User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 16

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

Protection

Just wanted to let you know that I have protected Daniel Pipes. I'm probably going to be logging out soon, so unprotect it as soon as you think need be. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim

It's not about the spelling and formatting reverts. If they do get changed in the process, I apoligize, but our main issue is with the style of charts and remix titles that gets reverted each time, and other issues. Mel blatantly changes header for no reasons, or removes them. That is our main issue. Because he does so many of them without reasoning, we have no choice but to revert them all quickly. Mel keeps vandalizing the page against the MOS policy of allowing numerals to be used. So he is just as guilty of the crime or reverting. I'd like to take each page at a time, but when Mel is causing trouble on a daily basis without looking at each revert it is harder. If you can help us please do. OmegaWikipedia 00:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My main issues with Mel

1.) He keeps changing headers from "the song" to "song information". Most WP singles articles have "the song" listed. He may not like it, but most articles have "song information".

2.)He keeps removing headers from single articles. Now, I know some articles may seem a bit shorter than others. But we are in the process of creating single chronologies for many artists, and it goes against consistent style

3.)Remix Notation. Mel has admitted that he is clueless in music, so he's unfamiliar with remix notation. A remix is treated just as if it were part of the song, so if the remix is called "Heartbreaker (Junior's Mix) it's needs to stay like that, not Heartbreaker (Junior's mix).

4.)Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information. Mel doesn't like it, so he keep changing them. There's nothing that prevents us. He argues that there is some stuff written that doesnt exactly recommend it, but in this case, he writes them off as paragraphs making it like very confusing, but when dealing with chart stats, its better for them to be listed individually.

There are probably more issues, but for the moment, thats all I can think of. OmegaWikipedia 01:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For WBT, pretty much everything I said above.

He changes headers, spells out chart positions, and this is the worst offender.

"We Belong Together" was Carey's sixteenth number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist), her eleventh on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, first on the Billboard Pop 100, first on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, ninth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks, sixth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay, tenth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play, fifth on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format), sixth on the Billboard Rhythmic Top 40, and her first on the Billboard Hot Ringtones.

Im sorry, but this looks like a mess, and no one can understand it. Several people have even complained on the talk page too.

1. Most article don't in fact have "The Song"; they're divided pretty equally between that and "Song Information". There was discussion on a couple of the Talk pages, and only one person liked the "The Song"; when I changed it in line with many other articles, it received approval, but OW has taken against it (it's unclear why).

Um, no. Don't you dare try to lie about this. The Kelly Clarkson articles, the Britney articles, ,the Mariah articles, and the Beyonce articles all started out "The song". If they have are now divided, its only because you changed them. And please stop that rude condesending tone. You are know how it was at the start, so don't try to insituate that it was different. What discussion on what talk page? The only talk page discussion we ever had about any song to my memory was that drama you started over Since U Been Gone.

1. Note that he sometimes changes it to the "The Song", sometimes" deletes it, leaving no heading, and sometimes inserts it where there isn't a heading (because the article is very short). His eagerness to revert me seems more important than the consistency of which he talks. In any case, consistency is the hobgoblin of... well, forget that, but it's surely unacceptable to make an article look messy simply in order to make it consistent with another article. (This he takes as far as using the "#" for number even in entries like "#Not released" or "#n/a".)

Um, no. My style is pretty inconsistent. I am all about headers. If theyre not replaced in the last edit, Im just undoing your other edits where you ruin the article with incorrect chart notation. I can add the header later.

1. The descriptions like "remix", "album version", etc., were inconsistently capitalised, both within and across articles; I'm trying to bring some consistency to them. A little research has indicated that OW is wrong on this, and that they're desciptions, not titles.

A remix is the name of the song. It is NOT a description. A remix that is described is when I say "the remix of We Belong Together". The song is specifically named "We Belong Together (Remix)"

1. With regard to chart notation, I've left abbreviations alone except in the case of descriptions such as "one week", etc. This counters OW's reversions to "1 Week". That's not only incorrectly capitalised, it looks odd to me, and spelling out the number is perfectly possible given the space available.

You've left them alone? If you did, we wouldnt be having this problem.

1. As for the quoted paragraph, I don't see anything difficult about it. In its previous form, it was an extremely repetitive list, using the singer's Christian name, full of pointless abbreviations, and coded using HTML instead of as a normal Wikipedia list.

Several people complained on the talk page. It is difficult to read.

