User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:18, 4 February 2006

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]

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

And in the 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." — Jorge Luis Borges

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 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Proposed move of Qana

Hi SlimVirgin. I have proposed moving Qana to Shelling of Qana. I am notifying people who were engaged in the earlier talk page discussion. Palmiro | Talk 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Your views on the ongoing deletion of good sourced content, references and footnotes and the addition of dubious material and original research to this article would be much appreciated if you have time. --Ian Pitchford 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Oops, sorry; I did check the "what links here", and somehow missed Black September (group); all that I could see was a template, and the copyright status of the image seemed pretty dubious to say the least, so I dealt with it. I'll have to be more careful in future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Frankly, I'm probably more put off by the style thing than you are. My utmost desire, really, is that the matter be settled, because it excites so much passion and emotion and distracts from actually writing articles. My concern was to try and prevent a recurrence of the Style Wars from last summer. I suppose I took a hard line, but I felt that the two users who kept removing the styles were being needlessly provocative, especially towards the end. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter color change

Sure, I've put a version that does this here. Before it goes live, would it be possible for you to look at multiple accounts with it, and see if the new information answers the questions you were hoping it would? I think the reason I left this off originally was that most users, even experienced ones, don't rack up the kinds of edits on img/cat/tmpl/portals that they do on main articles, because there's no stub sorting, there's less vandalism on those, etc. But that's all subjective, so let me know what you think. Also, an alternative I've been pondering is adding overlib tooltips to each bar, and each tooltip would list the exact numbers for each namespace. Eg:

January 2005
Mainspace: 1024 (42%)    Talk: 240 (10%)        Template: 3 (1%)   Template talk: 0 (0%)
Category: 10 (1%)        Category talk: 1 (1%)  ...
...

If that would fulfill your original need, then I can instead go ahead and implement that sooner. Let me know what you think... --Interiot 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely doing the popups, since they're out of the way and are something users can ignore if they want to. Regarding the chart though... do you think that adding a new color to separate off articles would be more informative than other alternatives like adding new color bars to separate the mainspace from Talk:, or breaking "Project" out into separate "Wikipedia:", "Portal:", and "MediaWiki:" colors? There are 18 different namespaces, and I have to pick and choose carefully, especially because I think it takes new users some time to grok how even just the four colors correspond to editors' priorities. I want to make feature requests easy and painless, but any sort of "I think this feature would be the most beneficial because ..." explanation that you might be able to articulate more would be very helpful. --Interiot 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Is the concern that categories, images, and templates may be more indicative of userboxing? If so, if I moved all those over into the "Project" group, would that be satisfactory? Again, I think cats/imgs/tmplts are almost always a pretty small percentage of one's edits. But I could make a fifth color grouping.

About the colors, yeah, I spent some amount of time trying to pick a combination. I'll try to find a brighter one, I guess. As an aside, do you know anyone who's colorblind, who can confirm that my next color combination is legible to everyone? --Interiot 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Okay, I agree then, I'll make the proposed changes permanent. --Interiot 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the color schemes a bit, compare the original to the new. --Interiot 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaha. Okay, users like this and this convince me your grouping is much better than what I had. :) --Interiot 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally Misleading Edit

Your current edit of the now-frozen User_talk:Jonah_Ayers/archive_1 is accidentally problematic. It misattributes an unsigned comment by Jonah Ayers to a user named Francs2000. The latter did leave a message on User:Jonah Ayers' talk page, but it was certainly not that comment; it was, rather, a brief comment below the unsigned one. I understand why you deleted the text in-between, but you should probably fix that edit for the sake of the innocent third party.

Thanks again for all your work on the harrassment issue! :) --Sojambi Pinola 01:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Rumi rocks. --Sojambi Pinola 01:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If... (film)

Hi SlimVirgin; I've seen your edits on the WP:MOS pages and I wonder if you might be kind enough to look at Talk:If... (film) and comment if you feel so moved? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Noble

For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War 2

If I can poke my nose in here- if you would be so kind as to look over Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War and archives to ensure that I'm not being a really terrible mediator and making this dispute worse. Thanks.--Sean|Black 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:WieselChlomo.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:WieselChlomo.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion

Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion [[2]] and will be deleted unless interested editors vote.

