User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive32

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:#b2a4c5;" {| align="center"} {| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"
 * align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#80737C; background-color:#dda0dd; color:#000000;"| Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. &mdash; Robert Frost
 * valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#b2a4c5; background-color: #faf5ff; color:#000000;"|
 * valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#b2a4c5; background-color: #faf5ff; color:#000000;"|

your review page
Thanks for your note. I'm unsure what can be added to the criteria, which are reasonably explicit about the requirements. The title of the page suggests that it's not directed at nominators—only at reviewers. Tony 09:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the title's wrong—no hyphen. And I wonder whether (either in the title, or perhaps in the main text) you can include the FAR/C process? It's very similar. (WP:FAR) Tony 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Anything that raises the profile of reviewing in the FAC room is worth doing. There aren't enough reviewers to go around, and there certainly aren't enough copy-editors.

The FARC process seems to be so close to the FAC process WRT the skills required of reviewers that I think it's a good opportunity to link them here, even if the title highlights only the FAC process. They're mirror-images of each other: the FAC process is for promoting; the FARC for demoting. One's in, the other's out, and both have a steady flow. In fact, the FARC process (and its newly conceived initial review stage) has been flooded with nominations, and we're only just coping. Your input there would be greatly appreciated. Tony 10:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the trend to Harvard away from footnotes in hard-copy (academic writing) because I hate interrupting my reading to see the author and year; I like WP's emphasis on footnotes because they're less intrusive than Harvard and are but a click away; WP readers are less likely to want to check them out as they read, too.


 * However, I've have to admit that I'm not big on the whole reference debate here: I just know when they're missing. SandyGeorgia is the expert, so you might consider bringing Sandy in on this.


 * Am I sensing that this page might be explicitly written for reviewers, but that there'll be an implicit assumption that potential nominators will read it too? If so, that widens the scope a little, and may bring together both communities in what should be a common pursuit. Tony 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To that end, I've posted a note on the talk page for FAR/C. Tony 11:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted some guidelines on the page you suggested. Do check out! Dbuckner 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Got your note. I thought I did have e-mail activated, so I don't know what's wrong: I'll check that when I have time. Anyway, not to worry, I'm not upset. Indignant perhaps at the lack of gratitude and the personal ax those folks are grinding after all the time we gave their article, and considering the serious personal abuse they unleashed upon us and which we took in good stride and with grace. I'm more irritated about the neglect of other projects. I don't think they have any idea of the consequences of all those FAs that get promoted without a serious review: we have to deal with them on FAR. Anyway, time to take a step back, and revisit it another day, but nothing unmanageable here :-) Thanks for the note, Sandy 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

BLP template color test
Something to consider. I think the green color is both pleasant and catches attention.

Purple version:

This tag should only be placed on the talk page of the article.

'Newer version:

Code for light green color

CCFFCC

Test of purple version with light green

This tag should only be placed on the talk page of the article.

-- Fyslee 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list
Yes! Thanks a lot! :-) --HappyCamper 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NathanDW
FYI, I blocked him and his ips for 3rr on Chip Berlet. Tom Harrison Talk 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute thingy
Thanks for your notes, SV. I'll say it again, you have done a great job. And I'm trying not to take sides on this. The whole point is to make it easier for admins & reviewers by forcing contributors to support their position with evidence, citations & so forth. This point is simply not coming across. Perhaps everyone is a little too het up right now. Best Dbuckner 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

your comment
You're "stunned by [my] rudeness"? Jeesh, looks as though any point of view that you don't like is "rude". Tony 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi - just wanted to say hello, and thanks for your calm and good sense around the whole Putnam/WP:REVIEW thing. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

List of notable supporters of PETA
It seems the nominator choosed to interpret the result of the afd as "delete and merge". I understand that afd aren't so much a vote as they as a discussion. So the twice as many votes for keep don't necessarily count if they don't make a good argument against the nominator (right?). But I'm still baffled as to why it was interpreted the way it was. It only received 1 vote for merge. Do you think the section would be better off back in the article? Let me know what you think. If you have a minute, maybe take a look at the deletion review process initiated by Ramdrake. Thanks Jean-Philippe 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

