User talk:Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive3

WP:RS

Can we focus first on all the sources used and see if they fit WP:RS and arbcom rulling about sources ? Tnx. Zeq 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that if you remove this or remove that or anything you do some will say against it.

But here lies the solution. We have policies to guide you

Let us list the sources used. Let us attribute every phrase in this article to a source (after all Wikipedia is not a place for Original research) and thean let's start debating the issue of which sources should be used in light of WP:RS and arbcom decision.

We may get nowhere (I think we will get progress) but surly not focusing on WP:RS we are getting no where and wasting our time debating text which is either not sources or is completly original research and supositions.

The key for the way forward is WP:RS and arbcom decision about sources for such articles. Zeq 15:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100. Don't bother being too extensive with your post. A good mediator just need to lead the way toward solution. Why don't you just list sources ? (or try to list claims that have no clear source ?) Best of luck. I will stay of the talk page as well (starting now) for 24 or more hours to let you lead where you want to lead

so that I wont be giving more excuses to Homey to blame me and for me to reply. Zeq 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But I want to give you more leeway. Good luck. Zeq 15:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already allowed you, if you like any change in my writings or style of writting. You can do and I have no objections. I always welcomes suggestions and respect them. User:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com

Deleting edits

I noticed you deleted Homosexuality to get rid of some bad edits. Next time you might want to ask a developer to do that for you when it's on a page with such a huge edit history. It'll take you a while, the page will be down for a while, and it will make the servers sad :( . It's annoying that no guideline is given as to when to ask a developer to get rid of edits, but I'd say that's one page that's big enough. Just a thought for next time :) Mak (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just coming by to de-watch your page and saw this. There is a new thing called m:Hiding revisions. It's in the current signpost. Thatcher131 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The section for admins is here (it's probably outdated). Mak (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid outside of South Africa

Your services are required. Several editors are attempting to merge Israeli apartheid into Apartheid outside of South Africa despite the fact that there is no consensus to do so (in response to the mergetags). They have cut and pasted in the entire Israeli apartheid article and removed any links to this article, despite the title of their article. Homey 13:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Platypus

WP:TOL has absolutely no reference to whether or not the name of an animal should be capitalised. Would you capitalise 'horse'? Or 'dog'? Why should 'platypus' be any different? It's appalling English. Proto||type 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a draft project, not a policy, and it's wrong on that issue. I will look into getting some kind of input on the matter, because I may be wrong, but I'm sure it's not right capitalising common animal names. You would capitalise "Common Starling", but you would not capitalise "starling". Surely that makes sense? Proto||type 09:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair semiprotection

Hi. Thanks for the semiprotection. I've left a comment at the Requested Protections page - if you have any suggestions, I'd be pleased to hear them. SP-KP 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Please don't give up. Some progress has been made on improving the opening paragraph. Also, as more neutral editors become aware of the dispute and join in there is a greater chance of NPOV. I think it's necessary to seek broader input (particularly those who have no "horse" in the Israeli-Palesitinian dispute) - the more broad based the input the greater the chance of consensus. Homey 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda

and therre are those who would go further calling Saudi Arabia an apartheid state: http://www.masada2000.org/AccusingIsrael.html

Zeq 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read it first. It is based on an op-ed published few years ago so it does come from a WP:RS (but not an NPOV source) . in any case much better source than the one used now in the israeli apartheid article. Zeq 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comment

"short time window" could have been a problem since it is nearly midnight where I am at and nearly loged off.

Please not that I used the word "If" to describe something that have not occured and hopefully never will.

If you think it is NPOV to put apartheid in SA and "israeli apartheid" on the same equal level you are mistaken.

I have tried, to show you the way out of this . The sources used to argue about "Israeli apartheid" are pure and simple propeganda sources. I have done my best to list them and we should conmtinue with a good analaysis of these sources to see what we accept and what we reject. Once we do that let's see how much of the original article (that has disrupted wikipedia so much ) will actually remain. Zeq 20:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Kim,

Would you be able to do me a favor and check out the two pages I listed at WP:RPP? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast. —Khoikhoi 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was sort of a slow revert war (with two reverts or so per day), but it was still getting annoying. Should I have told them to stop or what? —Khoikhoi 21:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the problems of page protection, however, hopefully some compromise can be worked out. Dag. —Khoikhoi 22:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. I believe any further discussion with the initiator of the revert war will be fruitless based on the fact that the given editor is pursuing a nationalist anti-Armenian agenda and that the "sources" he provides contradict the edits made. Furthermore, I wont ask for unprotectioon in the near future as I doubt the said user will remain active.--Eupator 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot... (thanks!)

