keeping in mind he deals primarily with business ethics). He has testified before the United States Congress, among other things, which alone makes him noteworthy. I have also contributed on many other things, hereabouts, but I have openly said I wanted to find appropriate references to him...along with Gert, Hare, and some other folks that strike me as having been inadequately treated, here, prior to my arrival. I find it especially appropriate when the ideas are original to him, as they often have been. If this were the Encyclopedia Britannica with limited space, I should think differently; but it is Wikipedia...and while not unlimited...it allows for a great deal more that is potentially useful. In any case, the issue is this: a user calling himself Electric Ray {see User Talk:ElectricRay}, a newbie whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet of someone else, but that's neither here nor there...is making commments about Berumen's own credibility and motives in the article (and elsewhere in discussion/talk pages), violating NPOV, and adding original research (this was reverted by User: Logic2go, and no, I have no idea who he is). More importantly, in my view, this ElectricRay is also going around saying on several pages that I am either Berumen or a minon of his, which not only is false, it is libeling someone who is not party to these discussions, namely, Berumen himself. He needs to stop this and behave himself. Personal attacks are prohibited among anonymous users, and they are certainly off limits with real people to the extent they are not encyclopedic and represent a user's personal opinion. I have no objection to his correcting or editing anything I write on the basis of substantiating fact or on acccepted Wikipedia policy, but he should not get away with depracating the reputation of real people. He is even putting Wikipedia in jeopardy in my view. My wife originated the article on Berumen, and she and I would just as soon see it deleted altogether rather than see the subject's reputation damaged in cyberspace from the comfort of anonymity. I respect your views and history of fairness as an Administrator, and I would appreciate any assistance or counsel you can offer. Best icut4u 01:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Thank you Slim. I have recharacterized him as a writer on philosophy, as you've suggested. Perhaps that will quell some of complaints and the gratuitous name calling.icut4u Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd Hi Slim, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC) History move if new page Hi Slim! I've got kind of an involved case. Basically, someone created a new page Phylum with new content, but with basically the same content as Phylum (disambiguation). Afterwards, this person simply redirected Phylum (disambiguation) to Phylum. Do I need to fix anything? I.E. Do I need to merge the history of the two together or just delete the pre-redirect version of Phylum (disambiguation)? Thanks! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC) FuelWagon RfC Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Use of copyrighted images I noticed that you've used this Image:Chimp.jpg and similar images without mentioning the rationale behind fair use. I'm afraid fair use cannot be stretched to all images, just because it is linked to an article. Moreover, the image suggests that the chimp is sad like a human being which is dubious. According to Jane Goodall and other researchers, it has been well documented that the chimp expression are not akin to humans. Some like the grinning of the teeth is less out of happiness as much as anxiety/fear. Infact many aspects of primate facial emotions are still under study and primates are known to imitate humans and probably among the few in the animal kingdom to do so. So putting up such images in the template is similar to the media hype created by some to gain more visibility/publicity. I'm afraid I'll have to delete it like others since its also copyvio. Surely you can get images of animal sufferings without resorting to using copyrighted images. The images uploaded by you in this context are neither historical nor something of exceptional quality or rare. Idleguy 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC) fyi, I've read the fair use laws and the entire article. I think you should first stop removing copyvio tags from images. This issue is a bit more complicated than it seems. Firstly you have never mentioned the rationale for each image except pasting the fair use laws. Secondly, if the mere use of self assumed rare images of reduced quality is used in the articles, then I've also got other obscure photos to use in articles under "fair use". I could just reduce the image clarity and use it across them all which defeats the point of fair use. What i'm saying is, one or two uses of an image is ok, but consistently using copyrighted info isn't. The Jane Goodall issue is not about keeping animals in cages, but was added by me to explain that you are using images that portray a likely false image of the monkey's real emotion. Monkeys have different emotional expressions from humans and that "sad monkey" isn't really sad as you think just like a hollywood monkey smile isn't a chimp really smiling but made to smile. I feel that you've just decided to cut and paste just because it furthers your personal interest and not the interest of wikipedia. A monkey when really sad seldom uses " :( " expressions. However, you want to make it look a hollywood poster or tabloid cover and persist with the issue of a "grumpy monkey" just because it somehow seems more like a human sad face. Maybe you also think that a dolphin smiles forever just because it has a smiley face? Two things, pl. provide the rationale for each image, NOT just the fair use law and don't overuse the fair use provision. Also don't retag images that have been listed under copyvio images. Idleguy 07:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC) "trying to undo my work"? Pardon me, but I don't believe those images were your work. You just uploaded them. And pl. don't accuse others of vandalism when u obviously yourself remove copyvio tags, especially one that's already listed as such. You have not explained the rationale for most of your images. I think we need to understand the difference between a) rationale and b) simply mentioning the law. You have just mentioned the fair use principle (when a simple link to it would do) and have seldom mentioned any specific rationale for each image. It's about specifics v generally quoting the rule. If the animal protection groups are happy then they should release it to the Public Domain or under GFDL. it's your statement claiming that they have released it without proof that irks me. And not all your images are from animal rights groups. Some are taken from media reports and I don't think any publisher would be "happy for them to be used" as you please. Your argument of "Reducing image quality" is very suspicious especially in your case. None of the images are really of reduced clarity or quality. A simple glance would reveal that and image properties clearly indicate that they are EXACTLY the same quality. It shows that you also have started to lie in order to back up your claims for fair use. Believe me I've read Jimbo Wales statements on this, but your case is turning more like a clear copyvio. I'm going to start tagging your images properly (as imagevios) unless I find some exceptions. Tx. Don't blame me, blame the law. It's an ass. Idleguy 08:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Almost all images uploaded by you are either not tagged or tagged as fairuse. And nearly everyone of these "fair use" image is copyright as you yourself fully know and mentioned. Images are taken from BBC, Guardian and other copyright sites. Image:BassamAbuSharif.jpg is an example taken from BBC. As per Wikipedia policy "In general, copyright exists automatically, upon publication: an author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable". Simple. I believe it is "unfair use" and it would be fair to the original creators that we didn't abuse this loophole to the hilt. If you're using them with permission, they are not fair use but {permission} tag which is likely to result in the same fate: deletion. Idleguy 08:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC) And pl. stop your retagging and follow the rules. I think if you don't want the copyvio images to go, then you'd be advised not to upload such images in the future. Reverting the tags also is a case of Avoidant vandalism as per wikipedia official policy. So pl. stop the reverts. Idleguy 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Pl. no more of your false retagging. You were already warned twice. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.