...every reviewer here...
I won't get into a revert war but personally don't see it as an attack - it is expressing an opinion, and since Tony has already objected to the change I feel you have acted wrongly in changing it again. I hope you will reconsider, as I can't see it doing anything but escalating the personal conflict between you and Tony. Cheers Yomangani 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I can sense your frustration so I won't push it. Not feeding the troll might be the best policy though. All the best. Yomangani 00:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC comment
I hope my comment on the FAC talk page wasn't too harsh. Everyone gets a little involved from time to time :). I think your attempts to explain the FAC process for nominators, and perhaps reviewers as well, are good and I don't want to deter those at all. What I want to exphasize though is that there are several regular FAC reviewers there (Tony, Peta, Sandy, Zzzzz etc.) who have a lot of experience reviewing articles and I think any page should be weighted with their experience so that it can reflect the FAC process accurately. As for Tony, please realize that he, as well as other FAC reviewers, have adjusted their FAC objections quite a bit from what they were originally were to be less on personal preferences in an evolutionary process of sorts. RN 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Usercheck comment
I appreciate your support. Thank you. But with a user this prone to wikilawyering and pseudo-legal threats, I'd rather do everything exactly by the book. --woggly 07:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

More Kosovo weirdness
We've had some disruption on Kosovo, Kosovo Liberation Army and Template:Kosovo-InfoBox from an anonymous user who's been using multiple proxy servers to make highly contentious edits and personal attacks against me. It would appear that the person responsible is the operator of the Tonycdp account. I'd be grateful if you could check my reasoning on User talk:ChrisO/Tonycdp and let me know what you think. If I'm right, the user in question has clearly been acting dishonestly and disruptively; the question is, what should we do about it? -- ChrisO 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think sprotection is really needed, the contentious editing isn't ongoing. I do think we need to respond to the ongoing personal attacks though. I'd suggest a short block and asking him to choose one account, as you say, also reminding him of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -- ChrisO 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PA103reconstruction3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PA103reconstruction3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article of questionable value
I came across the following article, which was started by a new user - Louis hee choi tsang. It seemed suspicious, as it didn't appear to have any real value. So I googled and only got one result on his university website.

How do you list something for deletion because it's not of any value, or something? John Smith&#39;s 11:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Feeling Unclear
I am still very new here, and do not really understand the ettiqutte yet. I worked in RPGs for a while where there were real disputes, but they were very cordial and productive. I decided to try to help the philosophy project because its my field and the first task on the list was working on the Putnam article, so I tried to help. Then an awful lot happened leaving me not quite understanding how I am supposed to be helping. The first task in the al but dead aesthetics wikiproject, is to try to get aesthetics to FA. Obviously it needs more in-line cites, but that would be a short afternoon work for me. Part of me now beleives that the standards for copy-editing for FA articles are so high that nothing I can do will help to reach them. To my eyes Putnam looked well written (but lacking in-line references) at the start. I don't doubt that it was improved by the work on many professional level copy-editors. Do I need to find some way to hire professional copy-editors before nominating an article? Is the whole FA process a tar-baby that I should just stay away from, and focus on helping pages to A status instead? Was the Putnam thing really atypical, and I shouldn't be gun shy? Were people just over-critical because tempers frayed at the beginning, or it is really the case that FA articles need to be better-than-professionally written to count as "well-written"? Should I not even ask this kind of thing on your page because I'm in danger of spreading a flame war? Is there an appropriate thing for me to be doing? Right now I feel like any help I try to give to an already good article will do more harm than good, even though I am a professional, because I am not a professional copy-editor, and all my work will have to be undone by later hands if the article is ever to reach FA someday. Am I misunderstanding things? I am sorry if this post itself is an error. Bmorton3 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Allegations of Israeli apartheid
Hi Slim. Do you think (Jossi as well) the same about Islamofascism? Cheers -- Szvest 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Slim ;). -- Szvest 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal
This case has been closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam again
Hi - I've just noticed that Raul has reopened the nomination for Featured_article_candidates/Hilary_Putnam. All brief supports so far (including from Sandy, Tony, etc.), but if you wanted to support it, now's the time (again). Separately, on the WP:REVIEW thing: thanks for your note about this, and I completely agree that Tony's 'How to' should be presented as one editor's personal opinion. But to be honest, the responses have been pretty hostile - especially from Sandy - when I've added comments on this issue, so I've backed off. I support the guideline, and I think you're doing great work, but at the moment I think my most strategically sensible contribution is to stay out of it. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't make myself very clear. I'm not intimidated or hurt or anything, I just think that the best way I can support the general move towards repairing the FAC process is not to stick my oar in at the moment, since when I do I get knee-jerk responses (of the form 'you've got no experience of FAC, so your opinion's worthless'), and just seem to harden the resolve of the people who think there's nothing whatever wrong with the process. Perhaps I'm just cursed with a sarcastic tone of text. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, though - I'm not completely ducking out. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, seems I wasn't able to restrain myself for very long... Cheers, Sam Clark 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Putnam image
Yes, I emailed him, but I haven't heard back. I got his vacation auto-responder, which said he'd start going through his emails on Tuesday, so maybe he has gotten through all of them yet. --Spangineeres (háblame) 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

