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:PoodleM1.jpg Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.— Robert Frost In a minute there is timeFor decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock And in case 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.— 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 Archive 26 Archive 27 Vrba I've read it through. It looks great; clearly superior to the current version. Do you mind if I make some minor fixes, then pop it in in place of the current article? Jayjg (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Actually most of it is quite good. There are a few errors that need fixing, including one or two in critical places. --Zerotalk 07:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC) You may want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Khaybar&oldid=45493088 and what took place since. This revision above seems like the last "complete" version although it is totaly antisemitic and seems fictional at best. best, Zeq 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC) You just deleted important paragraph Why have you deleted? I need some good references and sources. The Romanians, (Romanian: români), or the Romanian people, are a nation in the meaning an ethnos (in romanian: popor), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Romanian culture and having a Romanian mother tongue, than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country. The concept of who is a Romanian has varied. Until the 19th century, it denoted the speakers of Romanian, and was a much more distinct concept than that of Romania, the land of the Romanians. In the last two centuries, Romanian and Romania have more and more come to be connected with a succession of Romanian states -- but the borders of those states have fluctuated so widely during that time that the language-based definition of Romanianess remains perhaps the most useful. While there are approximately 40 million native Romanian speakers in the world, only about 35 million considers themselves to be Romanian. Ethnic Romanians The term Ethnic Romanians may be used in several ways. It may serve to distinguish Romanian citizens of "foreign" immigrant heritage, or it may indicate members of the Romanian culture living as minorities in other nations. In English usage, but less often in Romanian, Ethnic Romanians may be used for assimilated descendents of Romanian emmigrants. A today more controversial usage of the term Ethnic Romanians refer to people with Romanian mother tongue and culture but citizens of other countries than the Romania, as for instance Moldova. Ethnic Romanianss form an important minority group in several countries in central and eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania) as well as in Spain and in southern Brazil.... For different reasons, some groups may be noted as "Ethnic Romanians" despite no longer having Romanian mothertongue or a distinct Romanian culture. Until the 1990s two million Ethnic Romanians lived throughout the former Soviet Union, especially in Russia and Kazakhstan. In the United States 1990 census, 3 million people are fully or partly of Romanian ancestry, forming one of the largest single ethnic group in the country. Most Americans of Romanian descent live in the Mid-Atlantic states (especially Pennsylvania) and the northern Midwest (especially in Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern Missouri.) "I assure you will pay for what you and the stupid Jayig did on the article about Romanains. I will contact all the Romanain users and you will be "charged" because you supported that user for his lies and because you blocked me for nothing. You we'll see what we're to do, and if you hate so much the Romanians, your account will have to suffer. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Aha, now you're accusing me of threating 'cause I'm telling you the truth, and you say that you will block me. Listen, I can easily create in few day an another username, you cannot stop an entire community, and you're abusing of you administratorship. If you will tell me that I'll be block block, I will contact for sure Mr. Adrian Pingstone. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Ok if you find this funny, it's your problem, but I dont' accept that "somebody" blocks because I'm sayng the truth. Tell me what you want anymore? We gave you the sources of the figures, and that's all. You want as Mr. G.W. Bush does a special declaration to you because you cannot understand? NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Is that I did now, but why you blocked me then??????? NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Aha, now you're like you don't remember when you blocked blocked me 'cause I dared to modify what Jayig wrote. I wrote all that on the Romanians discuss page. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Ok, here I agree with you, I will calm down. Actually, My objections to you is just because you blocked for almost nothing. I mean about the personal attacks, a wrote the word stupud, stupidities and lies. You also blocked for reverting Jayig lies, and you see now where we arrived. That f***** of user:Jmabel is again there, and I don't know if you saw what he did there, actually, on the all articles about Romania or Romanians. Jayig put there the lowest and impossible figures, I mean 23-24 mil. He deleted the sources we had for the figures there, and I cannot find them again. And yeah, I have a guestion: you know when we wqant to specify the reliable source of our information to the figure, for example at Usa, how we proceding? NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Yes, my question was how do we cite the sources on the figures table , if you understand what I mean. It's because I think I'm able to find the websites that Jayig removed, and I want to write the previous estimations there, but of course I need the citation, so is for that I'm needing this. If I was not very clear, reply me. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Yes, but about that sources everybody agreed them when we all decided that in the month of January. It's just Jayig that doesn't "like" them because they are confirming the truth. Can you give an example how I have to do, please? I saw there it's something like . That's it? By the way I emailed to Pingstone and explained the situation. Let's see what he can do with this. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006 Our disagreements Thank you for your comment on the Israeli settlement talk page. I don't feel happy replying, at the moment anyway, but I will think about it. Palmiro | Talk 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) HK Herschel has posted what seems like a reasonable response to his situation on his talk page. Have you read it? I suggest that, since HK has served out almost all of his 3 days now, that as a conciliatory gesture this shouldn't reset his one-year ban on LaRouche related articles. You must acknowledge that the circumstances are difficult for him. If you are wrong about anything in your treatment towards him, what recourse does he have? Everyking 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC) I second the above. Very well stated. See my talk page for a proposal to resolve these types of situations. I am assuming Slimvirgin feels she is acting in good faith and I accept that. But the very Arbcom rulings need to be reconsidered in their finality to conclude by not targeting any individual group or persons (per Jimbo) but to do as I propose on my talk page. I am asking Everyking and Slimvirgin to look into this and work out a solution to keep propaganda out of wikipedia without targeting single groups or persons based on political affiliation. --Northmeister 01:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Like all users, HK can appeal to the ArbCom and to Jimbo Wales. HK's circumstances are of his own making, as is their difficulty. His response has been just to make incorrect accusations. I think that under the circumstances SV acting with restraint. -Will Beback 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Additionally, SV is simply enacting the ArbCom mandated ban- No one but Jimbo or the ArbCom, should they accept an appeal, has the authority to "reset" HK's ban on LaRouche related articles, that's just the way it is.--Sean Black (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC) This is rather poor logic. Not everyone agrees that SV's action was legit; HK makes some arguments, as I pointed out, which would need to be addressed. Therefore the idea that SV is enacting an ArbCom mandated ban is a highly questionable assertion. If we could agree that HK was indeed in violation, then you would have an argument, but as it stands we are just trying to reach a pragmatic arrangement with someone who has taken the power of interpretation into her own hands. Everyking 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Reading over what I assume is the response mentioned by Everyking as a otherwise (AFAIK) uninvolved party, I do not consider the response "reasonable" nor do I consider there to be justified dispute over the facts of the case. HK makes no credible answer to the claim of sockpupetry except to say "it didn't happen", and the rest of his "response" is unrelated to the matter at hand. I find SlimVirgin's actions quite justifiable. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC) What evidence has been provided to indicate HK is using sock-puppets? I would like to see it listed. HK, is being accused and an accused person has the right to be presented with the evidence against him, if any. He then has the right of rebuttal presenting his defense against accusations. He by all standards of English and American judicial procedure ought to have the right to be Innocent until proven guilty. That is only right in any situation. I have not seen the evidence of his guilt, unless the above user is privy to material I am not. --Northmeister 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a court of law. The purpose here is to write an encyclopedia; everything else is secondary, including people's "rights" in "judicial procedures". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC) That is convienant. You are right, this is an encyclopedia. Tell that to this administrator, and to Arbcom then, not me. They have made it a Court of Inquisition. --Northmeister 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC) So by that logic HK's restrictions should be removed so he can improve articles? Come on. Everyking 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Ooh, ascribing a position to somebody else and then criticizing it! Can you say straw man? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I was trying to point out the flaw in you logic. Whenever people say "we're here to write an encyclopedia", they are implying that their opponent does not think writing an encyclopedia is primary. But of course I think it's primary. The thing is, writing the encyclopedia goes hand in hand with having fair processes and treating volunteers properly. To make the division between the two is unrealistic—if the division is made, then what you get is actually an outcome harmful to the encyclopedia. What you're trying to say, I suppose, is that writing the encyclopedia and letting SV have her way with this or that admin issue or ArbCom interpretation are the same thing (straw man again? as far as I know this is truly what you think). But of course I don't agree with that. Here's reality: SV made this decision based on her interpretation of the ruling and of HK's actions. HK has no practical alternative but to accept her decision; if she is wrong, he just has to deal with it. The same goes for the rest of us: if someone, like me, disagrees with SV about this, there is basically nothing we can do. If she chooses to ignore us, as she is doing now, that's it. All she has to do is not respond and she automatically gets her way. The only way she could not get her way is if we somehow managed to convince her to reverse herself. But this is impossible; SV's feelings on this issue are hardline and aren't going to change. I boldly suggest that this situation I'm describing is bad. Everyking 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Image:Monkey5.jpg Hi. I'm not at all disputing that it's non-reproducable. I disagree, however, with it being a "unique photograph" of a "historic event". Animals are shipped in