Thanks for the revert. I was actually just about to comment on why I felt my edit wasn't vandalism... thanks for saving me the trouble! Paul^C/_T+ 23:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

IGN needs reprotection

RadioKirk had to delete the article to remove some personal information, but the page is no longer semi-protected. Could you come back and fix that, please? Thanks :) Cowman109^Talk 02:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks once again for all your help! Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

IGN

Hello! If I missed something when deleting/recreating this article, please let me know for my own edification. Thanks! :)

Terrific, thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird... I have saved, in my Firefox bookmarks, the code that allows me to check every edit at once, then uncheck the edits to be removed. As far as I noticed, the process should have left the protection in place. Next time I run across that, though, I'll try the page move first. Thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome

It was a silliy statment but the wording were carefull. I was not at all relating to specific editors who now hold this or that view. I was refering to a hypothetical situation that I hope will not take place. In any case, it was a bad statement and need to be removed. thanks. Zeq 03:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For some reason my other post gave the session error and I closed the tabs. I didn't see much point in keeping blocks there as they're not punative and as long as they won't revert war any more, the block would do more harm than good -- Tawker 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That turned out to be wrong. User:Eiorgiomugini has violated the 3RR again because you unblocked him. Please leave him blocked. There is a 3RR for a reason. --User:Lemuel Gulliver 61.69.254.188 12:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid mediation

Kim, I'm glad you haven't given up. You obviously have a lot of experience with both mediation and Wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts. Su-laine.yeo 06:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick Q

Hey, Kim. Quick question completely unrelated to IGN. Would these links be considered spam? I've been removing them on that basis, but want to make absolutely sure before I remove them more than three times. One link is to some site which has next to no content on it, and a completely dead forum. The other site, the wiki, is some game completely unrelated to the Ford Fiesta. Thanks. -- Steel 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He kept adding links after I made it clear in edit summaries that they were spam, and I began to think it was me that was wrong. Thanks a bunch for clearing that up. -- Steel 16:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you...

... protect an article against editing, and then unilaterally change the title of something that is already pejorative? --Leifern 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your move of Israeli apartheid (sic) has been reported as an incident:

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article}. --Leifern 23:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your role as mediator

As a mediator, you have asked to present an analysis of the sources used in the artucle . These sources have been provided in Talk:Israeli_apartheid#WP:RS_-_analsys_of_sources_used_for_this_article. Instead you have moved the discussion to sources that are not at all mentioned in the article.

How can we get back on track toward solution ? Zeq 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding looking at the sources now used for this article ? They are mostly non WP:RS complaiant - don't you think that first we should removed the trash before we try to add ? Zeq 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid mediatorship

I need to think about it. I'll try to respond tonight (it's now morning where I live). Can you point me to some successful mediations that I can look at as an example? I hope you're not too stressed. Cheers, Su-Laine Su-laine.yeo 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Su-laine has already shown herself to be on one side of the issue in this and other discussions. If there is a new mediator it should be someone who is not identified with one side or the other and is a disinterested party. Su-laine is an interested party and this is obvious from the fact that she's a participant in the discussion (not that there's anything wrong with being interested in one side, it's just not a good characteristic for a mediator to have). Homey 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Su-laine.yeo is not an appropriate mediator. For example, in regards to articles Homey created, Su-laine.yeo voted delete on Apartheid (disambiguation) [1], delete on Gender apartheid [2], delete on Sexual apartheid [3], delete on Global apartheid [4], and stated that the Israeli apartheid article "should not exist at all" [5]. On the other hand, she voted keep on Homey's AfD of Apartheid outside of South Africa [6]. Su-laine.yeo also got involved on the Admin noticeboard on Zeq side (who is in opposition to Homey) with regards to his ArbCom related article bans [7]. If nothing else, Su-laine.yeo does indicate in her actions that she doesn't have much respect for Homey. --Ben Houston 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I've responded to you on my Talk page. Thanks!Su-laine.yeo 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I've responded on AN/I. Thanks for your hard work on this. Su-laine.yeo 06:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stay safe

I'd just like to wish you all the best. Good thing it didn't hit before the Netherlands' match. All the best. Guettarda 17:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope you are safe

hope you are well.

WP:RS is the first step not the last not the 2nd. ArbCom was very specific what kind os sopurces can be used in such articles.

We have no where to start but with the current text that was imposed on us

Why impose ?

Because creating an article everyone can do but to delete takes a 60% majority or moe Becasue to add trashy sources anyone can do but to removed them (when the creator creates an edit war) cause the article to be "protected" and we are stuck with the version that is bad.