Imstillhere

Rather colourful violation of No Personal Attacks at Talk:James Scott Richardson:

The writers of the article have political motives for writing it. It's what they do when they aren't panhandling or huffing gas. Imstillhere 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Homey 07:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian materialism

Alienus has started a section called "Why Alienus' changes are completely unacceptable" and asked me to complete it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cartesian_materialism#Why_Alienus.27_changes_are_completely_unacceptable

This is a bit strange.

My interest is in the article, if only he would start to negotiate... loxley 09:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a peek at Talk:Cartesian materialism? loxley 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao: the unknown story

Hi, Slim. Repeated edits have been made to put in large chunks of copyrighted material in this page. This is illegal, and as the links to the articles are there can you please stop whoever is doing it? I'm getting tired of having to delete them. John Smith's 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

ArbCom elections

Thank you for your kind words, and for your support! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User freedom

Slim, as you know, I entirely agree with you on the issue of bullying on the wiki, and you were involved in the discussion on Jimbo's page about Userboxes in a general sense, so you know that I don't oppose them on principle. However, I have voted to delete this userbox and I invite you to revisit the vote to have a look at my reasoning. I think that a consensus can be built around the idea that userboxes are a harmless bit of silliness, which we can disapprove of if it's our wont without feeling the need to purge them, so long as they are positive and kind. I feel that this particular userbox has the aim of goading "the other side", and consequently has no place in Wikipedia. Grace Note 23:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be violating WP:AGF, as this template does not seem to be goading anyone into anything. It is an expression of opinion, which is quite appropriate in User space. It is not a threat to anyone, or even an invitation. --Dschor 02:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bully vs bullied

As you know I'm somewhat specialized in behaviour.

The behaviour you pointed out on Jwales' talk page just now is pretty stereotypically that of someone who has been the victim of bullying, I note.

Kim Bruning 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was helping me on some work I considered fairly important before he left. You are both important important to me, so I'm somewhat annoyed that you've been fighting each other. I may actually literally have to go to him and physically beg on my knees now. Something I do not relish. Kim Bruning 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image

I stated the image was a Reuters image. Aiden 23:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim,

Can you please take a look at Image:Persian art collage.jpg

Im using it as a backgroud for the Template:Persian arts

Im not sure of what tag it gets. Considering that the faded painting in the background is not mine, but that it is a small part of the painting, and (I intentionally faded it) and is being depicted at 200 pixels, i.e. its pretty small.

Thanx?

Here's a technical one:

Im trying to use Image:Farsh1.jpg as a background for the bottom grey part of the template. (i.e. instead of that dull #fff7f8 background. Where do I paste the [ [Image:Farsh1.jpg] ] into?--Zereshk 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I dont think it can be done. I'll just work on what I have. Thanx:) --Zereshk 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for main page

Hello! Are you a sysop? If so, please change the main page to show wiki-pt with more than 100,00 articles. We did it last night and we are very happy! :)) Thanks, muriel@pt 10:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas

SlimVirgin, I accidentally reverted edits made by you to this article; this was unintentional. Apologies. LordViD 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber

Hi Sarah. Someone asked me to look over Yuber (talk · contribs)'s contribs lately, this person feeling that Yuber's recent edits, specifically to Islamic extremist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were a violation of the parole in his Arbitration case. In looking, I'm not really seeing this, although many of Yuber's recent edits are reverts and I'm seeing some disruptiveness. However, I'm not comfortable banning him from any article, because it's a wide ranging problem, and I'm not comfortable leaving him a note about obeying the remedies in his case, discussing instead of reverting, etc., so I was wondering if you could look over it, and take action, or tell me what you think. Thanks, Sean Black 02:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again, tell me what you think when you get the time, no rush.--Sean Black 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the ban for a week, and may even lift early for good behavior, but he's under Arbcom restriction, which I think he should take seriously. We can continue on WP:ANI--Tznkai 04:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

Please take a look over at Talk:Evolution? It's getting kind of hot headed there in the "Evolution is not fully accepted fact" section. Swatjester 10:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Dropping one by, as you deserve it.

