User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 12

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

Yuber1

When you deal with Yuber on a daily basis like I and other editors have, you realize the man is a bad faith editor. It's no longer about civil discussion, it's making sure that he doesn't ruin articles with his pov. I'd gladly deal with him the way wikipedia is meant to deal with good faith editors, but these options are futile as he ignores them. Please see the evidence in arbitration to understand what I mean. Thank you, Guy Montag 09:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your statement. So thanks.

Guy Montag 00:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber is now vandalizing, and I don't use this lightly, he is vandalizing article Qana Incident by reverting to a previous article that is a ugly little POV stub, to prove a point. All the sources in there are cited, instead of discussing them, he is revert vandalizing them because he doesn't like the information there. Please check it out and block him from editing.

Yuber is continuing his revert warring and pov pushing in Quneitra. Your suggestions seem to have been ignored by Yuber. I suggest you lock that page because he doesn't engage in actual dialogue without other options being blocked to him. Also, check out terrorism. There is an edit war there and Yuber has a large hand in it. I suggest that it be locked too.

Guy Montag 05:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 00:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

God Bless you for you quick response.

Guy Montag 00:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Always nice to be able to distinguish civility from tripe. El_C 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103

Are you attempting to get this article up to FA quality? As a relative of two of the victims (on the ground, lived in Sherwood Crescent), I'd definately support a nomination. --Kiand 12:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism and "Lone Wolf" attackers

Hi Slim. You've been involved in the debate at Independent terrorist actor before, so I thought I'd ask you to add your opinion on an issue currently at Terrorism. I've put it up for RfC as well. Essentially several editors, including me, think the level of detail provided on "Lone Wolf" attackers is inappropriate for the article, but others feel that more detail needs to be added. Well, to be frank, according to some editors huge amounts of information "needed" to be included about Baruch Goldstein but none was needed for any of the other events listed on that page. Eventually, when that started looking too obviously like the POV pushing it was, information was added about a couple of other mass murderers to make the POV pushing less obvious. In any event, the issues I have are with 1) appropriate level of information for the article, 2) similar treatement for all attacks listed in the article, and 3) WP:NOR; just who is designating these guys as "lone wolf" terrorists anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your well thought out comments, as always, though they seem to have generated little substantive response (other than the inevitable revert with insulting edit comment). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2RR?

I emailed you regarding my suspension, and I got NO RESPONSE. I did not revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. Please be more careful next time. Eyeon 17:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wp600 not admins

Hi - I added a disclaimer on User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins. Reading between the lines (well, actually, reading on the lines) I gather you're having troubles with one of the people on this list. I don't know what your general experience is, but I hope you haven't concluded most high volume editors are intransigent. You haven't re-commented on the talk page, and I see you've been busy, but just wanted to let know about the disclaimer. I hope this helps to address your concerns. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I updated the disclaimer with most of your suggestions. Any particular reason nuisance editors aren't warned and then perhaps banned outright? Seems like there's a pretty clear difference between making lots of minor, but productive, changes vs. do/undo repeats to make the edit counter go faster. Thanks again. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

PA 103

Capital-C for constabulary because its the force's title. Sellafield, because everyone is familiar with that name.

I have talked about this concerning the response of Lockerbie: The Scottish Office-Prime Minister's thoughts on the tenth anniversary of the bombing, as read out by Donald Dewar, Scottish Secretary. It has shown how people around the world have grown proud of the people of Lockerbie on how they responded to the disaster. SNIyer12^(talk)

How come you haven't talked about the article I just sent about the praise by the government to the people of Lockerbie for their response? I would like to know. SNIyer12^(talk), 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber and Talk:Jihad

Yuber is up to four reverts - MAJOR reverts destroying the comments of someone else - at Talk:Jihad. User:Weyes seems to be ardently assisting. Yuber is also unsurprisingly guilty of 3RR violation on Jihad itself. This has caused User:Inter to freeze Jihad and call for comments. Yuber has been serially reverting said comments. Any assistance you can give would be greatly appreciated. Yuber is out of control. Unsigned by 195.168.3.83 (talk · contribs)

You shouldn't take this guy seriously. He is one of Enviroknot's many anon ip's. Check the history and you will see he is clearly vandalizing the talk page and many users have reverted him.Yuber^(talk) 22:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Make that ELEVEN now... Nope, TWELVE... THIRTEEN

Thank you

Thank you for blocking the troll User:Eyeon and his sockpuppets. I appreciate your prompt action. Samboy 23:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

I see he's been busy while I was gone. I'm sort of sorry you got stuck in the middle of it but since you appointed yourself his guardian, it does fall to you.