HIMDIME
That's a pretty cool acronym. Anyway, thanks for the touch-ups&mdash;it's amazing how blind one gets to prose problems after staring at them for months. --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Block
Hello, this ip address 208.3.69.196 have broken the 3RR rule on the Kosovo-article: He or she should be blocked.
 * 1: 13:21, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196
 * 2: 13:20, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196
 * 3: 13:15, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196
 * 4: 20:08, 9 August 2006 208.3.69.196

message
Thanks. Unfortunately I'm away on business & will have no access to the net (or at least not WP!!). Back in September. Dbuckner 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest proposal by Eloquence
Please see Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006. I know you are good at this sort of thing. Thank you. WAS 4.250 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert me without discussion
Regarding this reversion: ... I gave my reason why I feel it is important that there be a history here of the requests, and you reverted me without any discussion or rebuttal of the reason. Please do not do that going forward, but rather discuss reversion, I would appreciate it. If you have a suggestion as to how to make it clear that there is a history, which I feel is quite important in this particular case, without restoring the template itself I'm very open to that. Would a mention of a diff showing the request be acceptable to you? You can reply here, I prefer conversations to remain threaded and get confused when people reply to me on different pages. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not revert you without discussion, I restored something you removed and explained why, as part of the restoration, it wasn't a pure revert by any means. As for why he's not unblocked already, I think the reason clearly is that there's consensus that unblocking is not the right thing to do and that he should remain indef. blocked. Should consensus change, that's fine, and I'll happily support consensus, as I always do, but I don't see it yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!
  Open your card! Dear Slim, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me! My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best. Dear Slim, as I write you this, I remember the words we exchanged some time ago when you kindly offered me your support and sympathy in my worst moments at Wiki. Coming from a person who has had to endure so much suffering and bashing, your words of encouragement gave me great strength. I told you then that we would meet again, here, at your Talk page, where you belong. Now, it has come to a full circle, as we talk to each other in your rightful place, my dear friend. I'll always be proud, and honored, to remember your words to me - I'll never be able to thank you enough for what you did for me. With a big hug, your friend,  Phaedriel ♥  tell me 

tattering my posts
Please help me having others not to tatter my posts, and certainly not to edit them. People like El_C really try to follow: I want them to understand what I write, they should decide whether it's bull or not. --tickle me 05:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Going on: User_talk:Tickle_me / . --tickle me 06:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's getting insane. --tickle me 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kibbutz
I placed a long comment at Featured article review/Kibbutz if you're interested. I think it's in need of sub-articles. Cheers, Marskell 12:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:JewishFedofSeattle1.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:JewishFedofSeattle1.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Forwarded request :)
Hi Slim - how's it going :)? I was wondering if you could do me a favor and take a look at someone else's request - User:Wackymacs has been asking around to have an admin look in to possibly deleting some images, unfortunately he's scoring out with former administrators me and Carnildo :\. Here's his request


 * There are several Apple II-related images that need deletion. They all lack proper source information, and they are all tagged as orphans, as they have been replaced by me with free-use alternatives from the Wikimedia Commons.


 * I am not an admin, So I cannot delete the images myself, otherwise I would. I thought Carnildo was an admin...obviously not though.


 * The ones needing deletion are: Image:Apple IIe middle age.jpg, Image:AppleIIc2.jpg, Image:Apple IIc.jpg, Image:Apple IIGS.jpg, Image:The Apple II.jpg.


 * If they haven't got an orphan tag on them, then its because someone already removed it because there are on-going edit wars.


