User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 15

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

Deletion

Could you please delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tlotz? They did not meet the criteria for a RfC. Tlotz is a brand new user and a big POV pusher, but he does it mostly on the talk page. Of course, experienced Users ganged up on him with this inappropriate RfC. They never attempted to resolve any issue with him. In fact, their real beef with him is over edits that they were largely incorrect on. The first thing they did was start a RfC. I attempted to guide Tlotz the right direction, and I think he will go that way. He has never, as far as I know, vandalized a page or intentionally made a bad edit to a page. I started to complain about the actions of the other editors, but my beef with them is very minor and they really didn't do much wrong either except start this RfC. Thanks. --Noitall 04:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the right thing. Sorry it is now a pain in the butt. --Noitall 02:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Need help for discussion

Hello, I need your help. I'm working on Talk:Nanjing Safety Zone but even discussion does not work. I'm still trying to solve the dispute by talking. Please take a look at. Your comment/suggestion will be greatly appreciated. I'm extremely busy these days, but I will be back in a few days. --Flowerofchivalry 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi there

Thanks for restoring a measure of order at Jihad. I wasn't sure if you realized that the protected version is the one the sockpuppet/s have been lobbying to freeze in place -- that which parrots the line, and quotes the extremist sources of, the hate site http://www.faithfreedom.org. This state of affairs may, alas, encourage future bouts of vandalism.

How long do you think it should stay in this version? BrandonYusufToropov 17:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

hi sv - on what grounds did you protect Jihad? It is not listed on RFP, and nobody announced they were asking for protection on Talk. I agree that protection was about to happen, but I would still like an announcement when somebody is asking for it. dab (ᛏ) 21:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

it's ok, some cooling down is good for everybody. however, it is a bit frustrating in a case of an edit war where all experienced editors are on one side, and stubborn anonymuses, probably a single person, on the other side, and then have the anon's side protected in our face without warning. We are far too lenient with this sort of crap. Anybody who feels compelled to indulge in an edit war should at least get an account; treating these edits as legitimate contributions is not good policy, imho. but no harm done, let's see how things look in a day or two. regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Admin needed

Hi. I'm having trouble dealing with quite a bellicose POV warrior. If you have time, could you please take a look at the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks. 172 | Talk 17:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This'll make it much easier to start work on an RfC. 172 | Talk 02:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No prob -- and question

I understand.

There is rumbling on the 3RR page about me, I have tried diligently to insert the following there, but am having trouble doing so. Could I ask you to insert it? Or show me what I'm doing wrong? When I click "edit," it says "(section)" and gives a blank box. I'm uneasy about editing, lest I erase what's there.

Hi -- please read this. I would like to request that an admin check the anonymous edits and confirm that they're not me. Possible ? BrandonYusufToropov 17:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR BYT/67.78.186.19/Yuber Perhaps?

Thank you for your quick response on the Jihad page.

In looking through BYT's talk page to deal with my curiosity, I came across a user named Yuber who seems to fit the similar characteristics (calling people "Enviroknot" and making highly biased edits on Islam-based articles) of the vandal 67.78.186.19/EnviroFuck. He seems to have a Request for Arbitration with a temporary injunction against editing in place.

Curiously, this same IP reverted Yuber's own Request for Arbitration with the comment, (RV edits by EnviroKnot) and seems to follow Yuber's tendency to edit almost exclusively to Islam-based articles [2].

My guess is that this Yuber was editing deliberately under his IP address and username "EnviroFuck" to get around his temporary injunction. Is there a way to confirm this and what can be done about it?Existentializer 18:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR Page Formatting

I think I managed to fix what had gone wrong in the 3RR report page's formatting.

Can you check it for me? I would like to be sure I have put it the way it should be.Existentializer 19:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious persecution by Jews

Maybe I don't get you, but.. How can you say there are no sources, when the source is stated and is from the most Printed book in world history? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Case for Israel

I'm having a lengthy debate on a Talk: page; I wonder if you might give your opinion, maybe I'm on the wrong track here. [3] Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Another dumb question...

SlimV,

Ann Heneghan made the point to me that you might have been able to count only "article" edits, not those to "talk" or "personal user pages," or words to that effect. Is that correct? (Can you use that Admin jedi power to see specific types of edits?)

