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]

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 Potential problem At this point I'm just cautious. this guy seems like a good contributor, but there maybe be a problem with his approach...specifically he seems to be "signing" articles. I've left him a note on his talk page outlining my concerns, but I don't seem to be able to find a policy specifically prohibiting his .sig in the form it has presently...nevertheless I'm not sure it's entirely w/in the bounds or spirit of several policies, nor compatible with the parameters of GDFL to permit it. He seems to be a bright guy, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention before a less level-headed user finds it and blows a gasket and sends him scrambling from the Project w/ a bad taste in his mouth. It's my considered opinion that your diplomatic skills and broad knowledge are needed to resolve this the best way possible. Cheers, Tomertalk 06:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Protection request Please protect the Kven article. For quite a long time a nationalistic contributor pumps his original research into this article. For some time I was patiently reverting his most fantastic findings (like the word queen is of Finnish (Kvennish) origin and that Varangians were Kvens), since I am not very familiar with the topic. Now a a couple of other editors came with some knowledge and cleaned up most of the garbage. This editor started using lots of sock puppets to restore his text, and things became pretty ugly on the page. YOu may see complaints collected by several editors on top of my talk page. Please protect it, but make sure that the version is not one of redlinked editors with some weird name. mikka (t) 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Howard Zinn issue I wanted to ask for a bit of help with Howard Zinn's article. I made some admittedly pretty large and bold edits there, however, I believe they were all warranted given the shape of the article beforehand. It was something that much closer resembled a Wikiquote page, as it was largely a collection of Zinn quotes and writing presented uncritically. I essentially cut out what wasn't in the appropriate section. The intro was lots of Zinn quotes and his political views. The biography was lots of Zinn quotes and political views. I essentially removed those, and left a reasonable intro, and the parts of his biography which were actually biographical in nature. A section on Zinn's political views would be warranted, however, that's not currently what the debate is centered around. Rather, other editors are committed to protecting the sillyness which was there before. Am I mistaken here with my edits? I believe while they are large, they are also pretty reasonable. However, given that I am relatively new, I wanted to ask for the guideance of an admin with whom I've had some contact, to see if I am out of line here. Could you please take a look at the article, my changes, and the talk page? Thanks. Bibigon 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Re-creation of deleted article Hi, Slim. Hope you're around tonight. I'd like you to have a look at two posts I made a few minutes ago to WP:DRV. The Will McWhinney article was created again. I've deleted it, but I think someone who knows a bit about the background should take a closer look at the "new" editor. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Image:BarryHorne.gif Slim, could you please edit Image:BarryHorne.gif to indicate how you know that the copyright holder has "irrevocably released all rights to it"? I couldn't find any such info on the place you uploaded from. Please link to, and copy over, the exact permission language you found. If you can't find any explicit permission, please either add an appropriate fair-use rationale or list the image on WP:PUI. Thanks! —Steven G. Johnson 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Holi greetings Hello SV from an Indian wikipedian. I am wishing you a happy Holi, the unique Hindu celebration of color and brotherhood among all members of the humanity. The festival falls on 15th March 2006. By the way, I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 05:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Petition linkspam Hi Slim, There is an anonymous user who seems to stay at the same IP address, User:63.199.155.82, whose (nearly) entire edit activity consists of adding linkspam to article about a petition/statement called "World can't wait" (s/he claims in edit comments that it's a "statement", though I have no idea what distinction might be intended). This editor adds a couple sentences that a given person, subject of the edited bio, is signatory to this statement. I came across these edits because some of the bios so edited were on my watchlist; since seeing it, I have gone through reversion rounds a couple times, as have a few other editors. A lot of different editors have put vandalism warnings on the user talk page of the IP editor. I don't know for sure if all (or any) of the persons with modified bios really signed this petition. I saw on a few talk pages that existing editors doubted the evidence of such (or found it absent altogether). But for the most part, signature seems plausible, just completely non-notable from perspective of the bios. The petition statement is a leftish anti-Bush thing, and the alleged signatories are liberal or leftist; everyone with so modified bios has certainly signed hundreds of similar petitions during the course of their political (or artistic, etc) career. The edits mainly seem like a ruse to increase the google ranking of the "World can't wait website". Actually, there is a similar problem with another petition called "911 Truth", that appears on many of the same pages; but I think was not placed there by the same IP address (except during some reversions). Actually, during this vandal fighting, I found one use that I didn't remove since it was made plausible. In the article about Rep. Cynthia McKinney, it says (roughly): she signed the 911 Truth statement and served on the 911 commission; she signed the World can't wait and called in Congress for Bush's impeachment. There's a little bit of gamesmanship in including the statements, but there's a sort of connection made to her actual notable political actions. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Pre-emptive We seem to be using opposite meanings of the word. I take it to mean that vandalism occurs at a high rate to an article, and semi-protection is consequently applied. You seem to mean that applying semiprotection in such cases somehow pre-empts something that isn't happening when it is. I'm confused. If you'd prefer the policy to allow for protection before any vandalism, then you'll need to make a fairly convincing case for that. -Splashtalk 00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC) RF, Starlight problem Dear Slim I request that you mediate in an issue, Starlight problem where an editor keeps reverting despite violating the rules against providing sources. Two main things: The section Distant Starlight Problem#First attempts to address the problem has no sources. Those who insist on this section have been repeatedly asked to state which early creationists proposed such a thing, and when. For example, the statement "In the early part of the twentieth century most Young Earthers would assert that the stars were not in fact as far away as science suggests" lacks any reference to a creationist from 1900-1950. A section Tu quoque[2] is repeatedly deleted although it was sourced to a creationist who made this argument in one of their publications. The question is not whether it is a good or bad argument; rather, in a page of a problem for creationists, it is proper to state creationist responses that can be sourced. 203.213.77.138 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Yet another date links proposal You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Cryptome Could you please unprotect the article Cryptome ? See its talk page for my original request. Schutz 12:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC) My RFA Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Greetings Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. --Bhadani 17:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I request you to kindly favor me with your views and comments. --Bhadani 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Template:PD-USGov-Interior-FWS What would you say to using this as the image license icon? I've just posted the same query on User talk:Gmaxwell . Cuppysfriend 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) World Jewry I know that this term is often used without any political or racist connotations in many contexts. However it is also associated with white nationalist organizations since pre-WWII who use it as a synonym for the international Jewish conspiracy. I think that in any context, there should be another term that works just as well. I'm not sure talk pages are the best place to discuss this however. Maybe on the talk page for Jew? --Ryan Delaney talk 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC) User:Benapgar Ben's repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (I think Felonious mentioned this to you earlier). He is now violating WP:CIVIL to comments that are clearly jokes: [3]. Could you kindly remind him of policy and/or give him a short block? Thanks. JoshuaZ 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Machsom watch I am puzzeled by this edit [4] - What Iriah times say is 100% true. In fact, it is far more than that: IDF has created a special unit that it's job is only checkpoints ( user:Ynhockey is in this unit i think) and they get special training just for that. This is to ensure consistent and respectfull contact with the local palestinian population. The unit also has high number of Arabic speakers for that purpose. No doubt in my mind that this postive change is because of the watch women constant monitoring and reporting. Zeq 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Hi Slim, Yes you are correct. It will be hard to prove. The unit does exist (that i can prove) and the connection between watch women daily monitoring to the establishment of this unit is clear to me but hard to source it. There were times when IDF was in panic because of them at the end they reacted by creating thisunit and creating strong policies and punishments to soldiers who break it. I have seen how watch women complain about aa soldier and he get an immidiate punishment by his supiriors. (just to be NPOV:-) : I have also seen cases when their complains are rejected) Zeq 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Successful RfA File:Saguaro2.jpg Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know. Cactus.man ✍ 07:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Re an image vandal Can you tell me anyone who is an Admin here and also an Admin on commons. I don't any over there. There is an image in speedy deletions that a vandal keeps inserting into articles that can't be deleted here as it is on commons. It was once deleted here. it is [5].Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Disregard. It has been listed for deletion on commons now. Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 20:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC) polite request i'd like u to stop harassing me. i improved the article on lithium in what i regarded as a minor way. if improving articles is unwelcome here, pls let me know and i'll do my best to match the standards u and the rest of the gang displayed on the irving article. Jamaissur Archiving Policy Talk Page Ah, but you can follow the history in archived page. Is there some sort of guideline I'm not aware of? FWBOarticle i'm on wikiquote too hey slim -- pls run the microscope over my contribs 2 wikiquote under the same user name. thanx. Jamaissur Hope you haven't forgotten me Dear SV, I hope you haven't forgotten me and my problem. I last wrote to you March 3rd. Sincerely, Gorkhali 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Rachel corrie Hi Slim, To the best of my memory the IDF never claimed what is now written in the article. They were not at all targeting the house for demolition (at least not that day) I have seen what was broadcsted in Israel Ch 2 : video from a remote IDF camera that was on a lookup post in Philadlphi corideor about 100 meters away. The camera zoomed in on the D-9 about 1-2 seconds after rachel was hit. The location was a rather open area, at least 20-30 meters or more from the row of buildings. IDF claimed that they were clearing brush not doing any demolition. A bedouin officer who was in charge of directing the D-9 clearly said in TV inteview that earlier that day he tried to direct the D-9 but because sniper fire he was forced to enter his vehicle. If we are to report the IDF claims we should do it accuratly. I am sure IDF also changed their version few times (they always do, as they did in the Tom Hurndall case maybe 5 times) but what I wrote was their original claims they made. best, Zeq 18:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for the work you have done with respect to Andrew Morrow, He called me and explained what he was up to. He definitely needs to move on, focus on his own life and quit dwelling on past wrongs. He has no place here until he does. Fred Bauder 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Is it me? Slim - you're a long standing and well known figure round here, and I respect your judgment. Tell me this: is it me, or are there a bunch of admins around this place that take things waaaaay too seriously? There seems to be a real case of minor league football referee about some of the people here (and I don't mean you, by the way). ElectricRay 00:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC) I certainly agree about the utter nonsense - but it strikes me much of this is totally systemic, and could be fixed quite easily, by fiarly formal changes such as (i) only allowing registered editors to edit and (ii) introducing some form of reputation management system (like eBay's transaction rating and Amazon's "helpful" votes). I can't see what the downside would be for the project, and it would reduce the need for "janitorial" admin work as well, which itself is a source of conflict and disatisfaction, out of which trolling and vandalism grows. Do you know why these sort of measures haven't been adopted? Re Stark - well, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Sticks and stones, and all that. ElectricRay 00:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC) My RFA Inquiry Hi there, I just want to get a second opinion from an admin, so would you please look at this section[6] and see if there are any violations, like incivilty, etc. Yeah, and you definitely don`t have to warn the editor in question [Lukas]--but, I just wanted to get an idea of what is going on. ThanksZmmz 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) wikilinks Hi Slim, These two wikilinks should find their way tio the Corrie article: "Israel-Egyptian border - where smugling tunnels" I appriciate if you can add them. Best, Zeq 07:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC) polite warning if u or jay stalk me any more (it's gone beyond harassment) i will be complaining. i told u politely some time ago to LEARN abt the topic of an article b4 interfering w/ it. yet again u've deliberately ignored my advice, interfered and wasted my time. Jamaissur I remind you to be civil while posting on someone else's talk page and the words are spelled 'you' and 'before'. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Katelyn Faber Hello SlimVirgin, could you please weigh in on this article. It involves the use of an tabloid style photo on the biography of an possible rape victim. I removed the image and asked that it not be re-inserted without consensus from a large number of experienced users. I have not edited the article before. I saw it when one user took it to arb comm. I'm not sure there is an arb comm case. It looks more like a simple content dispute, so far. FloNight talk 14:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Delete I vote delete. I just left a message on Guy user page about my deletion stragegy. You see, the image was in Kobe Bryant, too. I took it out with the same stern warning about not re-inserting. I didn't start a discussion there. I prefered this discussion on Katelyn Faber. If you delete it hopefully it is gone for good without a second discussion. : ) FloNight talk 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Smurrayinchester's RFA Thank you, SlimVirgin/History 2 for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 100/1/0. Thanks for your vote! If you have any comments, please say so here. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Michael Levy Nice talkpage btw. Is there a problem with the ref to his immigrant parents? It wasn't intended to be derogatory. Seudah/Seudat mitzvah Ok, as the consensus seemed to be to merge, I went ahead and did so, making quite a few changes along the way. Please comment, or make corrections, additions, improvements. : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) request for mediation made hi slim -- here's a copy of my initial complaint in case u haven't already seen it by stalking my edits. I'm being subject to harassment by two administrators, User:Slimvirgin and User:Jayjg (among other users), who object to my editing and are trying to drive me off the Wikipedia with persistent interference, factitious objections and POV censorship. After trying (and failing) to set me up under 3RR, they are now accusing me of "disruption" and threatening me with a ban because I have objected to their harassment. Among their complaints is that