User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 17

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

Picture

I found this picture on WIkipedia, and I thought that you may like it on your site. Well, because your site is so decorated and all.

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rosemary Kennedy

Thank you for unprotecting. The protection request was fraudulent, and I will add it to the RfAr. There may be an honest request to protect. Robert McClenon 01:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC in user subspace

Hi, Slim, hope you're doing well. This is the short story: After my RFC against Jguk expired, it was copied to Amgine's space, then later put on VFD by a person uninvolved with that RFC. The RFC copy survived the VFD. Let me know if you need more details. Maurreen (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC

) Maurreen (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Depending on what the content actually is, you may be able to invoke CSD#A6. Radiant_>|< 09:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Gavin agreement

Thanks for making the agreement with Gavin explicit. It's really helpful to have it right there in writing. FreplySpang (talk) 03:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• FYI: You are a better (wo)man than I. Thanks for taking this on. I honestly hope it works out, but hold out little hope. Wikibofh 04:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Help!

I'm feeling utterly beleaguered at Islam and Abu Bakr. Zeno and an anon have added a sentence in the first para of Islam saying that Islam IS Islamism. AladdinSE wants a Sunni version of events at Abu Bakr and is prepared to revert endlessly to get his way. All the sensible editors -- the ones who aren't pious zealots or anti-Islamic crusaders -- seem to have disappeared. Could you help out at Islam? Zora 07:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I hereby award you...

This is a special award created for fighting vandalism on my user pages. Wear it with pride, brave Wiki-warrior! Hamster Sandwich 01:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The Sandwich of Diligence  ::: Awarded for Unswerving Strength and Tenacity

I strongly beleive that Brandenn commited suicide because when he grew up he start having problems understanding what is right and what is wrong, you are told, but when you see reality,in your mind grows big conflict, when you have the intelligence to comprehend like he did and you realize that menkind is doing everything against a natural purpose and you realize that everything you were told was right, does not match, then you try to evade reality, because reality sucks, humans do not understand the purpose of life, his life, and the proof is, what are we doing to everything around us, was the world made for sale? think think think Gabriel

Looks like Gabe is a little off the deep end...meanwhile, thanks for the heads-up. What is it about this site that brings guys like this out of the woodwork? - Lucky 6.9 06:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Placing users in danger

Reading the discussion, in my less than admirable insobriety, I commented. The discussion is appalling. That the time of day is given to these morons is, itself, a legitimate ground for disparaging WP. It's obscene, IMHO, and I think I expressed that view fairly well in my strongly-worded review on its talk page. I just hope Jimbo doesn't feel I've characterized him as "too negligent" that he sees fit, God-forbid, to ban me for speaking my mind. I honestly think that this crap is preposterous, tho, and I think it besmirches his name that it exists on WP. :-\ Tomer ^TALK 06:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't have anything significant to add the the "discussion" that has not been said by someone else - but wanted to say that I thought you made a good and sensible call in banning that user. 62.252.0.6 20:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Commotion in action at Fac page: *Need help* to stabilize anti-bias

Ok, I see you found the "you've got messages" link / joke -don't feel like I singled you out -I got several people with that one. (And may get a few more --psst! don't tell anyone.)

OK, I could be wrong, but I think that the Schiavo article was fixed well by all of our teamwork, and since I recalled Neutrality once making a "featured article" suggestion about Schiavo's article in one peer review, I nominated it, as it my conscience told me it was the right thing to do. There is a flurry of "NO" bias -and while I think I shall minimize my editing participation, I've put the call out to many regular contributors whose work is insulted here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo Firesorm here; Need help. Your feedback would be welcome. Thank you for your time.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

why

my edit to the list of people who said they are a god is very justifiable, and has been discussed prevoiously, removing it is really kinda mean. whyd you do that?Gavin the Chosen 00:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin

I personally feel that Gavin warrants a bit of a block for disruption, so I thought it would be good to bring it to your attention. He did a bit of revert fighting just now here and here, and reinserted some bizarre content here and here. Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you what to do or anything, just giving my opinion. Hope that's OK. Friday (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Your personal emoptions are noted, and frankly, i think thats too much. all i EVER try to do is make improovements.Gavin the Chosen 00:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

#3: [2]. Summary says to give him a chance to cite his sources. He should cite them before making the edit, then, as I stated in my revert. ~~ N (t/c) 00:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My support

Well done. I would have done the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Patricia Crone

I was just creating a stub for her and I saw that two prior edits had been deleted. They might have been horrible but, they might have had good information but something wrong that led for the speedy deletion to go through. Could you paste contents on Talk:Patricia Crone? Thanks. gren グレン 07:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Award

For suffering through so much racism and more trolls than I care to count, and persevering; trolls who seem primarily motivated in driving dedicated editors and having them replaced with more trolls, I hereby grant you this AK-74 image macro. Apply controlled bursts. Yours, El_C 08:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

International links

I have a question. The subjects Psychedelic trance and Goa trance music (which is widely considered to be a sub-genre by modern day standards) both have a problem. They are starting to get a long list of external links pertaining to each country's specific parties/fora/festivals/stores, etc. What is the Wiki policy on this? If everyone starts adding their link because they want to be linked, then those two articles are going to be even more unencyclopedic than they already are. --Kim Nevelsteen 14:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind comments. It means a lot to be called something other than "obsessive" or "fixated" for trying to deal with fundamental issues of how to do things right in the project. I don't know how you manage sometimes - dealing with all the attacks, the "rogue admin" accusations, the RFAr...I'm not sure I would have kept with it through all that. I deeply admire people like you, Mel, Will, Steve , El C... Thanks for the message, and thanks for all your hard work. Guettarda 19:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Title edit

Hi, this might sound stupid, but how does one edit a wiki title?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineko_iwasaki

This is clearly wrong as the surname should be caps. Can I do this, or do you have to?

Cheers, John Smith's 21:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, John Smith's, no, it doesn't sound stupid, and you can do it yourself. Click on the article's "Move" tab button! Bishonen | talk 21:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Tightrope Award

Tightrope Award

Thanks from me too! I don't know where you find the patience, Slim, or how you stay so calm (at least to outward appearance) and reasonable always. You are hereby presented with your own unique Tightrope Award, which represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Think of it as an early prototype of editors like you carrying Wikipedia on their shoulders! Bishonen | talk 21:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning LaRouche Polical Views

Would you kindly revert your changes on the following paragraph?

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment". Fair comment is a legal term used in defamation cases. It does not reflect the common language use of the words fair comment.

If you do not want to do so would you kindly explain your actions with arguments regarding the wikipedia policy?

thank you for your help and time...

--Zirkon 11:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm - I will revert your changes at 16:00 UTC unless you start a diskussion about this paragraph...

till then --Zirkon 13:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. If you want to change it again i suggest you explain why it is not appropraiate to keep it in its current form. I would like to know your point of view very much.

--Zirkon 16:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you are online now could share your views on the paragraph with me?

--Zirkon 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just using the term as the obviously the Washington Post understood it. I am revering to this paragraph in this article:

In October 1980, a New York State Supreme Court justice dismissed a defamation suit the NCLC had filed against the Anti-Defamation League and ruled that calling the NCLC anti-Semitic is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion.

Is this original research?

(hm maybe i should have put that on article talk side - oh well bear with me)

--Zirkon 20:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I copied the above comments on to the article talk site - thank you for your patients and your kind reminder message on my talk site. --Zirkon 21:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

IP address

Could you please take a look at the latest goings on at IP address, SqueakBox 12:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon

Howdy. User:Eyeon may be back as User:Refugee621. See [3] (not a pretty picture). android79 01:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Simon

Slim, Ed,

I have been following the situation with Gabriel, editing now as Gavin the Chosen, for some time, although I have generally tried to keep my mouth shut about it lately--as far as I can tell, he has never listened to a single piece of advice I have tried to give him. By August 9, the two of you had agreed to take on a kind of mentor/monitor role with respect to Gabriel, giving him carrots and sticks as appropriate.