 * — Wackymacs 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time :) RN 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
My dear friend
 * Saw this and thought of you. Enjoy. Dakota ~

peta
Hi, sorry to bother you but I just got that on my talk page. I figured I should paste it to you since it was meant for you initialy, even tough I just reverted the article to your version. Jean-Philippe 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Can you please stop removing the "Holocaust on your Plate" heading? There's no reason for it not to be there. 172.210.202.216 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)"

Mary Wollstonecraft
The Mary Wollstonecraft article has recently been added to the Core Biographies list. As such, it requires a quality evaluation. It seems that a major issue with the article is that one or more sections seem to have been plagarized at some point. The discussion of the plagarism problem seems to have ended over a year ago, and judging by diff comparisons it looks like large amounts of the article have been largely rewritten since the plagerism problem was first brought up. However, the talk page still has a copyright violation template on it and there is no definitive statement on the page as to whether or not the plagerism issue was resolved. Obviously this will make a huge difference on the quality evaluation, so it would be enormously helpful if someone involved with the article (such as yourself) could post some statement on the talk page as to the status of the plagarism issue. If it is in fact resolved, the copyright violation template should be removed from the talk page. Kaldari 01:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After painstakingly reviewing the entire history of the article, I have determined that none of the material suspected of copyright violation remains in the article. Thus I have removed the cv-unsure template from the talk page. If you would like to review my analysis, please see Reviewing the copyvio issues on the talk page. Kaldari 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates "not recommended" again
The texts you, and now JonAwbrey are introducing can be understood to discourage the use of citation templates. There are ways to say the same thing without discouraging them, such as the form I suggested in WP:CITE, but you have not used them. If you are going to insist on saying "not recommended" then you might as well say "don't use these unless you can't write citations yourself." I get the impression you don't like them. In most contexts, I don't either; I especially don't like them used in-line with footnotes. But not recommended is going too far.

On another note, I have seen it said many times that policy pages should not be changed without prior discussion. Gimmetrow 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WR link in the list of banned users
I apologize for retaining the link to Wikipedia Review, which had been added by an anon, in my expansion of 's entry on WP:LOBU. I don't know where my head was. I detest WR and everyone associated with it. I have an idea, though: Perhaps, for the purposes of evidence, we could provide the URL within nowiki tags, preferably on WP:ANI or similar pages rather than on WP:LOBU. szyslak (t, c, e ) 11:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I wonder if KF's association with WR has something to do with his support of the Mistress Selina Kyle troll, which went on even as s/he was blocked indefinitely. szyslak (t, c, e ) 11:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me
You accusations of sockpuppetry against me have gone way overboard. It appears that you have embarked on a mission to label every anonymous IP or single-use account that has edited any page I have ever touched to be one of my sockpuppets, as well as labelling anyone with the temerity to challenge you publically as such. You have little (in many cases no) evidence to support these claims, other than a spurious "Contributions" link. It would appear from Wikipedia and various other public forums that you have many enemies, but blaming me for every nasty thing that happens on Wikipedia is unwise and unreasonable. It is unwise as it conveniantly blames one person (me) for everything you don't like, rather than the multitude who you have offended; and it is unreasonable, as the accounts/IPs you label as sockpuppets have, in many cases, made numerous contributions to articles with which I have no history, and in most other cases have done nothing offensive whatsoever.

I have no doubt that, as an administrator and immune from scrutiny, that you will change your behaviour, but I will say this:
 * 1) I am not using the accounts you have listed as either suspected or actual sockpuppets;
 * 2) I am not harassing you, stalking you, or involved in any articles not in my contribution list; and
 * 3) I do not appreciate your punitive laying of every nasty action on Wikipedia at my doorstep.

The situation with User:Anomicene was unfortunate (and I won't explain it because you wouldn't believe me anyway), but you more than anyone, are now in danger of fostering a permanent state of ill-will, and I suggest that, as you have counselled others so often, just move on, or failing that, please apply more diligence to finding your perpetrator(s), as it is not I. -- Gnetwerker 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust on your Plate
Someone created an article that I would call a content fork about that section I edited this morning. I'm not that lazy that I wouldn't nominate it myself for deletion, if only I knew what argument would be most effective. I've asked for help on the afd talk page, if you have a minute maybe you could go take a look at it. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I might have jumped the gun here as I've been pointed out. There's always room for discussion, so I've created a temporary redirect for now. Jean-Philippe 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Homey
''The user is under a community ban. Fred Bauder unblocked him on condition he restrict his editing to his arbitration cases, which he has not done.''

Your information is out of date. Bauder lifted his restrictions on ex-Homey earlier today. (See the admin discussion board.) CJCurrie 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While Ex-Homey's recent edits may have been unnecessarily provocative under the circumstances, they do not constitute "disruption". I do not believe there is any procedural justification for the current block.