1. I'll add that OW is in any case reverting my edits wholesale (whereas I've tried to retain those aspects of his edits that are acceptable), including corrections to Wiki-links, spelling, grammar, etc. He's also started looking up the articles that I've started and making silly edits to them, apparently in "retaliation". This has gone far enough — indeed, too far. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You are just as guilty of the same thing. Did you realize you just took a whole section of WBT? So dont you dare attack me when youre guilty of the same thing. And no, I'm not editing your articles in retaliation, so dont try to imply that, although I suggest you stop stalking everything I edit (even stuff that is not related to these articles) OmegaWikipedia 17:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hey Slim, remember me? :D I have a question that my searches around wikipedia haven't been able to produce an answer for. Is there a policy page for standards of sources for articles? I vaguely remember one being linked to, but I can't find it. It would be very helpful. Thanks for the help. Oh, it might be easier if you respond here. -bro 172.150.234.103 02:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that! Did you try WP:RS (mind you, that's a guidelines — WP:V is policy) ? El_C 03:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Rock on El C, appreciate the help. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Block

I am sorry and I won't do it again. I am leaving the Vampire article alone it's just not worth it as long as DreamGuy is there. Pukachu 04:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif

1) I cannot respond on the "talk" page that I have as it seems to be protected. If you did this, could you explain why?

2) You blocked me for the most spurious possible reasons. I reject your decision and your attempts to justify it after the event. You suggested I email you without providing me an address to email. I was unable to respond on your talk page and was therefore unable to complain about your actions.

3) You assert you have received complaints about my edits and that they have further prejudiced you in favour of blocking me again. What complaints and which edits do they relate to? I have not edited since 2003 and I suspect things have changed a lot but I cannot imagine any responsible admin acting in the way you have. Is assume good faith no longer relevant? I won't be back for another two years if this persists. Coqsportif 07:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Am not reluctant to email you, why haven't you emailed me? It's ridiculous, as is the bizarre conspiracy theories of the page you linked to. I again ask you what is your problem with my edits, I can hardly comply with such vague instructions. I understand the Wikipedia guidelines but if you have other ones, you should perhaps enunciate them or be silent. Coqsportif 07:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

thank you

for your unbeleivable, superhuman patience with me.Gavin the Chosen 08:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

sockpuppet template on User:Gabrielsimon

As I previewed my question about your rational for removing the template I saw my question answered. My concern was that if he reactivated that account the current notice would be disinformative, and since you're watching him I needn't worry about that. Thanks!  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If your capable, delete the account. It mattes not to me.Gavin the Chosen 08:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not going to be deleted, there is an ongoing RFC and RFAr with diffs pointing to it. El_C 13:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy

I've already promised Ed that I will leave the Vampire page alone, it's not worth having to deal with DreamGuy.

I'm not apologizing to him though. He's a (difficult user- replaced profanity with thatGavin the Chosen 12:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)) and he keeps vandalizing my user page and lying about me. Pukachu 12:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry, dont want you getting in trouble for No pesonal attacks policey, so i replaced the profanity.Gavin the Chosen 12:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The very fact it was uttered is something that I consider highly problematic. I'm not impressed with any of this. Tread lightly, Gabriel. El_C 13:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, you realize that replacing what he/she already put there doesn't change the fact that he/she already did that? And wasn't exactly that action which got him/her blocked yesterday and only returned after promising to be good?

Anyway, after several hours of them being gone, Pukachu and Devilbat both suddenly reappeared at the same time and both erased the sockpuppet tags off their user pages... defying the clear consensus of editors who put it there after they deleted it earlier. As mentioned elsewhere they both also joined up at the same time. I think it's pretty clear they are both sockpuppets of the same person, and based upon the abusive language, the actions of several anon IPs linked to Existentializer previously to support them, and their edits, that they are Existentializer. DreamGuy 13:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

sorry to say this, but just becaue its youyr opinion , and maybe one other's, doesnt make it consensus. lets se if they use the olution i suggested.Gavin the Chosen 13:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

Adraeus has um, done these 2 edits : [2] [3] recently. :-/

You seem to know him better than I do. Maybe you can get him to stop. Would it be ok to ask you to look into it?

Kim Bruning 14:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with moving the comments off of the page, in the mean time, are you talking with Adraeus? I noticed nothing seems to have changed with the votes, and that gives me the creepies. :-/

Hmm, when you're done with that though, you're Feloniousmonks nominator, maybe I could talk with you on irc or per mail sometime? From my own interactions with felonious I became pretty convinced he couldn't be an admin, so I never nominated him. What's changed? Maybe you can convince me. ^^;;

Kim Bruning 22:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

New user account for Gabrielsimon

Hi SlimVirgin,

Following the most recent evidence that I added to Gabrielsimon's RfAr, User:Gavin the Chosen/Gabrielsimon is suggesting to me that you may have supported him in the idea of creating a new user account to distance himself from his previous edit history as User:Gabrielsimon.

