User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2

File:Animalibrí.gif

File:800px-PotbellySeahorse TNAquarium-cropped.jpg RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online Islamophobia A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Public Information Research I was able to locate a third-party source for PIR's tax-exempt status, but Daniel Brandt himself removed it for reasons which seem understandable. Shortly after that, Jimbo semi-protected the article. Now, the only practical effect of doing that would be to prevent Mr. Brandt from editing it, as he chooses not to use an account these days. I don't know whether this is by design or coincidence (I guess I'll ask Jimbo when I get a chance) but I was wondering if you had any suggestions. —freak(talk) 22:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Also I don't know what skin you're using but on my screen Blue Girl is obscuring your username at the top of your talk page. Might want to move her down a few notches. —freak(talk) 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Freak added a link that displayed my street address, and I deleted it because the PO box is sufficient, and already widely available. Then someone else added a box from NameBase with my telephone and fax numbers, whereupon I had to edit out the numbers on the box at NameBase. I don't need BLP victims calling me up and complaining that the Wikimedia office ignores them (this already happened today)! If Freak wants to do something useful, he can delete the page and all the archive pages at Talk:Daniel_Brandt. By the way, Jimbo unblocked me the same time that he semi-protected the PIR article. He was protecting it against trolls that hate me. He wasn't semi-protecting the article because of my edit. Daniel Brandt 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for deleting my article Talk page I couldn't reply to your message on my User_talk page because it's still protected. That's okay, it can stay protected. Thanks for deleting the article Talk pages. About your question, why not do both? The redirect (which I don't like but that's a battle for another day) goes to PIR, but keep PIR just a tiny little stub that says it sponsors the following websites. Then link to the Wikipedia article for each site. The CIA cookie thing is so trivial, that it can be mentioned in a NameBase article (there's a page about it at http://www.namebase.org/ciascan.html ), or just skipped altogether. Or you could add our www.cia-on-campus.org website (didn't know we had that one, did you?) and mention the cookie thing there. Or add a sentence about Google's cookies, and stick the CIA sentence right next to it in the Google-Watch article. By having these other articles, you can justify keeping PIR just a tiny little stub. This approach is reasonable because the whois info for all my websites shows that the domain registration is technically owned by PIR. Brandt doesn't own the websites, PIR does! I think Wikipedia-Watch should probably be skipped or mentioned in Criticism of Wikipedia, but that's not for me to say. Daniel Brandt 04:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC) BLP Mind skipping the bullshit? Citing things like "actual practice".. do you think people are stupid? Actual practice shows a mix of just about everything, some going to DRV, some ending up in wheel wars. Actual practice is a mess, and is what we are trying to avoid. You might want to try citing something that is actually true, next time. Trying to weasel in things that will give admins more power do to "BLP deletions" is wrong, has no support from arbcom, and definitely has no consensus by the community. I'm sorry you've been frustrated with some situations in the past, but get over it. These things you wish to add are only going to lead to abuse of the policy. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC) You really need to start discussing your edits before making them. Some of your minor tweaks changed the wording very significantly. We need to consider how other people read this stuff, and how things will be interpreted. Preventing abuse of the policy is just as important as enforcing it. Also, some of the stuff is just down right needless and way into instructions creep. So, seriously, discuss before changing. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) Could you please ask User:Shia1 to calm down? I see you've kept an eye on the sockpuppet case, so you're in a better position than I to emphasize the importance of WP:CIVIL. In other words, I might respond to his nasty words, but I don't want to deal with it anymore. Thanks. YechielMan 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Essay I figured I'd talk about this to a random user on my watchlist :-P User:Deckiller/Avoid starting World War I. Based on what I've seen at disputes like Juice Plus, that silly handicapped picture dispute, some Final Fantasy disputes, and other things. Just a rough outline right now. Comments/ideas? I'd like to turn it into a Wikipedia-space essay in the future. — Deckiller 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Re: WP:BLP I know you've been active in the recent developments at BLP, and I notice that you're making a much-needed effort to copyedit and tidy up the policy. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input on the newly-minted "Privacy of names" subsection, my efforts to expand a two-line comment into something that provides a little more guidance on what has been controversial elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Your comment would be valued Since you made the change to WP:RS that put non-scholarly sources on an equal footing with scholarly ones, you may want to comment on discussions here and here. I've long valued your contributions to the project but am really, really disturbed by this change. I've noticed that you've often been disdainful of "experts" and hope that the change was not overly influenced, whether consciously or unconsciously, by your personal views on that matter. Raymond Arritt 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Rogue Admin Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Slim. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Request for undeletion followed by redeletion On Talk:Daniel Brandt, I read that you were the last admin to delete that page. I personally do not keep up with Wikipedia processes like this, but I read about this issue on WP:POST. Curiosity drove me to find the DRV discussion. It was quite hard to find that discussion (eventually I managed), so I wonder if it would be possible for you to undelete the talk page, and then delete it again, but specifically link/include "Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2" in the comments/summary? This would facilitate an easier search for the discussion for future readers. Thanks in advance. --User:Krator (t c) 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Abortion article There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Would you like to Participate? Hi SlimVirgin, We've not met in Wikipedia, but some other users recommended I contact you. :-) I'm an Australian research student who is writing her thesis about Wikipedia. The thesis is about virtual places and citizenship online, and the ways that communities are formed in virtual spaces. Wikipedia is my main case study for this. As part of this I am interviewing Wikipedians (via email) about their thoughts and experiences while editing and using Wikipedia. I'd love to interview you for my research, if you are amenable. I know that you have been a member for many years, as well as an admin and a prolific contributor. Some others have also noted that you have had experience dealing with situations such as sockpuppets, trolls and edit wars. I'd love to speak to you about your experiences in these areas. The interview would take place via email at a time convenient for you, and you would of course be anonymous in the research. If you are interested please say Hi on my talk page or send me an email and I can explain the project and what it involves in more detail. I hope to hear from you! Best Wishes, tamsin 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Higher Hello SlimVirgin, I noticed on your user page you say that of February 2007 you are at #44 on the list of Wikipedians by number of edits. I thought you might like to know that as of May 2007, you are higher at #38. Acalamari 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Neil Clark (writer) SV, I am curious as to why you changed Clark's handle. He does not publish anything other than journalism, and it conflicts with WP categories. Cheers! Philip Cross 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Edits to WP:RS Hi - regarding your recent reverts on WP:RS, could I ask that you take another look at the talk page? There's been discussion about changing the wording of the "scholarly and non-scholarly" section here. So far, all 10 editors who have expressed an opinion on the talk page have been interested in changing this wording. I know, I know, voting is evil... but I don't see how the "scholarly and non-scholarly" wording to which you reverted could be said to have consensus on the talk page. MastCell Talk 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Your edits to Wikipedia Reliable Sources Re: your edit here to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. At least ten other editors participated in a discussion pertaining to that wording. Could you please revert yourself, or in the alternative, at least leave a comment (out of courtesy if nothing else) at the relevant part of the talk page (for your convenience link here). I'm not saying that you're right or wrong about the edit, it should just be discusseed either way at this point. Thanks R. Baley 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Re: "Off day." (link) Sorry, I had just read another user's frustration about something he/she perceived as a non-response from you. At the time (as I watched your contrib list grow) I was feeling the same way. I should've been more positive in my assumptions, and given it more time (you really do a lot of editing!) As noted on the BLP talk page, my apologies and take care. R. Baley 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ Any objections to tagging the page as historical rather than simply turning it into a redirect ? Nick 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Essjay controversy Just a note to say that I completely support your edits to that page. That article does seem to be in need of attention, especially with the project's tougher stance of WP:BLP shaping up. Do you thinks its possible to argue that all references to Essjay's true name should go? The harm argument applies as much here as to other articles about semi-notable people and I don't see that his name needs to be included for the controversy to be documented... WjBscribe 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC) In many ways I feel this is similar to the real name of anyone else who becomes famous on the internet under a pseudonym - Essjay is the notable persona (ie. Star Wars kid not whatever the kid's name actually was). Unfortunately a lot of the key quotations - especially those from Jimbo and the NewYorker's clarification use the name rather than the screen name. It might be worth waiting for ArbCom to rule of the Badlydrawnjeff case. If the "do no harm" proposed principle passes (as looks likely) it'll put removing real names from articles like this one on a stronger platform. WjBscribe 02:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Is WP:RS Shameful? Has WP:RS been discredited, as you said, or did you mean deprecated? Jehochman Talk 07:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC) I see your point, but I think "discredited" is the wrong word. Please try "deprecated" on for size and see how it fits. Lots of people are used to citing WP:RS. There's no need to upset them by calling their favorite guideline shameful. Jehochman Talk 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Since when is WP:RS a "discredited guideline page"? How long has WP:RS been "discredited"? I cite it all the time in discussions. Did I miss something? Wot happened? --Richard 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Copy-editing of policies I have replied to your comment at Wikipedia talk:No original research. I am making these minor grammatical changes to improve the clarity of the text and remove ambiguity. Tim Vickers 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC) If you look at the history of this page, nobody has reverted