 * (You will note, incidentally, that I've been reluctant to lift the block myself. On principle, I do not wish to create even the appearance of a conflict of interest in these matters.)  CJCurrie 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
My dear friend
 * Saw this and thought of you. Enjoy. Dakota ~

Mary Wollstonecraft
Hi Kaldari, thanks for your note about the above. I don't know whether the copyright issue was ever sorted out completely. I don't entirely trust the version that's on the page. It wasn't written by a regular editor, none of the references have been checked, and it does seem a bit POV. However, to check it all would involve a lot of work. I've been tempted to reduce it back to a stub, but haven't because that would be a lot of material to remove, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed with it. SlimVirgin <font color="Purple">(talk) 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the current version was written by an academic, probably someone in the Women's Studies department of a university, judging by the writing style and their talk page comments. Personally, I doubt it's plagarized just from their defense on the talk page. My experience is generally that copyvios don't get defended by their posters, much less discussed in depth. I agree, however, that it could use a bit of POV/OR cleaning. And, of course, someone should try to verify the sources at some point. Maybe next time I'm at the library :) Kaldari 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I may have spoken too soon. Although there isn't any blatant plagiarism in the article, there are definitely some borderline sections. See my comments at the end of the talk page. Kaldari 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 04:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes
I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox final solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.

-- Cyde Weys 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again
For looking into. :) RN 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused
In touch with other admins? This can include me if you like, I'd like to know how you figure out Gnetwerker's sockpuppets. Ashi b aka tock 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, keep up the good work (^^; Ashi b aka tock 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on terrorism
You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Here you removed a large amount from your talk page with the summary archiving. It appears that you did not actually create an archive of the discussion and that you simply removed it. The removed text contained warnings. As you probably know, removing warnings from your text page is considered vandalism. I will AGF and assume it was simply an accident. Could you please restore the text (or even just the warnings) or properly archive them? Paul Cyr 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The NPA report, Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard, was filed by, who is undoubtedly one of the editors locked in a bitter RFAr with SlimVirgin. This same editor also started an utterly baseless user conduct RFC against SlimVirgin and the other party to the RFAr Jayjg, Requests for comment/SlimJay. This compounds the evidence that user:69.29.223.226 is using Wikipedia's systems to settle scores and wage a personal vendetta against SlimVirgin arising out of the RFAr. SlimVigin's incivility was clearly provoked and understandable to anyone who bothered to look beyond the diff, not to mention a very rare instance. The reaction at WP:PAIN was over the top.