I understand that you have been trying to mentor/assist him via email, but I would be very surprised if you had actually endorsed this course of action. Perhaps you would care to comment at User_talk:Solipsist#elaborations. -- Solipsist 16:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

the suggestion was actually that it woudl be a fresh start.Gavin the Chosen 16:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Islam

I sent you a rather stream of conciousness e-mail about my feelings on the subject. If you need any clarifications just ask me. gren グレン 17:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Vampire

Rob Church made a suggestion that I put my proposed edit on Vampire and let you decide whether or not to add it since the page is blocked. I'm leaving there now because there is no reason for me to stay, dreamguy is insane and just keeps attacking anyone who posts there. Pukachu 17:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still holding out hope for the Vampire article, and that if someone maintains a cool and positive tone that others will follow my lead. I hope that unprotecting the page will allow forward movement, but I'm not at all sure it will. But, I think right now it would be worth a try, if someone can keep and eye on it (sad to say) and be prepared to protect it again if the old foolishness continues. Let me know if you have suggestions for anything else I can do to help. BarkingDoc 19:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Slim

Slim, just to let you know, I'm working on the reply to the stuff you left on my page. I hope we can work this out, and I hope we dont have drama, but even if we do, can I just say, you're 100x more polite and more courteous than Mel has ever been. Most of the time he makes up stuff or insults us or threatens us, and its hard ot negotiate with him with his insults and rants. So I can hope we can work this out, but I just want say to thank you for being very classy and polite (unlike the rude Mel) OmegaWikipedia 17:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your vote is desired

SlimV,

Wagon is behaving himself, and in fact, making most of the contributory or otherwise positive edits. However, he disagrees with me on the point of mentioning that Euthanasia was a hotly debated item. (It WAS hotly debated!)

While it was a "close call" in the past, I think most of the current editors favor my version. In addition, the Chinese and Spanish wikis support my version of the edit -as does a "meta analysis" by Google. Please see Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Heads_up.3B_Neutrality_made_major_changes_in_intro for the discussion, and I would ask for your feedback as one more editor or voice of feedback (not as an admin -I hope that we don't need "admin" assistance again, lol).

While my recent edit which was reverted once, and then tried again with a cogent argument here, is not an edit which greatly impacts the article one way or the other -no matter which way things go -I think I'm right.

I've asked the other editors for help, and think I have support. Please see the talk page, please get along with Wagon and play nice, and vote -either for me, against me, or in between. Thanks.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATES: While User:Neutrality is certainly a hard working admin, he has made questionable edits, placed "hidden comments" asking others to not revert his edits, which were against the concensus reached -and is headed towards going against consensus reached in this diff on 21:46, 9 August 2005 in the Terri Schiavo page. I fixed the problem (e.g., here), and don't feel he has violated consensus again, yet his past actions, as discussed on the talk page, make me feel it is appropriate to make a formal record of my complaint if he causes trouble again by his POV editing abuse as an admin.

I have never encountered an admin who needed to be opposed; What am I expected to do? (I've tried discussing it, and getting concensus, etc.) Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 02:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: a link has been removed by me ElinorD, as it had been blacklisted, and it was impossible to save the page. 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Willmcw stalking/ harassing me

I've admittedly only been here for a few days, but I've had some very intense trouble wiht Willmcw. I'm trying to edit some articles, and we've done some battle at Biff Rose. fine. I expected some disagreements at some point. But the thing with Willmcw is threatening, and he is bullying me trying to prove that I am someone who he thinks is meddlesome. I think if he would stop trying to be as pushy and bossy, and understood that this is a place for everyone that perhaps we oculd go further. But he is really overbearing and vandalizing my user talk page, and the like. Admittedly I didn't know I could not simply erase the offensive matter, and so did. NOw I just want him to leave me alone, and he will not. What can I do about this situation with Willmcw? thanks for any help you can offerSteve espinola 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response

I can tell when he divorces himself from his ego, he is a good editor. unfortunately in this case, he is working only in colusion with one side of the story, and that I can handle. but his rampant abuse of my user page is intensly unwatned and undeserved. I would like to mediate it and thought you could suggest something. Take a look at my other edits, instead of blindly trusting him, and give me a chance to prove myself. I am new here, but I do good work, and I doubt if Will had someone as overpowering as himself to battle with when he started herre. Just because someone is branded toruble, does not make it so.Steve espinola 01:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel => Gavin

Hi, Sarah. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon#Ed_Poor_outside_view. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 02:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Update - your guidance as an admin needed

Update - your guidance as an admin needed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20665553&oldid=20664323

--GordonWattsDotCom 02:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

styles

styles

First of all, thanks enormously for your comments. They were much appreciated. I've had so much support from Wikipedians it has been amazing. My email a/c was actually full when I opened it today with messages of support over Skyring et al. (It was around 90% full before. The remaining 10% was filled in one day! People made no secret about what they think of him.

Anyway, re styles I know it probably isn't an area of interest of yours but as a credible contributor I'd value your opinion. Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 03:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)}

Monarchical Styles of Queen Victoria
Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style	{{{altstyle}}}

Styles of Pope Paul VI
Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Religious style	{{{relstyle}}}
Posthumous style	{{{deathstyle}}}

Monarchical styles of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary
Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style	{{{altstyle}}}