User talk:SlimVirgin

Please leave messages about ongoing content issues that I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article, guideline, or policy in question, to avoid repetition and in case others want to join in the discussion. Many thanks.

File:Animalibrí.gif

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 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Office Open XML

Hi, I've always been impressed by your fairness and hard work. How would you like to take a look at the long-term participation of User:HAl in the Office Open XML article? He has been involved in countless controversies since the first half of 2007, and has made one-sided deletions and reversions dozens or hundreds of times over that period against the opinion of others. There has even been suspicion of a financial interest at play, but never any full disclosure.

Unfortunately dealing with this properly means reading through 4 archived talk pages (see most recently my own comments at the end of the current talk page) and a long edit history for the article itself. If you have the time please take a look at it, and if not could you suggest another admin who might be interested? Dovi (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification

You have mail. Relata refero (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And again. Relata refero (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC guidelines

Hi :-) Since the case is closed I will not be commenting on the proposed decision talk for much longer. The topic is important and I plan to start a discussion on Monday about forming a working group to develop some guidelines. Until then feel free to make your thoughts known on my talk page. Have a nice day. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious what is your view on the heavy criticism of Wikipedia?

I guess you are aware that Wikipedia received heavy criticism because of the article Prem Rawat that had grown unbalanced. I had tried and tried (incl. many attempts at dispute resolution) to prevent this but was unsuccessful. I personally think that this criticism of Wikipedia was justified and that controversial obscure articles cannot be left alone to the warring factions. Because one faction may gain the upper hand. Andries (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(Btw, I had no prior knowledge that this article would be published.) Andries (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Italian police shut down blog listing 162 Jewish University professors

Italian police shut down blog listing 162 Jewish University professors (European Jewish Press, 08/Feb/2008) IZAK (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Right to vanish

Hi, I've left a comment here about your edit today, as the issue of talk page deletion has been something of a bone of contention, with some people (including Jimbo) thinking it's fine, and others strongly objecting. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really feel strongly about that; I was just trying to reduce some of the wordiness and emphasise the leaving-as-a-prerequisite-to-vanishing part. Sounds like it might be a good one to get some broader input about. --bainer (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem with me?

You have turned up on IRC at least twice in the last several weeks with claims that I attack you or "snipe at" you, and I wasn't aware, until the first of these times, that we had any dispute at all. Can you explain to me what I have done to offend you? The most recent time, I asked you to stay around so that we could try to work this out and talk to a chanop (I was waiting for you to finish your discussion with another user), but you disappeared. —Random832 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you missed my last message, but was impressed by your argument here [1] but I'm not having any success with it. Could you suggest another approach maybe? Thank you --Robertert (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Hi again, I hope that you can share some suggestion, as now he's calling me a vandal and a nationalist because his argument is his own and is contradicted by his own partisan sources like Peace Now. Thank you, --Robertert (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wiesel15(3).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wiesel15(3).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wieselghetto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wieselghetto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal quiz for WP:FUN

This user needs help with an animal quiz for WP:FUN. [2] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BUAVCambridge2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BUAVCambridge2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Community RfC on Weiss/Bagley dispute

I'm drafting a "community" RfC on the Weiss/Bagley dispute that has taken place over the last two years in Wikipedia. The goal is to open the entire episode to discussion so that the community can learn from what happened and hopefully put the entire chapter in the past. Since you were heavily involved at one point in the issue, I'd like to invite you to participate in constructing the RfC, which I have started in draft form here. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD on Venona article

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11#Verona book is a discussion of , and its subcategories, a general topic in which you have previously been involved. some informed assistance seems to be needed.DGG (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you really mean that?

Did you really just say this of me on Wickback [http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2757#Post2757}, "...including WordBomb and Cla68 -- have been their own worst enemies, I'm afraid, because of the very aggressive way they went about things -- assuming the worst possible faith, trying to out people, insulting people on other websites, issuing threats, sending people spyware, alleging all kinds of wild conspiracy theories."?

Am I wrong, or did you just accuse me of "insulting people on other websites, issuing threats, sending people spyware, and alleging all kinds of wild conspiracy theories?" I think you had better answer this. I'm more serious about this question than any other question I've ever asked you in multiple forums. Cla68 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)