I just want you to know from my mouth, I have no connection to any of the anonymous editors who stood up to him today.Enviroknot 00:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot and his anon IPs

These anon users are exactly the issue we are facing in the Jihad article. First of all, I think you should know that this barrage of anonymous IPs are definitely all environknot, a known sockpuppet that has been banned from Wikipedia. This is evident by the exact same stuff that they add in, the exact same comments that they make and the exact same tactics that they use to vandalize the talk page. Secondly, you can clearly see by what he wants to add in to the article (the bolded text in the anon message found in archive 4 of the talk page) that he has no good intentions for this article but rather wants to vandalize and add anti-Islamic POV. He has the reasoning that all muslims are 'islamists' and that anyone who tries to stop his anti-Islamic vandalist POV is an "Islamist" and is "whitewashing" this article.

He wants to remove all factual information from the article and say that any muslims and non-muslims who have been arguing against him are vandals. Surely you see the issue now. He is perhaps the worst editor of wikipedia, he has a long history on both the article page and the talk page of making personal attacks against people (e.g. cssloat and BrandonYusuf) and of vandalizing the article to make it seem that no muslims are tolerant and that muslims are evil people who have done nothing than kill people forever. This is as RACIST and anti-Islamic as it gets and surely you can see that now when he considers generally anything related to Islam is 'barbaric' or 'brutal'.

He seems to hate when users argue against him on the talk page and does not realize that it is against the rules to delete/edit other people's messages on the TALK pages. He has been the perpetrator when it comes to the talk page. HE WANTS NOTHING MORE THAN TO INSERT ANTI-ISLAMIC POV commonly found in western media that makes it look like Jihad is nothing more than 'islamist terrorism'. He has no factual material and his material does not belong to this article as this is about Jihad which is a large Islamic topic and probably the most misunderstood by people. All the other editors are at consensus to have him banned from this page. Hopefully you will take the appropriate measures to get this chain of enviroknot anon IPs banned so that we may get back to business and resolve any disputes productively. Thank you for your help.--Anonymous editor 01:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I had nothing to do with writing what you archived.

I would also like to point out what a frothing, raving rant that was. His claims that "all the other editors are at consensus" seem to be groundless and baseless, of course. I've come to expect this behavior from Yuber's clones.Enviroknot 02:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep denying the truth you have shown your true colours in other Islam-related articles. You are a proven sockpuppet and yet you still deny it. --Anonymous editor 02:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As a former Muslim woman I want to advise you to disregard anything this Islamist fuck "Anonymous" says. One of my good friends died in that fire, and this mysogynistic devotee of Mohammed (may Piss be upon him) keeps trying to deny that it happened.

He can go rot in hell. The religion established by the false prophet needs to be exposed for what it is and die, the sooner the better for the sake of all the women in the world.

There you go again. SlimVirgin, I think that now it is clearly evident that he is making personal attacks again and I request that u take all appropriate measures against him. He seems to have a problem with my conversion to Islam too. here is his talk page concerning this [2] --Anonymous editor 03:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am not Enviroknot but I support anyone who will oppose lying Islamist fucks who try to whitewash Islam's crimes against women, especially weak-minded fools like you.

Pathetic. Absolutely another low for you. You are indeed enviroknot and evidence has been presented.--Anonymous editor 03:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're just another mysogynistic Islamist. Grow a brain and stop dreaming of the 72 virgins, you're not getting any of them. And I hope no woman is stupid enough to fall in with you either.

Actually for your information, I married a christian woman who too converted to Islam. I am sorry to see you are finding offence to this.

I feel immensely sorry for her and hope she comes to her senses soon.

She already came to her senses when she converted. She feels sorry for misguided people like you too.

(The preceding was an edit by 64.229.203.159, likely "Anonymous editor" evading a block)Enviroknot 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse it was an edit by me. Obviously I am going to respond. Unlike you who also uses sockpuppets, I only use anon IPs in times where I have no other choice.

Unfortunately for you, not only do I not use anonymous IP's, I don't do sockpuppets either. But I will still stand against you. All that is required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, after all.Enviroknot 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Toropov and Anonymous Editor: Whitewashers for Murderers

Why do Toropov and Anonymous Editor keep whitewashing the murders committed by Islamic fundamentalists? Why do Toropov and Anonymous Editor keep inserting their biased, Islamic-centric POV into the Jihad article? Note that I don't think that Sloat is biased or a whitewasher in the way Toropov and Anonymous Editor are. Sloat seems reasonable and open-minded.