the minor copy-edits I made at Wikipedia:No original research, and as two other editors agreed that the change you reverted was actually needed, I have made the change again. I am really struggling to understand why you object so strenuously to minor grammatical changes that only clarify these policies, but do not change their meaning - while other people think these changes are helpful. Please try to see this from my point of view, I am genuinely puzzled as to why my well-intentioned actions have gathered such an apparently hostile response from you. Tim Vickers 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Since you seem the only person to have issues with my minor changes to Wikipedia:No original research, this makes me feel sceptical that what you say is completely true. I accept that you have a great deal of experience of these policies, but I can't believe that you are the only person who understands them. To help me see your point of view, perhaps you could explain which of these edits that I made to this page causes problems and why? Tim Vickers 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC) As an additional point, although you seem to be busy on other pages at the moment, if these policies are indeed so difficult and subtle that only a very few people can fully understand them, isn't this an excellent argument for making them clearer? However, I'll still try to grasp your explanation of what the problems are with the edits I have listed above, however complex these policies are! Tim Vickers 01:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Would it be possible for you to give even a quick explanation of where I went wrong with these edits? I've looked at them again and I can't see what the problem is. Did you prefer the phrase "situate the research; that is, provide contextual information" over my modification to "provide context for this point of view,"? In my opinion the newer version is substantially clearer, but is there something obvious I'm missing? Tim Vickers 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Thank you for responding to my last message. I am saddened by both your apparent unwillingness to explain your objections to my edits to NOR and your repeated lack of civility in accusing editors who are working in good faith to try to improve something of edit warring. As a general note, being uncommunicative and uncivil is not the best way of persuading people towards your point of view. However, from your response I fear this conversation is not going to be productive and do not wish to waste any more of your time. Best wishes. Tim Vickers 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC) PS, I too would like to work constructively with you, but this is impossible if you don't explain to me what you mean and only give me dismissive comments about undefined problems. To get us back on a good footing, if you could just give me even just a few lines of explanation of what is wrong with these edits, I would be very grateful. All the best, Tim Vickers 18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much. That was all that I wanted. I've moved your reply onto the Wikipedia:No original research talk page. Tim Vickers 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Talk page What on earth happened here? It looks to me like you accidentally edited Wikipedia:Talk page instead of Meta:Help:Talk page. Since then, Wikipedia:Talk page has taken over Help:Talk page's role and it's gotten out of sync with the master copy at meta.--Father Goose 07:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC) POV forks I wasn't trying to create one. The only person who's opposing the section is yourself and the FAQ suggestion was sitting there so I created it. We can simply delete it for the timebeing, if it's just more trouble. Perhaps better, until it's actually decided it might be a replacement for RS. Your preferred is self-contradictory. "...significant-minority viewpoints...whether scholarly or not" clearly does not agree with the arb principle cited (or with NPOV, for that matter). In a sense, I'm not bothered if V says as much, because editors will properly ignore it. Non-scholarly opinion is actively suppressed on a number of our well-hit science articles, even when particularly widespread and even when noted in reliable but non-scientific sources. Global Warming has remained an FA precisely because editors have gamely stuck to that principle. With the WSJ, the Telegraph, and the National Post—all de jure reliable—you could create a fine (but generic) skepticism section. And it would have no place in the article. Thankfully, it won't wind up in the article while our better science editors are watching it. So no, I don't think this simplistic tossing out of the distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly will have an effect on the best articles (though it may have a damaging effect at the fringes). But policy isn't supposed to contradict best practice, it's supposed to reflect it. Marskell 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Then I guess we do disagree. I like science articles to be about science and not politics. Cheers, Marskell 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC) The presentation of scientific finding is often politicized, which is precisely why the Telegraph should never be held equivalent to Science for scientific fact. Scientists themselves do not, of course, attribute scientific theory to reliable newspapers and I doubt very much that Brittanica does. The Politics of global warming exists; it's a mess, because that's where the POV-pushers appear to have slunk off to given the defence of the main page by William, Raymond, and others, all of whom should be applauded. But I don't know of any area of this sort that you edit in, so I don't know what's informing your opinion that a distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly should be removed for the sciences. "We are not incapable of arguing about intellectual substance and empirical reality, but we sure seem to prefer misunderstanding as a subject for invective." (Gould). Marskell 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Hi I read your comment on Quadell's talk page, and I must say you are really funny. I laughed. --MichaelLinnear 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Policy