Take care, ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals

Re your comments on using 'cardinal' in the names of cardinals, this was discussed before. It is actually impossible not to use it. The reason is that the first name of many mediaeval cardinals have long since been forgotten and they are only known as Cardinal <surname>. In addition many mediaeval cardinals using different cardinate names to their birth names. Their birth names are rarely known and they never adopted a first name as part of their cardinal name. So they are only recognisable as Cardinal <surname>. If we did not use 'cardinal' in their name, hundreds of mediaeval cardinals could not be entered on Wikipedia (we can hardly have an article on a person simply called Lyon!) , while those with full names would be in a form that is unrecognisable to 99.9% of people. (I'm a historian and write about Church history. I don't even know the first names of many famous mediaeval cardinals.) 'Cardinal' is included because it is impossible not to. The only issue was whether to use the traditional format <firstname> Cardinal <surname> or the more modern Cardinal <firstname> <surname>. That was explored and the former was chosen for four reasons:

The former is still the official form and so technically more correct;
The modern form only originated in post 1965. Using the latter would involve renaming hundreds of cardinals to a form of name that they never used and which is never used when referring to them.
Using Cardinal <surname> makes names easier to search on google, as most people will simply search for Cardinal Ó Fiaich, Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin.
Using Cardinal <surname> facilitates an easy page move if someone in the future finds a first name of mediaeval cardinals, while keeping the widely recognised form of name, Cardinal <surname> together for google searches.

The use of Cardinal in names was not adopted to show any Catholic bias but simply because it is in practice impossible not to list them without it. The same problem does not arise to the same extent with lower ranks of clergy, because (a) most of them have long since been forgotten, unlike cardinals, and so many not need biographical articles, (b) curiously bishops often were remembered by first name, as in Bishop Michael, whereas cardinals rarely if ever were. So while it is difficult if not impossible to find first names of many mediaeval cardinals, it is relatively easy to find the name of bishops, patriarchs and priests. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi I emailed you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question ?

You or someone had inquired as to where the environmental activists get their cash. It comes from donations to organizations such as Earthshare which in turn gives it to different environmental groups. One guy I met Out West commented that donating to these (expletives) is like hiring someone to burn your house down. Martial Law 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only answering a question, NOT violating any Wikipedian protocol. Martial Law 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was a prospector who had a run-in with environmentalists, thus explains his commentary, which I had made "Wiki-polite". Martial Law 23:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trude Weiss-Rosmarin

Hi, quite by chance I random-articled this and recognised your name. You probably don't remember me but I thought I would drop you a note and compliment you on an excellent article. I also followed the link to Blu Greenberg, which could almost be a model of a short biographical article. If I could find an appropriate barnstar for lucid, encyclopaedic writing, I would be handing it out, but I don't have one to hand, so these words of appreciation will have to suffice. James James 05:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you suck! Blu(e) greenberg? How far fetched. ^{[citation needed]} At least pretend to try. El_C 11:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MunichBlackSeptember.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MunichBlackSeptember.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Abu Badali 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage

(removed clutter) -Zero^Talk 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Christofidou

The terms "Senior Lecturer" and "Lecturer" are titles, not descriptive (in Oxford, College Lecturers rarely lecture, they give tutorials – lectures are mostly given by College Tutors... sorry, but there it is). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Greeting, Sarah. How's life treating you? Well, I seem to have gotten myself in the middle of some more controversy regarding my wife, the Noble Qur'an, Jimbo, and more! There was even an RFC filed against me - my first! I just thought you might be interested, although it seems to have calmed down a bit now. Anyway, all the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FYI

Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth vanity?

If you don't mind, could you check out the image uploads by User:Free Will Productions? Three seemingly identical images, one with a LONG Summary that looked like vanity article text (I took the liberty of deleting the text). I notice that the user has 5 deleted edits -- which as a non-admin I can't look at but suspect they're earlier attempts at placing vanity articles.