Clearly there were at least 50% who thought the whole article should go. The least we can do once the article remain is to removed trashy content. This will help us know for the future what sources (and sources types) not to bother with. Zeq 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"apartheid wall"

Kim,

I would first suggest to eliminate all the sources about the wall. We had an Afd about it, the decision was to merge it to "West bank barrier where there is now a section dedicated to the "apartheid wall" term. There is absolultly nothing that connect the wall to apartheid (other than propeganda) Zeq 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid

Good job, and good luck. --Coroebus 11:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Socks

Ah, thanks. I didn't even know about the suspected sockpuppet page. The funny thing is, Opuaut (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sock today. I think Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) and Zanoni666 (talk · contribs) have been sharing that sock, and when he logged in it was as Opuaut and that's the message he was complaining about. -999 (Talk) 01:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Kim, User 999 has been playing games. We have gathered concrete evidence of his active recruitment of other users for revert war activity. Somehow today, he managed to convince an adminsitrator that Opuat is a sock of Frater Fiat Lux, getting both users improperly blocked. How can this be straightened out? How can I find out which Administrator did this? A cimple examination of each users IP adress should straighten this out. Opuat is an editor who lives and edits from Germany whereas Frater Fiat Lux is in the UK. And NO, User 999, your games are NOT funny. Should not User 999 perhaps be blocked for violation of Wikipedia's rule on disruptive behavior?

I am not a sock. Neither is Opuat. Nor is Frater Fiat Lux. We merely have different POV bias than he does. He is trying to dominate a series of articles by calling for improper blocks on everyone who disagrees with him and the associates that he has been actively recruiting on their talk pages to collaborate with him in reverting articles. I have concrete evidence of the latter.--Zanoni666 01:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Advice about Ubblocking Improper Block for Accusation of Socks

I found out who blocked Frater Fiat Lux. It was Deskana. I wrote him explaining that Users Frater Fiat Lux, Opuat and myself are distinct users and noone is the sock of the other. I am in California, Fiat Lux resides and posts from the UK, Opuat resides and posts from Germany. User 999 has been playing games again and caused an improper block. A simple examination of each of our IP addresses should be sufficient to straighten this out and put an end to this game from User 999.

Removing tag

Excuse me, but I was filing a report, having collected the evidence. I'm following the steps, 1, 2, 3 on the page you referred me to. -999 (Talk) 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That tag is the first one to be added on the how to report sockpuppets page. It provided the link to create the evidence page. Nothing on the page say it is only for admins. Why are you interfering with my following the process when you referred me to the process yourself! -999 (Talk) 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is obvious just what kind of games you are playing, User 999--Zanoni666 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my fault. And I have made my excuses at the talk page of User:999-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

semi-protection

Thanks... I'll probably leave it alone for now. Given the pattern of the attacks, I've reason to believe that it's mainly the work of one vandal, acting with the benefit of a dynamic IP. Not sure why I get special treatment (I reverted a few vandal edits, and AfD'd one nonsense page he created--standard RC patrol stuff, and I'm not the only one to have reverted him--otherwise, I've not done anything to antagonize this user that I can think of), but oh well. Most of the attacks he does make seem to be reverted in seconds, whether I'm on Wikipedia or not.

Good luck with your upcoming trip! --EngineerScotty 04:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

from main page

Don't block me I share an IP with various persons and am not responsible for their actions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stannickarz (talk • contribs)

deletedpage

I've left a detailed explanation for User:Gregorycook as to what he was doing wrong; it's not impossible that the Mr Gay article may get recreated at some point in the near future - legitimately. This is just to let you know. DS 04:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Cook

Another point that you should be aware of - this may be a language issue, since the delta between a native level and a near-native level, albeit small, is real (especially when this is combined with dyslexia).

Mr Cook was describing the articles as "adds". In my opinion, he intended for this to mean "addition", and not "advertisement"; as such, I am less inclined to think poorly of him. In particular, he did make a very polite request for help ("This is my first time useing wiki, if you wish to talk to me please thell me how to respond") in his edit summary. DS 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Source policies

My idea would be all three content policies discussed by enforced by this rule: wherever unsourced material has been challenged on the talk page of the article, someone must produce a source as per WP:V, or the material is deleted. The difference between WP:V and WP:RS would be that the former is a source for its own views, while the latter can support a finding of fact, or the existence of a conflict in findings of fact where reliable sources disagree. Where all reliable sources agree, findings of fact may be presented without in-text attribution (i.e. with only a reference). Where they don't, we characterize the debate according to due weight. Where the material is only verifiable, in-text attribution is required. As a check against the unintended consequences of unforseen situations, a clear consensus on the talk page can suspend any of these stipulations, where the material is seen as uncontroversial common sense. Any knowing reinsertion of disputed material without a clear consensus to override would be grounds for a block.

Of course this begs the question of what constitutes a reliable source, which is not very clearly spelled out in the guideline. That said, seeing editors debating the reliability of sources on the talk page would be a welcome development.Timothy Usher 08:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Koryun, Tigranes

Kim, all the facts were presented, including from English-language sources, and it's clear that Koryun page must have a mentioning of him being Georgian according to great many scholars, and that Tigranes II Great was indeed either of Iranian origin (according to the latest scholarly view, e.g., Encyclopedia Iranica) or Parthian (according to ancient chroniclers such as Movses of Khorene, Flavius, Procopius, and modern scholars). When can this be added into the pages and we be done with it? --AdilBaguirov 12:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not going to happen.--Eupator 14:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Age of the Earth

It does differ, but I am working from the following:

It is generally held by those Christians, Jews and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis or the Qur'an is a literal account of historical events, and believe that evidence for a strictly factual interpretation of the text is present in the world today.