I haven't made any changes to the lengthy history of pre-contemporary Jihad. What I have done is add very relevant points about Al Qaeda (which called for Jihad against "Jews and Crusaders" as far back as 1998, and which subsequently has supported, inspired, and committed murders of thousands of innocent civilians), Hezbollah, the many terror groups that use the name Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas. How on earth can any unbiased and reasonable person say that a discussion of Jihad is complete and relevant if it does not make at least some reference to these groups? I did not make any changes to the article that said most Muslims support these murderers who call for Jihad and often include Jihad in their names. The reason I did not make such a change is that I do not believe that most Muslims support these murderers. Nonetheless, groups that murder in the name of Jihad are not isolated, they are not small, and they have wide followings (even though their followings may be only a minority of the Muslim population).

The article includes myths about "Liberal Muslims". Read the Wiki about Liberal Movements Within Islam. A fluff piece. It is unable to cite a single example of a "Liberal Muslim" party that is in power in any country on Earth. It is unable to cite a single example of a Muslim country whose leadership consists of "Liberal Muslims". The only examples of specific Liberal Muslims that the article cites are three non-prominent groups in North America. However, in the Jihad article there are ridiculous references to what "Liberal Muslims" think about Jihad, yet there is no evidence provided that these "Liberal Muslims" are sizable groups. Indeed, there is no specific evidence provided in the Jihad article about who these "Liberal Muslims" are. Consider the following fluff from the Jihad article:

"Among followers of liberal movements within Islam, however, the context of these late verses is that of a specific "war in progress" and not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful. These liberal Muslims have tended to promote an understanding of jihad that rejects or minimizes the identification of jihad with armed struggle, choosing instead to emphasize principles of non-violence."

What a joke. Some unnamed "liberal Muslims have tended to promote an understanding of jihad that rejects . . . the identification of jihad with armed struggle", yet there are no citations of who these people are or any evidence that they have wide followings.

--PeterChehabi 03:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could the pro- and anti-Islam editors please take their dispute somewhere else? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're the self-appointed protector of that Islamist fuck Yuber. If you enforce the 3RR against him I'll leave it be. ....posted at 04:54, 2005 Jun 14 by a clearly very excited 212.202.51.98

Dang (how?!), I wanted my image spam to cut through the sections, but the format of this talk page is very enigmatic, and yellow! :( El_C 09:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And it's getting very wide again. Thanks for sending the four kittens of the Apocalypse. I could use them at you-know-where, where I'm now not even allowed to archive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I await the debate of whether we should measure the four kittens' destructive motion in kt. or C. ;p El_C 11:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon

Although I agree your block of User:Eyeon for a 3RR is correct, I received a mail from him asking why he was blocked for reverting censorship (along with, he claims, two others who agree with him) on the Feces article.. He asks me how he can defend himself against you. Can you shed some light on the subject? Inter\^Echo 16:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at your block, I see you mention sockpuppets, so obviously what he refers to as "people who agree with him" do you perceive as sockpuppets. I'm just checking out his claims and want both sides of the story. Inter\^Echo 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How much more?

Hi, Yet again this user is blackening our names (including yours). I think the time has now come for this number to be, if not permanently, banned, then at least for a long time. I have made a reply here [3]; but this user generally as you know) deletes anything detrimental to their own image as soon as possible.

Regards. Giano | talk 16:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW

Seeing Giano's post above, I thought I'd just link you to my own message to him here—not that it's of much interest, but the incident taught me not to bother with any humanitarian impulses re this user: I get them, because I've always thought he seems unhappy, but, well, they're not any use. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pan Am 103

Hi Slim, can I ask you to outline your objections to metric units on the Talk page under the RfC header? I think it would really help if I could cleary understand your position. Dan100 18:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Hey, thanks for warning me. I would like to point out that the article was fine and being discussed in a civil manner after Grace Note left and before she came back, now the same revert war as before is going on. All attempts at mediation by User:SqueakBox are constantly reverted, as is the content agreed upon in the discussion page. I would like the page to be locked (sigh, yet again) so that any edits have to be thoroughly discussed, as these people just kinda don't care about other people's contributions without giving solid fact for this. Kapil 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And if you're not an admin I just made an ass of myself and am sorry :P Kapil 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's just the thing, the revertions being made are of removing a NPOV tag, which I placed and explained the reasons for in the talk page (even quoting the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I have no idea whether what they're saying is correct (that the reasons given are "just my opinion") or if I'm right, but based on their demeanor I just don't believe them therefore I keep reverting. Do you think it's just my opinion and I should back down? Kapil 06:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note has continuously attacked me. Not only that, she has stated that: I'll be referring to you as a "rightist troll" until the day you are banned, Kapil, because that is without doubt what you are, and I'll refer to your reincarnation as one as soon as you come back.. This is an inexcusable breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Is this good reason to suggest that she be banned temporarily? Kapil 06:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103

