User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 10

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Jesus help?

If you have time can you check out [2]? I am trying to figure out what to do about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

We happen to be arguing over a one sentence passage that seems by itself to be trivial. The reason I have invested so much energy into this is because Rev of Bru is a POV warrior who is just making a mess of many Jesus-related articles, putting in argumentative little additions that have nothing to do with scholarly debates, and cloud the issues. My problem is not with the content of his views, but that, like so many others' contributions to articles, they reflect some segment of popular prejudice rather than any real research. You can get to the gist of this by reading just two — lengthy, though – statements: halfway down this section I start a lengthy remark "Rev of Bru, I seriously ..." [3] and here [4] about halfway down the page you will see "Sv writes 'SR appears to be ..." I think you are one of a handful of people here who are really dedicated to high encyclopedic standards, which is why I thought you would be interested in this/have something to say, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Love the puppy.

SuperDude

Thank you SO much for the kind words on my talk page. It seems that SuperDude really is getting the hang of editing here! Best, Lucky 6.9 23:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Funkily yours

Dear Slim, where do I... how can I even begin to thank you? I probably would have been gone long ago had it not been for you. And now, somehow, with your pivotal support, here I am, an administrator! Who would have thunk it? Happy May Day, and all the very best to you, El_C 00:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Slim, thanks for reverting my user page. I'm amused that we often end up chasing the same vandal—and reverting each others user pages as we go! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert of Cambridge University

Hi, I think that the section about assorted alumni should not contain more than 15 to 20 world-famous alumni. This means that it cannot list that many contemporary actors, comedians and writers. This is why I removed them. WHat do you think? — Richie 16:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wittgenstein

Hi, I did include the beetle in the box reference from the text directly. I don´t have it with me right now, so I can´t cite it accurately. I apologize for the trouble, I´m new at this wikipedia business. What´s the procedure like, for future reference?. Hope things get resolved. Jorge

Conspiracy/Complicity

Hi, I just posted a message here: Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory where I point out that a tiny handful of folks are bouncing from page to page renaming pages and asking for votes on titles as a way to circumvent an ongoing discussion that has been going on for months. Is there a way to facilitate a discussion on one special page to try to resolve the title question that will affect many pages? The details are on the linked page. Thanks for all your hard work. --Cberlet 19:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to try to frame the debate on the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory". Hopefully something useful will come out of it. Kelly Martin 21:13, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

How about "theories of conspiracies?" No, I'm not kidding. Really. Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:N-Man

Hi Slim, could you please help me as I want to move 3 pages that've just been moved by a vandal it seems. Fuck Scooterboy from Scooterby, Fuck Linda Dano from Linda Dano and Fuck Collect call from Collect Call. I tried but it won't let me, and I think it should be done ASAP. Thanks.--Silversmith 10:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, mostly cleaned up now. --Silversmith 10:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

help!

Please look at this [5] and comment. To get the full background, you will need to look at this too [6] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

John Birch Society

The page is once again being targeted by someone who just keeps reverting back to a version that is POV and not factual. Usually from IP 63.134.129.xxx but there have been others. This is an attempt to promote the JBS view--and the page has made great progress toward NPOV. Still room for improvement, but the anon reverter won't go to the talk page. Any suggestions? --Cberlet 15:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

D.C. wiki meet

Hey, Slim. :) No, I had no idea. Thanks for the info, but this weekend is probably the worst time in recent memory, schedule-wise, for me. How do I find out about such events in the future (hopefully, with a little more lead time)? deeceevoice 23:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This weekend's a busy one for me, fuh true. Work and activism don't leave me much free time. As a result, I've learned to be pretty particular about how I spend my down time. More to the point, however, I prefer drawing a distinction between my virtual and real life. Cyber-turned-real-world encounters are something I tend to avoid just on general principle. Shared online interests -- even when they exist -- don't necessarily translate into real-world conviviality. And, frankly, based on those who so far have expressed an interest in this event (purely a passing impression), I seriously doubt this would be worth going out of my way for. Think I'll pass on this one all together. But thanks. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 09:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory

I am careful about 3RR, I come near it often because I don't use sock puppets. Can I ask you a related question on WP policy? I created a separate section containing Cberlet's original post on the "conspiracy theory" title issue on that discussion page. He is trying to remove both the section he subsequently edited and his original section that I had recreated in a separate section, is that kosher? In a discussion elsewhere on the page I attempt to refute items in his original post that aren't in the post he subsequently modified. So I believe the bottom most section of what he was trying to remove should be kept because it is relevant to the discussion and I believe I have properly described that section as being "cberlet's original post on the issue". I'd prefer a neutral person to just resolve this minor side dispute that is indeed a detriment to making progress towards consensus on the larger "conspiracy theory" title neutrality issue. What do you think? zen master T 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim, I think the keep the conspiracy theory titled articles as is section you came up with is woefully POV and misframes the debate. I respectfully note that in my humble opinion you can no longer claim to be a neutral third party on this issue. Is anyone really still claiming that 4,000 jews were warned not to show up to the WTC on 9/11 (people initially did so but were corrected)? A provably false allegation/claim/rumor/theory should not be labeled as a conspiracy theory it should be labeled as a "provably false allegation", what do you think? Even if you are trying to discredit a subject you still shouldn't use the ambiguous phrase "conspiracy theory" because you can just state it simply that it is a "provably false theory". But no other article would be allowed to state conclusions in the title, would it? To be neutral a WP article would have to present any cited allegations then present any and all facts that debunk those allegations, right? The determination of the neutrality of a phrase for use in a title should be etymologically based, but you've injected politics into the issue which should be outside the scope of any determination of neutrality, word usage wise? In fact, injecting politics into the debate over the appropriateness of a term proves the term isn't neutral? I am just trying to apply the "simply stated" title policy to every article. Given your apparent support for keeping the titles as is I am interested in learning your full opinion on this issue if you have the time? When is a dubious but citable theory not a "conspiracy theory"? Do you acknowledge the existence of the multiple definition ambiguity confusion? zen master T 17:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy. End of discussion. It's what theories about conspiracies are called. Etymologically, there's nothing more to be said. Grace Note 01:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to vote. It's a nonissue that seems to be a black hole for editors' time and energy. I would entirely disregard any vote or any discussion that wasn't in keeping with my statement above anyway.Grace Note 01:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to clear up Grace Note's confusion, the phrase "conspiracy theory" does have more that one definition, please see Conspiracy theory. zen master T 06:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.smbtech.com/ed/ -- have fun. --iMb~Meow 20:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not you, is it? Grace Note 01:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Me as in me, or me as in IMeowbot? ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Who, Steve Burnett? I don't think he's any of us. --iMb~Meow 02:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant the guy featured. Just curious. I've been trying to figure out who you were. No big deal.Grace Note 03:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The mysteries of blocking and AOL

You've got me there. This is the second time it has happened. The AOL system randomly assigns numbers, and changes them even while you are in the middle of something. Both times it prevented me from editing articles, but I was able to access my work pages and post on admin's talk pages. So, I suppose, being logged into Wiki at the time the block is placed probably has something to do with it. Thanks for your help. WBardwin 04:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You're Welcome

Even though it appears that Mr Wollmann is making a persuasive argument against his own best interest. Usenet is a valuable resource for information, but unforutnately it always needs to be verified & researched first before we can admit it onto Wikipedia. If someone has done that -- say, reprinted a post in a book or periodical, or on a web site -- then I have no problem with using it on WP; otherwise, to validate it would require original research. -- llywrch 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

I am not vandalising. You are moving the page against consensus. That is vandalising. The relevant vote lies on the talk page of the article, and it has been stable for a long time. Also you micharacterize when you say "again". You are not allowed to use your adminstration powers on the page, because you are involved in the dispute. You are obliged to recuse yourself. I would appreciate it if someone protected the page form your page move vandalism. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:08, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28various_options.29 is a simple majority. And it is the main vote as concerns that article. The page cberlet created is not effective policy, and even if it were, would not supercede resolutions on specific pages. The main vote as concerns the article in question is on the article's talk page. The vote has been dormant for some time. A move from majority support to minority support is controversial, at best, and it is for this reason that i take issue with your move from complicity to conspiracy. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:24, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

The belief that a simple majority demonstrates a "consensus" is one only held by editors who know that they cannot reach a consensus on a pet issue. Grace Note 08:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I was saying that a simple majority is more closer to consensus than a minority. When i said "against consensus", i was refering to a direction, in contrast to "towards", not a state of having or not having consensus. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:44, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

Yeah, that was confusing for me too. I looked at the history for the vandalized image, and clicked on the date of the old version. "Sorry, not found". Then I tried again. Hey, now it's there! Then, suddenly the image is completely deleted. Oh well, I thought, I've got the image so I'll just re-upload it. Mirror Vax 02:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Need help with problem