pages I haven't run into you much on Wikipedia, but aware of your good work on various featured articles and other work. But, not nearly familiar with the sort of issues and debates you have had in editing those articles, as I am familiar with what goes on in the global warming article, medical/science articles that Tim works on, and other such topics. I'm troubled by you editing protected pages in which you are involved in the dispute. That's not okay. Instead, please participate in the discussion. I don't see such participation in the last several sections on WT:V, except to deride Tim by saying "Tim, you've never edited any of the content policies before, and it's showing in some of the edits you're making, which are causing subtle contradictions in some areas, both internally and across policies." I can't help but sense there's an issue with WP:OWN, in regards to some policy pages. Please be more courteous and accommodating of others. The status quo on these policy pages is unacceptable. We need to work towards a consensus, which means somewhere in between "your version" which you seem to insist on and something that accommodates concerns others have. Again, I'm not entirely familiar with your articles, but if you could please give some examples of problems/situations you have had with WP:RS, WP:V, and other guidelines/policies on self-published sources. It would help us to better understand your concerns and what the policy pages need to do to address them, as well as address problems and concerns others have on science articles and other topics. --Aude (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Re: (User talk:ais523) Your edit of a protected page I've answered on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. There seems to be something of a misunderstanding as to which version is actually the longstanding version and which version is a recent invention; I've answered in full, with diffs, there. Note that I have no opinion on the actual change as yet. --ais523 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC) factory farming Why are you reverting more than the image of the sows? Also, please actually READ the talk page before blindly acting. Jav43 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Please either reinstate the edits I made to the article body, or explain why you reverted them. Thank you. Jav43 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (reiterate first three points/questions) I don't support people. I support ideas. Having only two articles (like you proposed) was (and is) a lousy idea. I disagreed with an article entitled "factory farming", as I made clear, and I explained my reasoning - but having an article named "factory farming" is an infinitely better solution than having only two articles discussing all modern agricultural methods. And you're wrong. This article isn't about the "Factory farming controversy"; it's about a method of farming colloquially known as "factory farming". This method is technically known as a system of CAFOs. The image of the sows is not, as I have repeatedly stated, representative. Nor is it iconic, unbiased, unprejudiced, or whatever else. It is, instead, simply the wrong lead image for an article describing CAFOs and informing the unknowing public about the meaning of the term "factory farm". The lesson for you (if you can take one) is that not all people have agendas. Some simply want to see a good result. Jav43 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I don't see how mediation can help when you refuse to engage in discussion on the talk page. With that said, I have never opposed mediation and I will not oppose mediation. Jav43 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Like I said, I don't support people; I support ideas. Not everyone has an agenda. Jav43 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry. You're wrong. What happened to the assumption of good faith you're so keen on quoting? Jav43 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Yeah. I came here one day, saw the image, realized it was improper, and so I removed it. You've been causing problems by reinstating it. When I see problems, I fix them. I don't search for problems; that's not what I'm doing here. Jav43 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC) NPOV edits Greetings SlimVirgin, it appears you have introduced a substantive modification to WP:NPOV, although there is no explanation or rationale given for this change on the discussion page. diff. Specifically, it appears you have replaced "recognized authority" with "regarded as reliable" (rough quotation) ... despite your apparent acknowledgement that the difference in wording represents a tangible difference in meaning. (per edit summary: they don't have to be authorities; they only have to be reliable sources). Pursuant to your well-stated and entirely appropriate rationale provided in an earlier edit summary: rv to ElinorD; you need the strongest possible consensus to change this policy, because it's a Foundation issue. Can you please explain the justification for your apparently undiscussed and unilateral change? Feel free to provide your explanation on the discussion page for WP:NPOV. Thanks for your attention to this matter, and thanks for your contributions to WP! Regards. dr.ef.tymac 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC) execution pic wow - fast revert, anyway is there any good reason to leave that pic in the article? Did you read my rant on the talk page? thestick 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC) OR Page Hi Just wanted to take this offline as it were. The problem I have with your approach on the OR page is that you have the time to revert, you have the time to ask an individual question of me but you do not have the time to answer Tim's clearly constructed and sensible questions. Wiki is an imperfect communication medium and that is understood by all parties so please take this as a discussion in good faith, not a personal attack (though I guess that it is in part, it is meant to challenge your approach not to undermine you). Sorry for all the "you"s I feel it is best to be blunt rather than confuse with evasion of what I perceive as the problem. I would also qualify this as being a general position and individual sentences may