Though I'm heartened to see there's such an abundance of good faith there that even a shady anon can game the system and malign a respected admin to such a degree that warnings are issued and threats are made when the misbegotten warnings are removed, but I'm saddened to see an absence of critical thinking and looking beyond the diffs. I'm unsure which is the bigger problem. I for one support SlimVigin's removal of the warning, it was clearly the result of a cynical editor gaming the system, and part of a greater campaign now taking place at WP:RFC. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Felonious, I've replied to your comments on WP:PAIN. Paul Cyr 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's amusing that people who delete all criticisms from their talk page lecture other people about doing just that, much like they engage in personal attacks after lecturing other people about (fake) personal attacks. And that from someone who still has less than 400 edits to the encyclopaedia part of Wikipedia.  He appears to be here primarily to troll.  Guettarda 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought the name was familiar. SlimVirgin <font color="Purple">(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironic that Guettarda told me to stop harrassing him and to leave him alone, yet here he is wikistalking me. In anycase, your first sentence makes no sense, as I have not made any personal attacks (and you still refuse to provide diffs showing so) and I have not removed criticisms from my talk page (at least within the past many months).  Please stop wikistalking me, harrassing me and being a dick. Paul Cyr 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Nice to see that you're willing to erupt a resolved situation for your own purposes.
 * And now someone has complained about you on WP:PAIN. What a turn of events! SlimVirgin <font color="Purple">(talk) 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately abusing report boards for a vendetta is something I imagine is not taken lightly, especially from an administrator. Either that or WP:NPA has changed and we're going to start to see people warned for saying stop being confrontational. Paul Cyr 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Intelligent Design minority POV
Slim, I saw your remarks at FM's talk page and was wondering whether you agree with my comment that the views of ID supporters should be given more space than they have been given, and that they should not be excluded from articles which are devoted to ID? --Uncle Ed 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Challenge
Ok, I'm at a loss at what are the best sources for such a basic, interdicsiplinary article like fuel. How do you cite something so basic? You once said anything could be cited, so I'd like to hear on the talk page how you think that can be done on that article. :) Also, got your email, but sorry, I didn't want to drag that one out more. - Taxman Talk 02:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, I'm not asking you to work on it or fix it, just tell me how you think something so basic can be cited. It's going to be common knowledge to anyone that has studied chemistry or physics. - Taxman Talk 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal
Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and WikiProject/List of proposed projects. Cheers, Localzuk (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, lets deal with the naming issue. I don't propose splitting it. The 2 names are 2 choices that we could use. Not 2 seperate projects. So depending on the scope of the project in the end, the name would be designed to encompass that scope. We don't list anything on here under a category called 'Animal Rights' but instead list it under 'Animal Liberation Movement'. We also list things under 'Animal Welfare'. So my 2 choices were based on a scope of animal rights being called WikiProject Animal Liberation Movement and the other being a scope of all animal rights and welfare coming under a WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare (named Animal Rights in order to keep the name short).
 * Second, regarding the invitations. I am simply inviting all those users who have engaged in discussion on animal rights related pages. If I do not do this then this will lead to allegations of the project being biased. Also it would not stop such users joining the project anyway, and it may well be worth seeing what they have to say at this stage, rather than them jumping in and causing chaos later. Many of the editors who have edited disruptively over the last couple of months have done so due to there not being any guidelines on the things I mentioned. If there were guidelines, then I doubt the editors would have been so bad, instead they may have discussed the guideline instead.-Localzuk (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How about
This : Zeq 11:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain back again?
Since you blocked one of User:Ptmccain's sockpuppets before, perhaps you're up for it again: User talk:24.107.121.195. Peyna 16:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther
When you have a chance, perhaps you could take a look at the Martin Luther discussion page, at which suggestions both major and stylistic have been advanced.--Mantanmoreland 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jews & Animal rights
Hi, Slim. I left a comment for you at Talk:Jews for Animal Rights. --Uncle Ed 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain redux
Using AOL as promised.--Mantanmoreland 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If Ptmccain can't get this out of his system I wonder if a semi-protect would be in order?--Mantanmoreland 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a new tool
Hi SlimVirgin. I just happened to stumble across User:Cacycle/wikEd. It seems to be pretty new (warning: alpha quality), but looks quite promising. It can highlight ref parts in the edit window. But please don't ask me too much about it. I just started playing with it and thought this might be of interest for you in the longer run. Apologies if you should happen to know this already. --Ligulem 09:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

spaces and footnotes
They look pretty goofy with the extra space, if you ask me, but if there is a policy saying that that's OK, I'm happy to ignore it. Uucp 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User page on Meta
Hello SlimVirgin,

I've semi-protected your user page and talk page on Meta due to repeated attack by IP's. Korg (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker
Hi SlimVirgin, wasn't aware of the issues. Will defer to your better judgment. Cheers -- Samir  धर्म 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your query
Hello, SV. Thanks for the note about suggested edit from "animal liberation" to "animal welfare." To explain my reasoning, it is apparent from the author's website, linked at the bottom of the article, that his book argues from the tradition of moral concern for animals and an abhorrence for cruelty. The book itself deals at some length with difference between that outlook and the concept of "animal liberation." As I'm sure you know from previous editorial disputes, there are many differences between the two terms and what they represent. In this case, "animal welfare" seems a better fit, as is clear from the Library Journal review on author website: "This is one of the best books ever written on the subject of animal welfare." Anyway, appreciate your asking. Egajbs

Ptmccain redux
Using AOL as promised.--Mantanmoreland 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If Ptmccain can't get this out of his system I wonder if a semi-protect would be in order?--Mantanmoreland 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a new tool
Hi SlimVirgin. I just happened to stumble across User:Cacycle/wikEd. It seems to be pretty new (warning: alpha quality), but looks quite promising. It can highlight ref parts in the edit window. But please don't ask me too much about it. I just started playing with it and thought this might be of interest for you in the longer run. Apologies if you should happen to know this already. --Ligulem 09:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

spaces and footnotes
They look pretty goofy with the extra space, if you ask me, but if there is a policy saying that that's OK, I'm happy to ignore it. Uucp 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User page on Meta
Hello SlimVirgin,