crates all the time, there's nothing particularly special with this specific image per se. The tag is intended for images like Image:Tianasquare.jpg and Image:Nguyen.jpg. —Gabbe 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I'm unaware of any discussion on the {{HistoricPhotoRationale}} tag. I think there should be one though. The template needs some sort of elucidation as it currently stands. I have realised now that Quadell not only created the template in the first place, but has included it in several images by the BUAV and others. Since I'm not a lawyer, I have no way of determining by myself whether the images would qualify as "unique" and "historic" with regards to the Fair Use doctrine in United States copyright jurisprudence. In the case of animals in cages, I don't think there could possibly be a problem though, as "in order to have a copyright violation you need an upset copyright holder" - and the people who took these photos most likely want the whole world to see them. But I remain cautious and vigilant to frivolous use of fairuse-templates in general. —Gabbe 08:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Optimal Talk thread organization Slim, I meant no disrespect or purpose of obstruction when I grouped your comments together in Talk:Israeli settlement in order to restore the contiguity of my posts. Quite the reverse. I have had experience before where breaking up someone's posts into points/paragrasphs he did not himself formulate and replying to them one by one causes untold confusion in the organization of a discussion. I would then have to reply to those points and you in turn reply to those and soon we'll have a dickens of a time keeping track of the thread while at the same time continuing with other new paragraphs. If you did not like how I grouped your responses (which were all signed at the same time) under mine as I restored my original unified paragraph formatting, then by all means organize them as you wish, as long as you do not disrupt my own style and formatting. I hope this is fair?--AladdinSE 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC) You are continuing to revert blindly, and in the process removed new posts about the example you wanted me to consider, in addition to the sub-header I created regarding thread-response style. You seem to be highly agitated. Please calm down, and try to understand that in order for me to carry on a rational discussion with you, I cannot have my posts cut into in this manner. Experience has taught me that it is unmanageable. This may be a failing on my part, and if you consider it so, please help me out by obliging me. Thank you.--AladdinSE 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC) RFA Thanks Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) transference I just wanted to tell you I thought your comment was really on the mark and funny. And your dogs are adorable! elizmr 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) PS: (smaller!) elizmr 23:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Sundry matters Hi SV. We're hoping you will explain yourself here [2] I have also posted some comments at Arniep's talk page re: animal activism[3]. Please feel free to continue that discussion on Arniep's page. Thank you. --Cyberboomer 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC) E-mail Okay I confirmed my email, you could send the message now if you want.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC) My RfA Hi SlimVirgin. Just a quick note to thank you for voting on my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I want to let you know that I will do my best to address all concerns that were raised during the RfA. I will also do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC) history maybe this historical prespective is of interst to you: [4]. Zeq 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC) RFCU The evidence you have provided, and other evidence, indicates that it is very likely that BJB is MSK. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia review I think they are notable enough, if not credible enough, to have on Criticisms of Wikipedia. Why don't you feel they are notable enough? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Fixing refs Hey, I noticed your fixes to the references on Hamas, but I still had to go through and further fix some things. Proper Cite.php doesn't use {{ref label}} or {{note label}} at all. Also, there's an automated way to do this conversion now that's a lot neater; you might want to check out User:Cyde/Ref converter. --Cyde Weys 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Reverting my talk page Thanks for looking after my talk page, but I don't really consider the edit you reverted vandalism. I'm sure you had some reason for reverting it, but as I do not find the comment unacceptable or in violation of Wikipedia policies, I've decided to let it stay. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Question for a trusted editor/friend Hello Slim! Long time no see, I guess! I was wondering if you might take a minute or two to read this post [5] and perhaps make any suggestions you think might be applicable, either here or on my own talk page. Thanks in advance, SlimVirgin! Hamster Sandwich 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Another question Is this [6] too close to this [7]--Dakota ~ ° 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC) So do we block it as too close ? I just reverted a removed speedy by it.--Dakota ~ ° 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I did it for the username and vandalism.--Dakota ~ ° 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC) If you are still online Who is this one. [8]. I think it's this one.[9]. Too knowledgeable it is to be just a newbie vandal. It wants to be unblocked or have the block shortened but I think a week is reasonable in this particular case.--Dakota ~ ° 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I am not too familiar with that one only seen a little of it's work. Would an indefinite be out of order? --Dakota ~ ° 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Just wanted to say SlimVirgin is a lying manipulative cunt. --The Beerman 08:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)