Of course, the reason we wondered is that she thought that i might have been wrong when I told you that Duckecho made close to 500-600 edits -not 213 as you had suggested ..., oh, here it is, according to Kate's tool, the duck's done "Total edits for Duckecho: 667." Thx in advance for my dumb question (not to be confused with asking Uncle Ed about computer memory).--GordonWattsDotCom 00:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC about Tlotz

I'll jump in and answer your comment on Rhobite's talk page: I can't speak for Rhobite, but I disagree with your removal of the RfC. I could add in a few diffs showing the efforts I made to try to get Tlotz to mend his ways. I made at least one attempt after the beginning of the RfC, and I certified the RfC only when my efforts also proved fruitless. Nevertheless, Tlotz, like so many others, seems to have shown up, disrupted us for a couple days, denounced core policies of the project (in his case, open editing), insulted several people, and then disappeared. Thank heaven for the short attention spans of such people. (As the Wired article stated, "Given enough eyeballs, all thugs are callow.") I'm not inclined to put in any effort to revive the RfC unless Tlotz again graces us with his company. JamesMLane 00:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not relevant to the Tlotz case (we can hope), but for future reference: If an RfC is posted with some indication of attempts at resolution (as this one was), and another editor thinks those attempts were insufficient, it would seem reasonable to treat that situation as different from one in which the original RfC simply ignored the rules. When I looked at Rhobite's RfC, if I had seen no diffs of that type, I would've said, "Whoops, he didn't know he was supposed to put this in, I'd better add it." As it was, however, there was some evidence already there, so I didn't bother. Either the originator of the RfC or one of the people certifying it might add evidence if they knew there was a good-faith question about the adequacy of the original submission. Perhaps, instead of an immediate removal, all those certifying the RfC should be notified that it will be removed in 24 hours if the evidence is not augmented. JamesMLane 00:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my legal background. Litigants use pleadings and other devices, like a Request for Admissions, to narrow down what's in dispute and not waste time amassing evidence on uncontested points. If there's more evidence of attempted resolution that could be cited in an RfC, should contributors be encouraged to pile on, just to guard against the possibility that someone might find the current evidence inadequate? As a practical matter, it would seem preferable to give people a second chance rather than go through a deletion and a listing for undeletion. One legal term for the latter kind of exercise is "marching the King's men up the hill and marching them back down again". Anyway, I've had mercifully little involvement with the RfC process, so I appreciate your explanation. I'll leave it to others to think about tweaking the rules. JamesMLane 01:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to undelete the RFC, but I'm going to request that you please stop deleting it too. Cyrius undeleted it so that non-admins could have a look. I previously had much respect for you as an editor. This respect is waning as I see you unilaterally making policy and deleting pages in violation of the customs of the RFC process. Rhobite 02:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Perverted Justice

Hi. Yes I am sure. It seems a bit too slantish to me, plus I don't think (most) websites should have Wikipedia articles; I plan on making more noms in the future, this one was chosen early because I have a problem with this website. I tried to post on their forums to tell them to stop using the nonsense term "wannabe pedophile", but they just locked my topic. I don't think it should exist at all, much less an encyclopedia article about it. 24 at 00:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC Tlotz

The request on VfU. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC Page Opened

This is my first RFC, but since you have had dealings with this person, I invite you to visit: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SNIyer1. Thank you! -Husnock 06:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I filed that protection notice you wanted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#User:SNIyer12. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

however I don't understand why you want the page protected. Please comment on the request at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 07:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I made the note that the user page in question belongs to a sockpuppet, and Slim cannot protect pages she edited on (if she did, she would have violated a rule or something). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough

You asked that I not "wind up" FW. Fine. You asked that I examine my own mirror. I have, was, and will continue too. And my (admittedly) poor respose last night was a combination of fatigue and shock caused not by your withdraw, but by the edit comment attached to that withdraw. The efforts of myself and others maybe alot of things, but "silly" is not one of them. If you're looking for a cease-fire, you've got one. But like any cease-fire, it takes both sides holding fire to succeed.--ghost 12:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo mediation

Hello, SlimVirgin. I was going to write a proper "response" to the RfC, but it was deleted (I'm happy to say) before I had time. I've got my assignment finished now, and I'm thinking of editing or even creating some different articles. I think what you suggested about trying to edit other articles if you feel you care too much about one particular one is a very good idea.