Taken from Young Earth creationism. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We are in concurrence. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked to orthodox. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Dear Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive3,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point?

It's not like i'm going to win, and I have been watching that page, you guys are very unwilling to copromise. 69.179.102.211 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being really rude and not replying. 69.179.102.211 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:EngineerScoty

I think the aforementioned user may be an {{imposter}} of me, though I'm going over to ANI to make sure. I have two other imposters in the past month or so; both are likely sockpuppets of User:Unemployed, living in basement--who seems to be rather annoyed with me for some RC patrol I did that reversed his edits (he ended up getting blocked as a troll). If you look at User:EngineerScoty's edits, you'll find:

• Two fake (and obviously frivolous) {{imposter}} tags posted to users talk pages.
• A "can I use this name" posted to my talk page
• Several innocuous edits on two or three unrelated pages--unrelated except I've also edited them recently.

Oh, and his user page is a redirect to User:Jimbo Wales.

What do you think? --EngineerScotty 04:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (the real one)

(Inappropriate remark by 65.138.71.58, and attributed to me, removed) --EngineerScotty 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Kim. I just wanted to thank you again for your very helpful review, and contributions, to the chromatophore article. It was promoted to featured article status today. Thanks again! Rockpocket 02:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Psittaciformes?

Just wondering, what prompted your interest in Psittacines? A.Octavia 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zanoni666

Hello. It's a shame that you are on your Wikibreak, but I hope I can get a response from you! Regarding Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zanoni666: You said that you blocked HermeticScholar, but never blocked Zanoni666; so let's see what I got.

• [8] HermiticScholar writes this comment.
• [9] (S)He then removes this comment.
• [10] Zanoni666 then (possibly cuts/copies the text previously added and then adds is again, forgetting to sign as himself.
• [11] Zanoni666 then correctly signs.

Do you think this is good enough evidence for sockpuppetry? Let me know what you think, either on the SSP page or my talk page. Regards, and thanks, Iolakana|^(talk) 18:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I took the liberty of unprotecting Israeli apartheid as it appears things have calmed down somewhat. Hope the conference is well. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We will see. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

To Wikipedia at least.

I suppose I should apologize for the behavior of my imposters on your talk page... hopefully, Unemployed has gotten the message. --EngineerScotty 05:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Help Kim! What do we do with the obsessed??

Kim,

Can you please look at the end of the discussion page on Talk:Arabian horse? Pebs96 aka "Webmistress Diva" is driving me nuts! This person is obsessed with the sport of bullfighting on horseback and is inserting information about it EVERYWHERE and in the case of the Arabian horse page, is starting to make threatening remarks about what should and should not be in the article as well as signing off as "Webmistress Diva" which is terribly misleading and makes it sound like s/he has admin rights or something. See also her Bloodless Bullfighting page which has a neutrality tag on it. She also has put in stuff on the Quarter Horse page and I don't know where all else. The problem isn't the sport, it's that she just plugs it in at the front of various sections like it's the most important thing on the planet when it is at best a rather obscure thing...and she doesn't really use good form nor check the rest of the article to see if what she writes fits in. I guess what she's doing isn't quite vandalism, but the way she is using intimidating language at me on the Arabian horse page is pretty troubling. Any help or advice to avoid getting into an editing war would be much appreciated. Thanks! Montanabw 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, take a step backward and relax. And in the first place, WP:AGF. And I will have a look. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

"The government of Israel has termed its policy of disengagement Hafrada which literally means "separation". "

Disengagement is called 'Hitnatkout' in Hebrew which means to disengage to cut off from. The term now used is also 'Hitkansut' which means 'to converge into one self'

Hafrda was used as the first name for the west bank barrier it was called "a barrier of separation" or "fence of separation" but that name now replaced by "anti terror barrier" and this whole issue is covered in west bank barrier which has a good analysis of the name.

So if the wall is already mentioned in the analogy section no need for a separate "hafrda" line – it is a duplicate.

Best,

Zeq 12:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please clarify something?