Hi, User:Sam Spade seems to have decided to pick fights with me on two pages where his edits have introduced right-wing POV, and where he bashes liberals and the left. The pages are Christian right and Political correctness. His new edits on Christian right are just sloppy and POV. His lead on Political correctness is drawn (without proper attribution) to an essay by far right ideologue William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation who gave a speech at Accuracy in Academia, another far right group [7]. Repeated attempt to get him to cite sources and engage in actual dialogue have failed. What type of mediation/comment/request etc. is a proper next step? It does seem like he is starting to follow me around just to pick fights.--Cberlet 03:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

See also: User:Spleeman/Sam_Spade. El_C 04:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Brandenn Bremmer

Slim, you have the misfortune to be the third (sorry!) of three admins I'm choosing more or less at random in the hope that one is more or less "online" and would be kind enough to take a look at recent bizarre behavior -- well, bizarre to my mind, at least -- at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brandenn Bremmer. If everything seems normal, it could be that a recent deletion is the cause; take a look in the history. In short, however, somebody deleted the content of a VfD page, then moved it when I restored it, then moved it, then moved it again when I moved it back. I understand his (her?) logic, and he (she?) has a case; but given a choice between what he (yeah, somehow I guess he) is doing and what I'm doing, I really think that I'm on the side of transparency and straightforwardness here. However, do judge for yourself. Thanks! -- Hoary 05:25, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Slim, I don't blame you for the confusion. I'll try to summarize.

• Somebody posted a fairly well written article on this fellow. It stank of copyvio, but I couldn't locate the source. I put a VfD tag on it. Cue for a long series of arguments, mostly toward "non-notable, delete", but with a significant number of dissenters.
• The article was found to be a copyvio, listed as a copyvio, not rewritten, and deleted as a copyvio. End of story (I thought). I'd even forgotten that the now non-existent article was on my watchlist.
• The article popped up on my watchlist. Yes, somebody had created a new, shorter article. It didn't stink of copyvio and I didn't bother to check, but I thought it still merited deletion. I stuck a VfD on it, which of course linked to the old project page. I didn't think the article should be speedied (because the voting process hadn't been completed the first time around), and to be honest wasn't entirely sure of what I should do. My compromise was to provide a red box to surround all the old discussion and thereby to label it clearly, but otherwise to leave it just as it was, and to reiterate my delete vote below it and invite further votes there.
• This article too was found to be a copyvio. If I remember right, it wasn't deleted: it was waiting for a rewrite, etc., today when:
• User:Mirror Vax wrote a new article (as was his right). He deleted the entire content of the VfD discussion.
• I reverted the deletion, and provided a blue box for all the discussion of the second article. I stuck a VfD notice on the new article, in the belief (to which of course you may not subscribe) that BB doesn't merit an article, however scrupulously it may be written.
• MV moved the VfD to a subpage, with no link to it.
• I moved it back.
• He moved it again.
• Not wanting to get into a move-revert war, I wrote to Grutness, JRM, and you.

A large percentage of the earlier discussion is as valid now as it ever was. Broadly, it's unfavorable. R. friend is just one person who has expressed irritation at any demand that he should proffer his opinion a second time, let alone a third time. It's hard for me not to conclude that MV was not deleting old votes (and when that didn't work shunting them out of sight) so that they would not influence further votes or affect the final tally.

People -- or anyway those who aren't somehow fanatical about BB -- have a limited appetite for reexpressing themselves. I think the old votes should count. However, perhaps they should not; I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that MV has been very high-handed in what he's doing: if you want to zap an old VfD or shunt it out of sight, the least you do is demonstrate that you've thought carefully about this and have discussed it. -- Hoary 06:00, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

PS Grut has just listed this teapot tempest at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, one of those tremendously useful pages of whose existence I completely forget whenever they'd be of use. (Sorryyyy!) -- Hoary 06:08, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Call me Grutness or James, please, not Grut! :) I'm linking this info to Wikiquette alerts, too. Grutness|^hello? 06:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, James! (I always think of you as a grut guy, that's all.) In response to Slim:

Slim, I'm in favor of (in effect) reverting, but if I did this it would seem as if I were just prolonging a revert war between MV and myself. He'd probably revert it back. If a moderator more or less agreed with my PoV on this (and of course she might not agree), she might then:

• copy what's now Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Brandenn_Bremmer to a text file and delete it

• move back to it what is now Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Brandenn_Bremmer_(copyvio)

• append what's in the text file to the new page

• add comments at the foot of the resulting page to tell at least one of the perps (yes, maybe including myself) to stop dicking around

Ugh, what a waste of time. And I'd been going to upgrade Francis Barlow (artist) instead. -- Hoary 06:22, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Slim, if my boxes are confusing then my efforts at clarification have failed. I suspect however, that this is partly because I created the red box with no expectation that I'd ever need a second (blue) box, and also because when I did create the blue box I didn't reword what was at the top of the red one.