And as long as I'm here, I'd like to apologize for my abrasive and confrontational tone in our earlier interactions. I'm sorry. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Ayers

so, you said that Jonah could email you, which he did, and that you would respond, and clear the issue up. How come you didn't keep your end of the bargain? I think it's very disingenuous to imply you are willing to have a discussion, then block someone indefinitely, and write that you are willing to address the issues, after the person has been blocked, and his user page has been locked, so he can not respond to you on that page. this leads me to believe you never had any intention of listening to what his beef was. no, you blindly trust your friendly administrators, and block together to form a unified front, it sounds fmailiar doesn't it? How can this place grow and truly be the well of information so many hope it to be, when you can't even have an honest discourse. you behave knee jerk, in the name of free information and that reeks of censorship. you get away with it, under the auspices of controlling vandalism, which certainly needs ot be quelled, but there was no vandalism, and nothing spread negatively about the admin who's aid you came to. so in no way was jonah ayers commiting harrassment. when daniel brandt sought to remove his biographical article, it seems you were one who fought ot keep it, and yet when another activist in the southern california area, and is mentioned in articles in major publications, you still listen to complaints, which are as far as I can tell, not related to the issue of the information, but fear that someone may deduce something, that surely isn't included in the article, i'm trying hard here not to be explicit as this seems to be a delicate issue. i think it's important that the information be included here on Wikipedia because they both have become important part of the fabric of life here in the united states and more accutely, in southern california. you have thusly joined up wiht a long line of fascists, and book burners- people whose sole activity in life was to quell the spread of information. when you publish books, and when you interact within your community you become, whether you like it or not, a public persona, and allowing someone to control an entry of your life is wrong and for lack of a better word, fascistic- it's a word, look it up... i know you will simply erase this post, and block the poster, so I've saved the post, and created a new identity solely for this posting, because I want2 you to read it and understand it, rather than to run off and quickly ban the poster, and erase the message. the argument is that there is no information to link anyone to anyone else and the people being written about are actually public persons... good luck, i really like your work here, so am a bit shocked at this behavior.Protopunx

And so of course rather than discuss this topic with anyone, you've just gone and blocked another person, attempting a discourse. this is really rather disturbing. i don't think anyone likes being called fascist. But then to act with such disregard to your own words. You did write this on jonah's page... ' Hi again, as you've continued posting personal details, this account has been blocked indefinitely. I'm very willing to unblock if we can come to an agreement that you will stop harassing this user (or doing anything to make him feel he's being harassed). You're welcome to contact me by e-mail if you would like to discuss it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"

and yet you seem to have had no intention of discussing anything with anyone about the situation. What's that say about you? That you're a LIAR? I'm questioning that, but all data seems to head in that direction. Would you care to respond? Again, by blocking my identity here, and addressing it as one of a sockpuppet of jonah Ayers, as you did with protopunx, is not the case at all. i'll post under another name when you block that. I've sandboxed this discussion on another spot, another name, so when you erase it, I can bring it up again. let's have that dialogue now. I've got as many IP's as you cna shake a stick at, and now i've created a few more identities in case you keep avoiding the subject. All you have to do is respond to this, that's all. Just explain your actions. That shouldn't be too difficult if there is really a method to your.... ok. Wesleynaylorididntnail 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gmaxwell

I removed a personal attack against you from this editor's talkpage. Frankly, I think he's in serious need of banning and would already have been if he were just User:Joe User. However, I'm asking you not to do anything further that can be seen in any way as provoking him. There will, one of these days, likely be an RfAr in re Gmaxwell, and I would hate for it to be made out to be a personal issue between him and you, particularly given that his partisans have the ear of the arbcom and are able to "summarise" the evidence as they please. Grace Note 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Divisiveness WAS 4.250 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. Your support means a lot to me. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps you should review the article