Hi Kim,

I don't understand these sentences from User talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid: "First, renaming it to that name would free the way of a second article that deals with for example the scholary opinion about this topic, which is not an allegation or accusation but an analysis. And I think that is not warranted." Could you please clarify what you mean by "free the way of"? Also, what is not warranted? Thanks, Su-Laine Su-Laine Yeo 04:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The newly proposed article name is a very specific title, and limits all discussion at the page to the allegations. Therefore, it effectively excludes anything beyond that. So, an article dealing with an analysis of the situation based on for example scholary articles which examines whether the term apartheid is relevant for the Israeli situation would require a seperate article as that is not an accusation/allegation, but a valid scholary analysis. I think that one article is already enough, and I do not see the need for several articles dealing with this term, so I think is not warranted to have multiple articles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks. Su-Laine Yeo 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Species names

Could you direct me to the official Wikipedia policy on species names? It does not make sense and flies in the face of established English conventions; I'm not sure how a consensus-based system as Wikipedia claims to be would produce such a quixotic result. Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia and other major works agree with my intuition: species names are not capitalized unless they begin a sentence.--Exeunt 05:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid proposal

It might be helpful to put together an initial draft of your proposed Apartheid page. Homey 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for move poll link fix - thanks

Thanks for fixing all the link conficts. I was listing the poll as a formal Requested Move at the same time you were moving the poll, but I think you fixed all the links and everything seems consistent. Anyway, we now have a process underway to resolve the issue. Five days from now, we'll have a decision. --John Nagle 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Gay

Unfortunately, Mr Gay was re-created in the copyvio form, so I re-deleted and re-protected it. I suggest it not be de-protected again. User:Angr 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Page

no problem thats what I invented the sport of vandal hunting for. Betacommand 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Celtic toe

Hey Kim, I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at Celtic toe and it's talk page, as per the request of User:BrittonLaRoche. Best Regards Pete.Hurd 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whups, nevermind, It's since gotten too silly to be worth the effort. You should have better things to do than read this. Pete.Hurd 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

America Online vandal

I noticed you deleted a few pages that had "db|curps is on vaccation". Some of them are harmless to delete but they also placed the message on real pages like Template talk:Infobox Ice Hockey Player. Ansell 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maria_Christina_of_Bourbon-Two_Sicilies

Could you please move this page? The RM was only introduced because the proper name was turned into a redirect by an inexperienced editor. The current name does not conform to conventions. Charles 09:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick action! :-) Charles 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi, I just saw you cleaned up some requests at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. If possible and if you agree with the move, could you do this one? Wikipedia:Requested moves#2 July 2006. I can wait of course, but it doesn't seem controversial and I just would like to clean that mess up. Garion96 ^(talk) 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Garion96 ^(talk) 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are probably sorry we (community) made you an admin, right? :) Wikipedia:requested moves doesn't indeed seem to be a much watched page, good luck with the backlog. Garion96 ^(talk) 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RfM

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/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], 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.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means add what you have in mind in the appropriate section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You could add a brief summary of the other issues here. [12] I haven't been involved much and so I'm a little in the dark as to the substance of the disputes. I think this section is just to give the mediators a rough idea of what's involved. They'll likely decide the parameters themselves once they've formally acccepted, assuming that happens. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing IZAK and Fayssal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Massive moving

Hello, are you talking about FIFA World Cup pages? Conscious 05:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take on it soon. Conscious 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, I already started moving pages (and removing tags). I hope there's nothing wrong with it. Conscious 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Closing

I noticed you closed some AfDs using the afd top/afd bottom templates. Most admins put the AfD template above the header soo it captures the whole discussion including the header. I think this is the norm anyway. I've fixed two of the AfDs you closed. Hope that's ok.--Andeh 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

response

Ok. Please go to User talk:Jdoorjam and make your suggestion.Homey 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, thanks for volunteering to perform the checkuser on Homey, though given how adamant he is about it, I don't think there's going to be much mystery in the results... nevertheless, thanks for pitching in here. JDoorjam Talk 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

article

Hi, thanks for you note. I will try to look into it, but it is not on the top of my list of "to do" things right now. That place is occupied by articles about certain books. I want to give a summary of the content in Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, and to remove the red links of Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History and Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (I want to do this before I have to return the books to the library ;-) )

I´m sorry that it looks as if it is necessary with another article, though. Sorry, but not suprised.

If you want to see a really [censored] page-move, see Deir Yassin Massacre. I find it difficult to take it seriously [13]. Regards, Huldra 07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles of Hesse

Hi Kim;

Could you move this page back to Prince Charles of Hesse-Kassel until there is a requested move? A certain user has made an enourmous amount of undiscussed moves, bad article creations and has left numerous double, triple and quadruple redirects in the past. Thanks. Charles 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a problem at all. I am always grateful for direction to the right procedure. Charles 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That is quite understandable. I wish I could find the background on the entire issue, but that could be used as the material for a short novel! I will use the request move. Thank you. Charles 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi, KimvdLinde, I saw that you did a speedy delete on an article called "Pende" today (it's listed in the deletion log at 04:07, 9 July 2006). I noticed another similar article, Kasi, that may be related. I thought it might fit the same speedy delete criteria, but I'm shy about putting up AfD notices, so I thought I'd run it by you. Thanks! -Tapir Terrific 04:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Acer negundo