I'm very sorry that you've dropped out of mediation, but I can understand why. I had private e-mails from two other users who dropped out of Terri Schiavo altogether, and who told me how wearing the atmosphere was. I hope you'll change your mind, or at least that you'll keep contributing to the article itself and to the talk page, if not to mediation. Uthar Wynn 01 has just posted more attacks on the mediation page. Does Wikipedia have an equivalent of the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for reporting personal attacks? Not necessarily that particular attack - I'm sure Uncle Ed will notice it soon enough - but it's something I've wondered before. Regards. Ann Heneghan 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy as beauty-contest

I studiously ignored it (as did all the philosophers I know, except a couple who got roped in by the BBC to do a bit of cheer-leading). And the fact that Marx "won" — well, that says it all, really. (I'm told that Locke wasn't even on the short list.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There was dark talk of conspiracies... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Marx won is a measure of sanity that I did not expect. "Philosophers," heh. :) El_C 07:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Email?

Have you still not received a reply from me? Could you check your spam filters?

I was unavailable for a week, but I sent you a very long email last night in reply, I think possibly while you were sending yours. I didn't keep a copy of it, and it was a very thorough response. If not, I'll set up another account and send from there. Seems yahoo! is broken and doesn't work with firefox, so I actually installed internet explorer, and sent using that, but I don't think yahoo? is going to fix soon enough for me to use it any more. I thought it had sent, but... let me know if you didn't get it. Pedant 18:08, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Hello!

Greetings! Salutations! I am rather new to Wikipedia, but I am fully enamoured of the experience so far. Wow! I love encyclopedias! This is going to be a good one. Great even. It already is in many respects. I have written a few articles already. The ones that I started surprised me when there wasn't an exisiting entry. The edits I have done were to articles that I thought I could help with extra trivia, or just tightening up the grammer and pace. I like having the ability to add something here, to give something to the world of knowledge. On to the topic I wished to discuss: Religious persecution by Muslims. Its an unweildy title. When I started editing it was a pretty messy article. I think however it is a valid subject, along with religious persecutions initiated by any identifiable group, as per my comments on the VfD page. I hope you take another look at this and I would appreciate any comments, suggestions and ideas you may have concerning this. I have stated that I would like to take a crack at the proposed "Religious persecution by Christians" article, a topic I am more informed in, and one where the source material would be easily understood, by me, a humble Wikipedian. Thanks for your time, and thanks for the good work you do around here! P.S. Lyndon LaRouche is a problem here? He is truly a real life Lex Luthor! just kiddin... Hamster Sandwich 06:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You may have missed this

Since you've withdrawn from mediation, you might have missed this post from me.

If it was a genuine apology. I can tell you that I posted the apology to you and Dave around the same time that I posted the "anyone else need an apology?" thing on my talk page. I intended it to be a genuine attempt to clean up any problems I might have with any editors. If you don't believe that, then you haven't really accepted my apology as genuine, and there may be more I need to do. Do you accept my apology as genuine? Or do you feel the need to qualify it because you still doubt it? Is there something more I need to do? FuelWagon 19:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Question

A question for you. Don't know that you will respond as you never responded when I asked about BYT/"EnviroFuck" nor about my attempt to fix the 3RR report page but I may as well ask, since you were the one who locked the page:

BrandonYusufToropov has instituted a "poll" asking about which version of the page should be used, the incredibly short one which only mentions the Battle of Badr or the one which includes many quotes (some of which he claims are "prejudicial" but all of which are sourced properly) regarding Islamic jurispridence on POW's.

He has then sent a number of messages like [4] [5] [6][7][8][9][10]but only to editors who are known to be sympathetic to his position.

I feel that this is a gross abuse of process: in no way can any result of this poll be called a "consensus" the way he is orchestrating this.Existentializer 15:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI

[[11]] BrandonYusufToropov 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by Anon IP

Please check out the Mao Zedong page for 64.19.163.156's vandalism. I'm not sure about the policy but he's vandalized three times now...thanks CharlesZ 15:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)