entitled assume good faith. You have made several slanderous comments about me, and when questioned directly you simply deleated them. Im sure that by saying I was a role account you probably didnt mean anything negative, but in the context it was used, it would have been possible for someone to assume you were simply being a cunt. Again I'm sure that was not the case. I should also point to the fact that I havent been able to get much done in wikipedia as a result of user:Pamento repeatedly calling me an ass-hole or a homosexual, or a panty waste and while you threaten to bar me, nothing has been done to prevent him from uttering this nonscence. Also I would like to inform you that from time to time my nephews come over and play with my computor, and it results in me typing in all capital letters.. no disrespect was meant by this, but somebody forgot to assume good faith and barred me because of it, even though i plainly stated I was having trouble. Please respond on my discussion page as its a pain in the ass for me to have to keep going to everbody elses home page and write and prevents me from getting any real editting done, as you have noted.pickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 19:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ban that jackass forever!--Pamento 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Sarah, you must be some sweet honey to attract so many flies! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 11:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A flower

Hello Sarah. I hope you're well. Don't let the trolls get you down, and remember - the Wikicommunity loves you! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. :-) AnnH ^(talk) 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, let's make it a bouquet! -Will Beback 12:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an asset to the project, and an inspiration to me. I never tire of saying it. Stay strong. Hamster Sandwich 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. "At every instant and from every side, resounds the call of Love: We are going to sky, who wants to come with us?" Grace Note 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers are so cliche. How about, say, a quilt? :)--Sean Black (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles clarification

Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute

Slim, I have begun a discussion about a potentially contentious series of edits I am proposing for the Hamas article. Your input would be appreciated. --AladdinSE 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

An editor has chosen to remove a whole section of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy without seeking consensus first. Could you please take a look and provide some insight on what is the process for changing policy? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Note that there is a very important email waiting for you. Thanks. :)--Sean Black (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik

Bobblewik has been blocked again and I see you intervened before. I'll understand if you don't want to again. There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Can we document scope and duration of suspension of the Manual of Style? and I expect many other places too. (I have no interest in linking years or otherwise: I don't like people being blocked for editing within policy). Thincat 12:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Thanks for the barnstar. 2 in 2 days :) I must be doing something right. -Localzuk ^(talk) 14:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave

Just think I should tell you that Brandon has decided to leave because of all the chaos on the cartoon article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Testing

Why did you revert my edits to the intro. I posted the proposed changes in the talk pages, and I never saw you had any comment about them. Finally, the statment I keep deleting about animals not feeling pain is completely unsourced. If you follow the link of the source, it gives you some random piece of legislation that says nothing about whether animals feel less pain or not. Which is why I dleted it. This was also put on the talk page for discussion and you never raised any objections. If you want to r3evert my edits, please state your reasons! thanks, Nrets 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would respond to my questions rather than reverting my edits. The prior sentence says "7 out of the last 10 nobel prizes depended on animal research". The next sentence which questions this has 2 sources, the first [3] refers to insulin and the second [4] is a general statment about animal research and medical advances, specifically mentioning polio vaccine. Neither of these have anything to do with "7 out of the last 10 nobel prizes depended on animal research". It does have to do with the last sentence which specifically mentions insulin and polio. Nrets 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Borges Quote...

...is sad, in a way. I understand what you mean, but I hope you like yourself. --Defenestrate 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

care about you

well to be honest, I'm uncertain how to feel about an editor who poses questions, then blocks accounts, thereby making her supposed questions bitter unanswerable pills, never to be swallowed.

You never dealt with the jonah ayers topic. What gives? You block people, say that you will unblock them, once a discussion is undertaken, then block the persons discussion board, and close off any other means for them to establish a discourse, and that's open minded? I think that's underhanded, shitty behavior, and warrants a reevaluation of cyber ethics. Severine

@@ Line 363: / Line 363: @@
 ...is sad, in a way. I understand what you mean, but I hope you like yourself.
 --[[User:Defenestrate|Defenestrate]] 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
+== care about you ==
+well to be honest, I'm uncertain how to feel about an editor who poses questions, then blocks accounts, thereby making her supposed questions bitter unanswerable pills, never to be swallowed.
+You never dealt with the jonah ayers topic. What gives? You block people, say that you will unblock them, once a discussion is undertaken, then block the persons discussion board, and close off any other means for them to establish a discourse, and that's open minded? I think that's underhanded, shitty behavior, and warrants a reevaluation of cyber ethics. [[User:Severine|Severine]]