I have been "uncivil". An example of Slim's own standards of civility can be seen on my User talk:Jamaissur: she stalked my editing until she found a chance to make an aggressive and uncivil objection to it, apparently not feeling obliged to follow the same rules as she applies to others. I have little hope that a complaint about administrators will be successful, but here is one anyway. and don't worry -- advances in brain modification and control will soon mean that ppl like me can be prevented from even having heretical thoughts. a brave new world dawns, and u're 1 of its shining heralds. Jamaissur 09:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Ever wondered why buddy in Red Dawn yells: "avenge me, boys! AVENGE MEEEE!!!" My first thought was: "dude, shut up, you're going to blow their cover!" Luckily the invadors were too busy doing the reeducation thing that they do. Phew. As for you, Mister (Mz.?) Jamaissur, you've already been told repeatedly to cease from directing personal attacks and incivilities. It's difficult to see how these sort of orwellian (or huxlian, even) accusations can work toward mediating the dispute. More cogently on what these "heretical thoughts" actually consist of, the RfM, and perhaps the fine art, and science, of doublespeak, upon your return 24 hours from now (while you remain free to edit your talk page for the duration, I'd advise you to take a break so as to facilitate utmost composure and calm). El_C 11:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC) HOW DARE YOU How dare you change what I have done you. Thank you Thank you for being so patiant with me. I understand and appriciate you are sticking by the policy. My only 2 cents are: We should apply policy in a uniform way, across all articles and to all POVs. If the policy drive us to do things that are against the intention of the policy and we end up quoting propeganda, then we may need to change that policy. best, Zeq 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC) PS, I don't plain to hammer this point any longer. You argue well (that's a compliment) but the result of this is (in my view) wrong. Well, would not not be the first or last wrong thing that finds it's way into wikipedia. Best, Zeq 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Request for attention Dear SlimVirgin. I write to as I would like to get the attention of an administrator to the "newroz" / "narouz" dispute. Today it went bananas with one editor unilateraly merging the Newroz article into Norouz, without transfering the text on the Kurdish Newroz and without participating in debate (except labeling his oponents as idiots and vandals. Would you please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Newroz_.28edit_.C2.B7_talk_.C2.B7_links_.C2.B7_history_.C2.B7_watch.29 and the respective talk pages. Thank you in advance Bertilvidet 16:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Please restore the redirect to Norouz. The article that looks at the Kurdish concept is at Norouz and the Kurds. See Talk:Newroz#Page_protection. Kaveh 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Jeremiah Duggan AfD nomination Dear SlimVirgin, I see you have reverted the AfD tag 3 times today, and the AfD log itself. I wonder if you could explain why you think that the AfD nomination should not be discussed openly. I don't have an opinion on the article either way (I know nothing about it), but it looked like you were engaging in an edit war. I've never seen an AfD summarily rejected by an Admin before, so perhaps there is a policy page you could direct me to. Slowmover 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Okay, no reply needed. I tracked down the AfD entry directly, and see the discussion there. But perhaps we could leave the link on the AfD log for the day so that it's easier to find? Thanks. Slowmover 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC). Thanks for your quick reply on my userpage, too! Slowmover 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Hi Purple haze [7], [8], [9] --Dakota ~ ° 21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Yeah Yeah, like that's really your reason. I'd call it an excuse, and a rather lame one at that. Everyking 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC) You see, you reverted me a second time even when on that occasion there was nothing to conceivably violate the ruling—now, what does that tell us? And unless you provide a good reason for that protection, I will unprotect again. Everyking 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Why in the world should a comment have to go on the admin's talk page? I view it as more appropriate to put the comment there, especially as in its revised form it isn't a response to the blocking admin at all, but rather general commentary on the situation. And the page should be unprotected so that A) the blocked user can protest his block and B) non-admins can weigh in on the issue. Everyking 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) It's general commentary on the situation, as I said before, and not a response to the admin. I would like it if another admin would unblock the user, for instance, to allow the process I outlined to take place. Everyking 05:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC) How to use "talk" in the suffix? I know that one can attack his name by four waves, but how is your suffix accomplished? Now that I see your talk page, I'd also like to know how one can change the colour of the backgroung. Thank you for your trouble! Teemu Ruskeepää 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC) FYI Talk:Nakba_denial Zeq 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Everyking parole violation [10]. The arguments he's continuing to insist were right were, of course, his continued badgering of me. This violates the letter and spirit of his parole. Would you please intervene? Phil Sandifer 19:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)