Hi Kim - having moved Manitoba Maple to its scientific name, any chance you could help out with moving the rest of the maple species pages to scientific names so as to retain consistency of use within the genus (there's just over 20 to do) - thanks, MPF 09:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is actually very inconsistent having some species at sci names and others at common names; it means they are not all listed together in their category, with some under 'A' and others under 'M' - which makes it very hard for someone to find a particular species in the index. If you're not willing to accept all the pages being moved to sci names (which I clearly indicated was a condition of my acceptance of the Manitoba Maple page move), then there is not a consensus for the move and its move was premature (actually, I thought it was premature anyway, with only two people commenting). In that event, I think it should be moved back to its previous name to see if others wish to contribute; Manitoba Maple is a widely used regional common name in a substantial part of the species' native area (Canada) and thus perfectly valid as a page name under the current WP:TOL rules. - MPF 13:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecolog

I would never have thought of going there. Doesn't occur to connect those two worlds (except the other day when the Lindzen piece in the Wall Street Journal drew so much attention, and I thought about directing people to the WP article...) Excellent idea though. Guettarda 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to follow the discussion at natural selection - ever since the Marcos mess I kinda avoid getting involved. Anyway, there are lots of good people there that I trust to get it right. I have (had) more important things to do like watch football ;)

I think Wirt Atmar's position came closest to what I was thinking (now he'd be an interesting one to tempt into Wikipedia). Fitness is never one-dimensional, so a population that was maladapted would still experience differential selection. But it did make me think about hyaenas. Dominance is inherited - the daughters of dominant female inherit high status, in part because they have access to more food. Dominance depends on aggression, which is probably linked to the high levels of testosterone in female hyaenas... which results in profound masculinisation. Since the females have to give birth through their pseudo-penis, which requires the newborn to make a 180° turn on the way out, most births to first-time mothers are stillborn.

To begin with, based on what I know, the daughters of low-status females can never become high-status. They have fewer offspring because they have less access to food and higher stress levels. The only way for a low-ranked female to pass on her genes is through her sons (and since they disperse at a younger age than do the sons of high-ranked females, and since male status is based on seniority, they probably have a better chance of reproducing than do the sons of high-ranked females (who stick around their natal clan longer, because they enjoy a good standard of living, they just aren't allowed to mate).

None of that sounds like natural selection. Differential surival is a function of social status, rather than better genes. While they may correlate, they don't have to. Without the heritable component, maladapted traits (like giving birth through a penis) are part of the population because they are a consequence of other traits, which are adaptive... (I'm not a hyaena person, but I can probably dig up refs. Of course, all my info actually comes from grad student colloquia, so I may be wrong). Guettarda 05:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

GIS/Maping

Hi, do you happen to know of any software that can be used to produce maps showing global/local species distributions? What I am thinking of is something where I can enter species found per given country and then it'll generate a map with countries/areas shaded or coloured to show where a given species is found. Any assistance greately appreciated. If I have to do this manually in photoshop with maps it will take a long time! regards... Alois visagie 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality POV

I've removed the parts of my edit that suggest a point of view. Also, might I point out that my edit does not contain any original research, but rather a logical conclusion drawn from an examination of statistics. There is no need to split hairs over technicalities when a perfectly logical and relevant point has been introduced - one which anyone could easily understand and approve of. My edit is controversial in a sense, but you cannot deny it's validity. At the very least, re-word it to your standards; the concept deserves to be in that article.

FYI

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24392-2261812_1,00.html

I wonder how it is called in wiikipedia ? By the most common name is english ? Zeq 08:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Bear Lake move clarification

From Talk:Bear Lake (Idaho-Utah):

I am not going to move the page, Bear Lake is an huge disambig page, and although at the actual lake level, this might be the most important one, there is no reason to exclude the towns from the discussion. So, despite the consensus, this is a bad idea. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "no reason to exclude the towns from the discussion", as we did discuss towns. Or did you mean we should have posted the move request on other pages as well? Just need a little clarification, I'm feeling slow today :) --Lethargy 19:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oral Sex Article - New Pictures, Seeking your endorsement.

Hey KimvdLinde. I've been following the oral sex article problems with the 3 images of homosexuals for a while now and have finally got around to making 3 new images for it. I thought I'd inform you directly as you seem to be quite prolific on that article in mediating the dispute and an administrator. Here is an example of my proposed new image to replace the female-female cunnilingus image -

(be warned it is of course graphic) I have tried to make my images as unbiased as possible, namely by making it hard to tell what gender the person administering oral sex is. I see this as being the only way to resolve the dispute with all sides satisfied, I've also tried to make the images less graphic as that was another complaint, but still show the nuts and bolts of oral sex. There is still some work to be done to that image but I'm very concious that I may be wasting my time if people arent happy so I wanted to get your feedback on it if possible before I go any further. If this picture has your endorsement then I shall go ahead and make the other 2 images. I wanted to run it by you first as i'm sure you understand making the pictures is a time consuming process and I don't want to waste time that would possibly be better spent making diagrams for other articles if this doesnt resolve the dispute. Thanks for your help! --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Fellatio.png

---

The above file's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion. See files for discussion to help reach a consensus on what to do.