I've semi-protected your user page and talk page on Meta due to repeated attack by IP's. Korg (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker
Hi SlimVirgin, wasn't aware of the issues. Will defer to your better judgment. Cheers -- Samir  धर्म 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice
Slim, have you seen this? I'm aware that the Damadian talk page is entirely the wrong forum for discussing the issue they have with Dunc, but, I'm not clear on whether it can be removed. Thanks <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :)  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

40,000
You're about to hit the old four - oh - kay. Editingwise. (Ahem. Some of us reached that milestone hundreds of edits ago.) Well, even so, let me be the first to welcome you, prematurely, to the Society of Too-Many Edits (SOTME). You're now eligible for the Wikipedia swag bag, with a value of hundreds of thousands of accolades (the IRS will want its cut). Cheers, -Will Beback 11:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ALF
Hi SV, could you explain why the ALF does not meet the definition for a Designated terrorist organization? I can't see why being named as such by the US Dept of Homeland Security, a department of the Federal Government of the United States, is any different than being named by the US State Department (which is given as an example). Thanks.  Rockpock e  t  17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes sense!  Rockpock e  t  17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

CC'd from RockPocket's talk page:


 * Incorrect SlimVirgin. There are organizations that exist in the united states that are on official lists of terrorist organizations (DOD, FBI, state dept. etc.), and are still allowed to operate/raise money. ALF is one that comes to mind. GreenPeace was another, they were on the FBI list. Westboro Baptist Church is on the DoD list. When I was working full time counter-terrorism/force protection for the army, we would get the CT briefings with a full list of terrorist organizations operating in our area, and some of the names on the lists were very public organizations that were actively engaged in fundraising activities. Religious organizations like IIIT, SCC, IRO, Al Wafa, etc still operate in the US. For a Terrorist organization to have their bank accounts seized, they must be on the Terrorist Exclusion List. I will CC this to your talk page.  &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

talk:God
Your changes have been impressive. -Ste|vertigo 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker
FYI: an admin apparently didn't listen to your notice and deleted Gnetwerker's /hist page. Paul Cyr 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just had to say
Just had to say that Bruegel picture overlapping visually on top of the Wikipedian classification boxes is... yikes! Highly disturbing to the eye! --wayland 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party
Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've responded at PUI. In terms of the larger issue, we have a sort of haphazard approach to derivative works.  If I take a picture of a busy street, and there's a poster in a storefront window, we tend to ignore it.  But if I take a picture of a poster, and it is clear that the subject of the photograph is the poster, we tend to delete it.  There are plenty of cases in between these two where we just try to come to some sort of reasonable decision after discussion.  Jkelly 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi SlimVirgin, I saw some of your comments about journalism at PUI for this, and I responded about the image, but not about journalism. Since your a journalist, here's my tidbit on jourlism and copyrights: Jourlism gets a leeway in showing stuff as part of news under fair use.(see Chap17, § 107, where news is explicitly listed)  Though its still limited too.  See this article about a human cannonball, where a news station showed the entire 15 second performance and he sued..  The supreme court ruled 5/4 in his favor.  As for using it under fair use, FUC #10 seems like its major obstacle at this point, since noone knows who made the poster, and the photograph may have no rights to that image.(see PUI for more on that)  Hope this helps you in future issues with images that may not be free, maybe the next one won't have a dispute attached to it like that one did.  Kevin_b_er 06:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rat Park
I know that you have worked a lot on this article, and I can understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with your editing out the intro statement "The series of experiments were conducted as part of the debate about the nature of addiction, and whether social solutions, or medical and legal responses, are the best way to curb addictive behavior." To use your own words, "The thing about your intro is that it didn't say what was special about Rat Park. Someone reading the intro should be given an overview of the article such that, if they want to, they can read the intro and nothing else, and still get the gist of the page..." Well, that statement alone gives the clearest and most succinct explanation of the experiment. I don't want to get into an edit fight over this, but I really would prefer if you didn't delete the statement. 24.126.199.129 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings poll
Even though Polls are evil, you may or may not be interested in this one. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 02:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking of dates and edits to Ronnie Lee
Greetings, SlimVirgin. I typed my reply to you on my own talk page, but, due to some technical glitch on my computer, was unable to export it to your talk page. Romanspinner // talk 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A question of your opinion on NOR
In the case where the transcript says "Terrorists are bad people", we are in agreement. And - that agreement prefers the primary source over the secondary source. So if you and I agree that in this case the primary source is preferred, do you see why I resist changes to NOR that say primary sources are not preferred?