If you want to make it a featured article, please remember that the excellence the featured article process is looking for includes excellence in the Wiki process. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autobiography (album) and the featured article removal request for History of Germany as examples of what happens when a user seeks to personally dominate an article. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you summarize for me in two sentences or less today's metric (and lack thereof!) additions to the talk page? Thanks! Yours, El_C 08:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Gay phone company

I.mp3, II.mp3, III.mp3 Wee! (profanity and disturbing content!) El_C 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection of Suicide bombing

I was not really a participant in the previous edit war that caused this page to be protected. I think we have had a chance to talk things out on the talk page, and while I certainly do not guarantee agreement among all parties, I think we have the different POVs and sources cited. I would appreciate the opportunity to edit this article. Thank you.

--Noitall 13:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

We don't have a solution yet, and Yuber hasn't even gotten involved with you yet. Yuber has been the most persistent advocate of change. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that a solution has to be found that satisfies every person on Wiki. I was not involved in the original edit war and would like the opportunity to edit the article. The fact thatYuber is not involved is a very very good thing. He was told NOT to be editing (actually he does not edit, he reverts) such controversial articles. And it appears that he had a big role in getting this page locked in the first place.

--Noitall 13:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA

Hi sarah: Thanks for your support. It is particularly pleasing to have the good guys behind me. --Theo (Talk) 14:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Query

I have no idea who or what made the edit here. [4] I just now logged onto the internet and saw it myself. Rangerdude 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Forums

Hi SlimVirgin, sorry for late reply .

Actually the trouble had started b4 I had called anybody from anywhere . U can see the edit histories of Islam , Muhammad , Quran article for reference . I hadbeen to some sites ( Jihadwatch & Faithfreedom.org ) where they had a project going on for adding their hate filled stuff to Islam articles in Wp . ([5]This is one of the links that I could come up with , the rest might have been deleted ). I had just send PM to some muslims present on their sites . But as I can see no body wanted to come here , since the only new user here is Anonymous User , who didnt come on my request , as he said .So these troubles have nothing to do with me . To get a real picture of the actual mindset of there guys , U should visit their sites . U will find the same words/pharases/insults & even the same incorrect translations that they try to put here . Everybody of them claims to have studied Islam for many many years , but when U ask them very basic concepts , like concept of monotheism in Islam , they cant comeup even with a coherent paragraph . U can also see the Jihad talk page for reference , where the man/lady said that she was a born Saudi & was sold by her muslim father , & when Yuber asked for a single sentence translation from Arabic to English, he/she couldnt do it .

Now coming back to WP , this Islam bashing stuff had been going on , may be from even b4 2005 . Andthe people here surrendered thinking that this may be a good willed editor trying to improve WP . But then this stuff went on & on with attacks on many Islam pages , at alarming rates . After sometime I broke the news to them that this is not coincidence that Islam pages R being attacked regularly , but a well set Agenda of "Trying to save the world from the claws & fangs of Islam " . So that made the picture very clear to I think everybody else too . And ofcourse , this resulted in more fierce resistance . And when they couldnt do anything they starting adding nude pics on Islam pages . There have been several pics of dicks & pussies on Islam pages , U can see history for reference . And the pics R the very same that was present on their sites . There is still some of their phobic stuff present on some Islam pages , without any sources .

Now about what to do .... well difficult question . They R on an agenda .....with no wish to go back . So for me & other muslim editors here , its better to have a war of reverts going on , rather that having MUhammad the pedophile , Allah the moonGod , Aisha the prostitute , Quran a bible copy , & Islam equals slavery/terrorism kind of stuff being permanently added .

Btw what is this ArbCom filing that Inter is talking about on Jihad page ??

Kindest regards . Farhansher 18:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Just thought I'd let you know that the good work you've been doing on feces and talk:feces is appreciated by your fellow Wikipedians. →Raul654 18:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Qana Incident

Slim, what do you think about the name Qana Bombing?

Guy Montag 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merging it with Qana, Lebanon also is a good idea. It would get rid of cloning articles with divergent infomation. We can have Qana, Lebanon as the general name, and Qana Bombing as the focus.

Guy Montag 20:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on the talk page. The discussion died down when Yuber found out he couldn't have his way anymore, but I'll wait around for other editors and see if they have an objection.

Guy Montag 20:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)