Just a quick update to show you my proposed new fellatio image. Feedback on this would also be appreciated. Cheers --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Final image of the set of three. I will also put it on the oral sex article itself. Thanks so much for your tim eon this Kim, Hopefully once these are up the long running dispute will be over. Though I suspect its more likely that we shall still get the odd "thats outrageous" comment. Time will tell. Ta. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out with the Sms.ac page. We've been in the process of overhauling it recientally. Nookdog 03:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My talkpage

Thanks for reverting, seems like I'll have to get to grips with being a target now :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking with me

Hi Kim, wanted to say a very special thanks to you for sticking with me so faithfully. I hope to prove myself worthy.

Best wishes - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You may scale down the image if you wish... ;) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes!

We seem to be running into each other on that poll -- what's going on? Somehow, my first attempt ended up with the box closing at the wrong place, then I stomped you accidentally. What should we do? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just tried to follow the instructions on the "How to move a page", and tried to use {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}}; seems to me pollbottom is messed up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Glad you were there watching; it is certainly the case that attempting to follow instructions can be quite hazardous on a wiki! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

does not make sense

Kim,

The issue is not "your" evidence or "my" evidence. [14]. The issue is to correctly identify the actions and if a action is composed of two steps one require admin privilage and the other is part of it they both sould be highlighted. Specifically, when an article is protected a move require an admin privilage so you shoul;d highlight in bold the move as well as the deltee or unprotect. Please revert your edit back to a fair and accurate presentation. Zeq 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, a move during protect clearly require admin privilge - please revert. Zeq 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

I agree - but the german whos who is different and the source of that phrase could be the press kit form the Wikimedia Foundation. But I think those are enough reliable sources that if they were wrong - the would be corrected. Additionally, I reviewed the history and Jimmy only objected to the BD when it was, in fact, the wrong date. --Trödel 04:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the wikimedia foundation and the whos who in germany are not reliable. Additionally, to say that the conference organizers of that many different conferences are all unreliable is not reasonable. --Trödel 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious as to what former user is using the IP to push some kind of agenda on Jimbo's page. --Trödel 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Amorrow

Doesn't exist yet^[15]. Since you've been dealing with him a bit recently, perhaps you might be able to help write up something, mostly for the sake of certain administrators who patrol the page protection logs/categories on a regular basis, you know, something to help keep the wheel wars at a minimum. — Jul. 16, '06 [16:56] <freak|talk>

Islamic apartheid

Please see my merger proposal at Talk:Islamic_apartheidHomey 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Kim,

I completely disagree with your participation in closing the vote because you are not a neutral party and have identified yourself as such during your participation in the vote.

To be frank, I believe that you have used your powers as an administrator to subvert the result of the poll to your own biased agenda. I of course hope that it is not so, and I would like you to reassure me that I am in the wrong.

There was no vote rigging, all of these people were involved in the article at one point of another, it is no different then Huldra notifying Zeq of a poll in progress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeq#Deir_Yassin Then you report me for a flimsy non violation.

I suggest that instead of finalizing the vote, you get another administrator to close it because your participation makes it fishy.

Since when is a no consensus to move something back result in moving something back?

• 1.) You initiate the vote.
• 2.) You voted against it.
• 3.) You interperted the vote and it remarkably ended up exactly as you wanted.

I hope to hear from you soon,

Guy Montag 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim,

Please edit your version of the article in a subpage so we can then synthesize it with my version. It will become very cumbersome to have to look in the history page all the time.

Guy Montag 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There was only one website used and two accounts used. Please also note that the Beirzit university study in its unedited form was available in the version before my own. Everything else is from direct sources. In any case, it is going to be settled next week, when there will be major synthesis of articles. I suggest you plan by making a backup or starting a workshop where we can edit it together without major disruption to the article itself.

Guy Montag 19:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

CUT AND PASTED FROM Talk:HIV test

Criticisms have been made by orthodox researchers. In fact, virtually all the Perth group's papers in their references are in the orthodox literature! So, apparently it's not just "dissidents" criticising the tests. 198.59.188.232 23:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Darin. (Isn't it strange how your user page says you have "retired", yet you keep on making anonymous edits?) Just because some of the Perth Group's papers have been published in (usually obscure) mainstream journals, that doesn't mean that the editors of those journals agree with them. Do you know of any non-dissident scientists who have explicitly criticised modern HIV antibody tests? If not then I think we should revert to my wording. Trezatium 19:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I *HAVE* retired from making positive contributions to the Wikipedia. I feel a moral obligation, however, to respond to the misinformation and claptrap that continues to be peddled at a few particular articles here (specifically AIDS reappraisal and HIV test). Read the 1993 Perth paper. (Obviously you haven't. Or you're too just too flat out stupid to understand it.) BTW, their paper was published in Nature Bio/technology, which is one of the most prestigious journals, about as far from "obscure" as you can get!! Another piece of evidence that tells me you haven't read it or have no clue about the biology world. And its editor at the time was Harvey Bialy, who agrees with their major thrust of their criticisms of the WB test. They [Perth] make direct quotes of ORTHODOX researchers. Almost every reference and quote they make is to the ORTHODOX literature. A few examples:

"In half of the cases in which a subject had a positive p24 test, the subject later had a negative test without taking any medications that would be expected to affect p24 antigen levels...the test is clinically erratic and should be interpreted very cautiously.", Todak, G., Klein, E., Lange, M. et al. 1991. A clinical appraisal of the p24 Antigen test, p326. In: Vol. I, Abstracts VII International Conference on AIDS, Florence.

"On the basis of our positive Western Blot data, it appears that parenteral drug users may have been exposed to HTLV-III or a related virus as early as 1971. An alternative but equally viable explanation is that the HTLV-III seropositivity detected in these specimens represents false positive or non-specific reactions.", Jaffe, J.H., Moore, J.D., Cone, E.J. et al. 1986. HTLV-III Seropositivity in 1971-1972 Parenteral Drug Abusers-A case of false Positives or Evidence of Viral Exposure? NEJM 314:1387-1388.

"To culture is to disturb.", Meyerhans, A., Cheynier, R., Albert, J. et al. 1989. Temporal Fluctuations in HIV quasispecies in vivo are not reflected by sequential HIV isolations. Cell 58:901-910.

This is in addition to many indirect quotes and relaying of results. This all comes from the ORTHODOX literature itself. I would LOVE to see your retort to these people, as these are NOT "denialists". These people are supposedly on "your side". Other examples (not from Perth):

"Problems may be encountered when an HIV Western Blot is done on someone at no identifiable risk of infection. For example, recent studies of blood donors in whom no risk of HIV infection could be ascertained, who were nonreactive on the ELISA, and for whom all other tests for HIV were negative, revealed that 20% to 40% might have an indeterminate Western Blot...", and ""Notable causes of false positive reactions have been antibodies that sometimes occur in multiparous women and in multiply transfused patients. Likewise, antibodies to proteins of other viruses have been reported to cross react with HIV determinants. False positive HIV ELISA's also have been observed recently in persons who received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis B virus.", Proffitt MR & Yen Lieberman B (1993, June). Laboratory diagnosis of HIV infection. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 7(2).; 203-215.

"Our results document a fourth source of false positive HIV-1 Western Blot results, which is the reproducible but nonspecific reactivity to (proteins from HIV)... Preliminary studies suggest that the basis for this cross reactivity with HIV-1 gp 41 proteins may be infection by paramyxoviruses, carbohydrate antibodies, or autoantibodies against cellular proteins.", # Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtemeier G et al. (1996). False positive HIV-1 Western Bloy tests in noninfected blood donors. Transfusion 36; 45-52.

Montagnier's group concluded that gp 41 "may be due to contamination of the virus by cellular actin which was present...in all the cell extracts", Barre-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, Montagnier L, et al. (1983). Isolation of a T-lymphotrtophic retrovirus from a patient at risk for AIDS. Science 220: 868-871.

"Circulating levels of plasma virus determined by (quantitative) PCR correlated with, but exceeded by an average of 60,000-fold, numbers of infectious HIV-1 that were determined by quantitative culture of identical portions of plasma... Total virions have been reported (in other studies) to exceed culturable infectious units by factors of 1000 to 10,000,000, ratios similar to those we observed in plasma.", Piatak M, Saag MS, Yang LC, et al. (1993). High levels of HIV-1 in plasma during all stages of infection determined by quantitative competitive PCR. Science 259; 1749-1754.

I could go on and on. But it's clear you haven't familiarised yourself with the orthodox literature, let alone "denialist" literature. 198.59.188.232 06:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

Arbitration

You presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse. Please click Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration Israel Article--Oiboy77 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Margana

This user is still edit warring on Psephos. Xtra 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I under stood

Hi Kim,

I don't care about the "reason" (which seems to be a software bug) I care about any diffs used in evidence to show the correct edit and give the correct impression. Maybe you can insert the correct diff (showing I did not touch most of the paragrph that wrongly apear as if I deleted it). Tnx, Zeq 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes

I think you got it. Now the issue is how to correct the evidence page. Zeq 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre

Thank you for grouping Srebrenica massacre references, I don't know how to do it. Can you group of repetitive references? There is lots of them pointing to UN's judgement, Prosecutor vs. Krstic. Thanks!--Bosniak 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Necklace (sexuality)

Dear lady of the linden tree, please examine this AfD. Magister Erik the Rude 02:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)