not stand up to close scrutiny, please read the underlying message. There is something that makes me uncomfortable in your approach. You reserve the right to revert the page under the newly arrived at stability policy which outranks any other Wiki policy or good practice. and I feel certain that you will do that on the SYNTH example, where the talk page shows genuine good faith to resolve a real problem with the page which you will not even acknowledge, yet you have not engaged with the discussion. I have already indicated this in the discussion, pointing out that there is no point in proposing a new example if the reverters will not engage in good faith discussion. It simply is not acceptable to suppress change on the basis that change cannot be contemplated because the status quo has a long and painful history. There are a number of inappropriate techniques being used to force stability: long discussions take place with no involvement from the guardians, then when that discussion reaches consensus and applies the edit it is reverted on the basis that there was only consensus of the self-selecting agreeing parties. You are using a similar technique on Tim, you revert without discussion, Tim asks for discussion, you do not engage, but you will revert still claiming no consensus for change - in my book silence is approval, especially on the uncontroversial changes being suggested (and they really are not, in the main, controversial, they do not merit the antipathy they have generated). You also then ask me a specific question which I feel is trying to steer me down a rabbit hole, which shows you are well aware of the rest of the discussion. I am not aware of what other communications are going on behind the scenes, and what is perhaps reinforcing your perceptions of the issue, but there is also an uncomfortable de-facto alliance of you and Crum re-inforcing each others POV which creates an apparent view of consensus against change, where it is more like the same view being repeated. I have no history with Tim before this little spat which I am sure bemuses Tim greatly. I used the phrase wandering aimlessly to Crum. It was meant to be flippant, but it does reflect why many people end up here: something goes on in Wiki and policy is flagged up. The novice reader arrives at the policy pages looking for guidance. Some read and understand, some read and are confused, departing none the wiser, some read, understand and disagree. Tim has read, understood, agreed and sought to clarify with what I can see is a light and sensitive touch. People who arrive here and stay have come because they have had a problem and recognise that the policy page does not resolve the issue for some reason. In fact I am sure Tim's motivation is simpler, something is clearly and obviously wrong and should be corrected. It is in the nature of policy pages that people will arrive one day, get interested in a facet of them, leave their mark and move on. I'd suggest it was unhealthy if people moved into being policy managers rather than Wiki editors and I am not comfortable that the implication that policy is the sole preserve of the great and the good: it is elitist and means that you have an inconsistency - the assumption that Wiki is a good thing by the bringing together of many different skills and approaches yet policy is only the domain of like-minded individuals with a history and experience of setting policy. I sense you are carrying a lot of history and pride in the page, which is good, we have a guardian of policy. However, my background is that I fix problems where other people cannot and from that experience I know that one of the biggest blocks to good problem solving is people sticking to inappropriate positions when the evidence is against them. One of the best fixes for this is the fresh pair of eyes which see quickly what others have become blind to due to familiarity. Now take a look at Tim's user page (I suspect you have). I think it gives a strong steer as to both his qualifications and his motivations. You say you do not understand what is going on, and I think it is exactly that, you can see that he is indeed a highly qualified and able contributor and you cannot reconcile this with your perception that he is acting disruptively. However, (and this is my WP:POINT he is not acting disruptively, it is the reversion that is disrupting the proper workings of Wiki to make a point. I know a lot of scientists to who inaccuracy is an absolute anathema, and to be challenged on fixing basic grammar (and he probably has a similar educational background to myself in that we are taught that bad grammar is on a par with bad spelling because it changes meaning) actually comes across as simply wrong. Put another way, would you revert a spelling mistake correction? I doubt it very much, yet you are reverting grammar corrections which from your POV are pointless, but from Tim's are glaring "spelling" errors. There have been some specific challenges to his changes, and Tim has immediately and fairly justified them or corrected them (though the amendment is a further improvement). (I believe there is an American/British culture issue here in that I suspect from many years of observation that grammar is not given the same status in the States that it is here in Britain, but that is a bit of OR for another forum :) ). Can I suggest that to do the right thing, if you cannot view this set of changes dispassionately, to do the right thing by Tim that you get a trusted third party to step through Tim's individual changes, challenge them for correctness and apply the basic grammar corrections to the article and weed out the remaining changes onto the talk page for discussion in good faith. Tim has attempted to do this and appears to be being met with silence. I'm afraid this has descended into a dreaded point of principle on both sides: never good. Please step back and try and see this from a different point of view. Best wishes Spenny 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC) News I think that this article might interest you: [Scottish Panel Challenges Lockerbie Conviction http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/world/europe/29lockerbie.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin] BlueSapphires 09:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)