In the case where the President's transcript said "I don't like terrorists and I always like good people," and the CNN article said "The President said terrorists are bad people", then here are my thoughts:


 * The President said terrorists are bad people [link to complete transcript of president's remarks]. <- no, because the president did not say that.
 * The President said terrorists are bad people [link to CNN coverage of president's remarks]. <- better, but the president STILL did not say that.

I prefer:
 * The presidents remarks have been interpreted to mean that he believes terrorists are bad people [link to CNN coverage of president's remarks].

Good night for now - O^O 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS dispute
Sorry to bother you yet again, but there is a dispute about whether certain sources meet WP:RS and you seemed like the person to ask for an opinion on it if you have time. See | here. The issue is essentially whether the ADL and TheocracyWatch are reliable sources. JoshuaZ 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

How to handle disputes
Hi Slim. I've seen you around here, and I know you've dealt with your share of disputes, so perhaps you can help with mine. I'm in a bit of a dispute over language (FWIW it's here). Would it be in bad taste to request a third opinion on the Language reference desk? I know spamming, etc., is discouraged, but putting up a request on WP:3O always takes a long time and usually doesn't work to well. In your experience, what is the best way to do this? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#E2E7FF; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 90%"> Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you reverting?
Why are you reverting me? You've said yourself that some say it's anti-zionism and some say it's anti-semitism. In such a case as I'm sure you know it is common practice on Wikipedia to say, "X says Y about Z". (→ Netscott ) 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have only one source stating it is anti-Semitism (and a source who you must admit is rather questionable in terms of reliability). (→ Netscott ) 14:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning?
Since you've placed a warning on my talk page I'm bringing this to your talk page. Please show me four diffs where I've undid someone's editing on New anti-Semitism. If you can't do that then kindly remove your warning. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:HA
Knock it off. -SV
 * Does it now? -Ste|vertigo 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

lord moyne page
nice work on the page, I thank you for your efforts. Amoruso 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with a stalker
This nasty little troll continues to post my location in an effort to intimidate me.

he goes by 12.72.119.59 but has other ip addresses as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Diana_Irey

132.241.246.111 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther
Hey Slim, I'm gradually working my way through the Core Biographies (especially those slated for Version 0.5) to make sure there are no obvious outstanding problems (copyvio, POV, etc.). I scanned through the Martin Luther article and it mostly seemed up to snuff, except for the part of the intro discussing Luther's anti-Semitism. The gist of the content is fine, however, the style is very awkward for an intro. Since you are a prominent contributer to the article, I was wondering if you could look over my suggested change on the talk page and let me know if it is acceptable. I'm beginning to wonder if there are any Core Biographies that you are not a prominent contributor to :) Kaldari 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please respond
It took me a while but I found where you deleted the image I uploaded. You wrote that I was a LaRouche supporter, and the image was to promote LaRouche. That is a bald faced lie. Please cite one example of any time that I have ever inserted a favorable comment or edit on LaRouche to Wikipedia. --NathanDW 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Poster over at New anti-Semitism
Hi Slim, I wasn't trying to be funny (this time) about that poster. Justing trying to get more info about it. I really consider you a voice of reason around here and also you have been very fair with me in the past, so I hope I haven't offended you and if so I apologize. As I stated, the CONTENT of that poster is GARBAGE/SCUM but the color and style are striking, for what its worth...anyways..--Tom 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagging BLPs
Hi Slim, I share your concerns about the use of importance rankings for biographies. Persoanlly, I would like to see the importance rankings dropped from biography articles in favor of a "core=yes" or "core=no" assessment. The idea has been discussed before, but I'm afraid it's lost in an archive somewhere. If you feel strongly about the issue, perhaps the idea should be reintroduced. Kaldari 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NAS
You've changed a quote in NAS. Please revert yourself. We don't change quotations. SlimVirgin <font color="Purple">(talk) 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually changed it to reflect the actual quotation. I'm I missing something? If my edit wasn't correct I apologize and oh course will revert it, but I believe I am corrct....--Tom 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You've created a monster
I was patient with your silent removal of my previous request, but now your indulgence of User:IronDuke has led him to come to Reed College and accuse me of stalking him there! He is baiting me by again making unsourced edits and nasty Talk page comments. I would ask that you suggest to IronDuke that he back off. -- Gnetwerker 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)