I think the content of the red box should stay. Nobody objected to it when the second page was created and I stuck it in the red box, and a lot of the content is just as relevant to the latest article as it was to the first one. Zapping it would mean ignoring a lot of votes. Should they be ignored? MV says yes (with some justification); I say no (with more, I think).

Why wasn't the second VfD closed properly? For the same reason that the first wasn't: the article was identified as a copyvio before the VfD term was up. I'll freely admit that I don't know what's supposed to be done in such an event. Not knowing the rules (if any), I chose to preserve as much info as possible in as clear a form as possible. But it seems that I failed to be clear.

I'll concede that the new VfW page is a lot easier to digest (or was, the last time I looked at it); no wonder, as it is (was) very much shorter. -- Hoary 07:01, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Brandenn Bremmer explained

Here's the story. There was an article deleted for copyvio, and then it got re-created and the re-creation was also a copyvio, and it was deleted. I've never seen either of the two copyvio articles, but it seemed like a notable subject to me.

So, I created a completely new, non-copyvio article. Two hours after creation, User:Hoary put a VfD notice on it, which pointed to the old discussion (dated May 5). This created some potential for confusion, since it wasn't clear that the article that was being voted on had already been deleted, and replaced with a new one. My solution was to create a fresh VfD entry dated May 7, with a link to the previous discussions. Mirror Vax 06:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I really don't feel that I'm "forcing editors to vote three times to delete a very short, arguably non-notable article." I had nothing to do with the copyvio versions - I've never even seen them. Second, I had nothing to do with the current VfD, and had no expectation that it would be VfD'ed two hours after creation. Lastly, the article is short because it's only two hours old. Compared with most other two hour old wikipedia articles, it's not bad. Mirror Vax 07:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of the first summary. Note however that both copyvio deletions followed VfDs that garnered a lot of votes. Also, a lot of these votes pertain to the notability of BB and are not specific to the articles. Moreover, MV first deleted all the votes, only later moving them elsewhere. Also, I maintain that some work on the design of the VfD page would have made clear just what was being debated on and when: if my red and blue boxes were poor attempts at this, MV could have improved on them. MV is of course entirely free to claim that BB is a notable subject; a number of people had already said so before today, and a number had said the reverse. Should these opinions be discounted? MV seems to think so; I think not. -- Hoary 07:18, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Rather than go back and forth between your pages, I'll leave this response here. Having looked at a couple of articles about Brandenn, I'd say this person is notable enough for a WP entry, and in fact it sounds like an incredibly sad and interesting story, but it needs to be written properly and referenced well. MV says he only created it a couple of hours ago, so he hasn't had time to do the writing; maybe if he was given time, he'd create something more people would agree was worth keeping. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

His death made the London Daily Telegraph [8] and he was apparently interviewed on Oprah. [9] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, he may have made the Hellograph but an archive search in the Guardian doesn't mention him. However, people could argue to and fro on such things for quite some time. Indeed, they have already done so. What do you think should be done about the previous votes? Should they be discounted (as irrelevant to this particular article), or counted (as relevant to BB), or something else? -- Hoary 09:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Clearly, adding the second set of votes but not the first would be some kind of compromise between the two positions, but it doesn't seem principled at all and instead seems purely arbitrary. Also, there was little or no objection to the presence of the votes on the first version during voting on the second; why remove the former now? Anyway, I'm not going to restore any old material (either the latter half of it or the whole lot) to the new VfD page as such restoration by me would likely be reverted; you or others may wish to do so.

Meanwhile, you seem more keen to persuade me that BB deserves an article. I think I can argue against the points you make in his favour, but the VfD page seems the place for that. A small clarification: I meant that the Guardian doesn't mention him at all (not his death, not his life, nothing). -- Hoary 22:42, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Yes, it does. [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it does. That's odd, as I looked in the search box for "brandenn" just yesterday, and there were no hits. Indeed, I tried it just now, and there were still no hits. And no, the (AP) article doesn't misspell "Brandenn" either. -- Hoary 02:14, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

POV pushing

You might want to look at similar POV pushing at Jizyah. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there's a talk page? ;) El_C 08:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: graduation

Thanks! Sure, you can just call "Dr. KS" from now if you like =) — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

more Jesus help

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)