Let me say that I'm grateful to have veteran administrators here like the two of you; I've learned a lot from your behavior and writings as this episode has unfolded and hope to be able to use those lessons in my future work with the encyclopedia.

That said, however, I think it's time we should all consider whether this arrangement is working. I am going to suggest that it is not.

Gabriel has been blocked six times in less than three weeks. And all of them for the most fundamental things, in particular, violating the 3RR. He continues to make excuses, blame everyone else, and, frankly, shows no sign that I can see of wanting to become a better editor. He wants his changes to stick, sure, and he wants to avoid blocks, but he doesn't want to understand why editors are rejecting his changes and why he is getting in trouble. He is basically doing the same kinds of things today that he was doing months ago.

As I said, I am deeply impressed by the time and effort you have both put in to tutoring Gabriel. But how many last chances is he going to get? Slim, let me remind you of what you said back on August 9: "I've told him this is very much his last chance. He's been given a lot of slack, and I think he deserves a chance to create a new account and a fresh start, but if the old behavior returns, then I would say he's used up all his chances." There are many other editors, and many other readers besides Gabriel. They all deserve consideration as well. If, after all this time, Gabriel can't even learn to hew to the simple letter of 3RR, is there really any hope for his improvement?

At the minimum, I think it is time to say that the August 9 arrangement has failed. Six blocks have to equal one "last chance." I truly think that he should be blocked pending the outcome of his arbitration case--and, given his use of sockpuppets in the past, probably his IP should be blocked as well. If this is too harsh, I think the terms of his "mentorship" should at least be strengthened to include the following: (a) adherence to a one revert rule, (b) no editing at all to a small list of pages where he has gotten into trouble in the past and seems only to cause disruption and waste the time of other editors, and (c) minimum block duration of 72 hours, as the last six 24 or 48 hour blocks have not done the trick.

I am a very new editor at Wikipedia; I understand that I have a lot to learn about the best way to do things around here. I hope you will take the time to discuss with me if you think I am off base here, and I sincerely thank you for your time in reading this message.

Yours,

Craig --Craigkbryant 04:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

as i said before, ther mere fact that i am able to remain here despite things that happened is enough proof of a desire to improove. mr craig, woul you please refrain from passing judgement? Of all the users on this site, i have only passed judgement twice, tho i will not speak of that now. i regret that i was correct.

as i slso said before, i do make mistkes, and btw, "excuses" are my attempts at self explainatioin, an attempt to show where im coming from... seemed a reasonable idea to t ry and proobve im not just here to be a jerk.Gavin the Chosen 04:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Diarrhea Article Image

While I understand your desire to have my image removed from the Diarrhea article, I believe the educational benefits of keeping the image outweigh the revulsion that some may feel. To be honest, I don't understand how it can be considered "obscene" once you take into account the fact that the Wikipedia articles on anus, penis, and clitoris lead to graphic images of their subjects. Also, considering that Wikipedia is attempting to be used as a viable reference, we should act like adults and not make "poop is gross!" arguements when discussing something that is, like it or not, a part of human life. Refugee621 06:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Would you accept a less-offensive image for the article? Perhaps an illustrated cross-section or something along those lines. However, if the entire concept of an image being posted in the article is taboo, I'll just leave it at that. Refugee621 08:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

about original research

Sorry to bother you but... Could you please point me to the relevant paragraph in that original research article? I am trying to find one that is actually intended for this case, but i am certain it is a subtle thing that you can easily clarify...

Thank you for help

--Zirkon 11:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Nanjing Safety Zone

It's been a while so this might not be complete. Also, the article was written with facts aggregated from many different places, rather than one single source.

• zh:南京安全區 - The Chinese version of this article
• Section VI of this article
• 2 of Rabe and Vautrin's journal entries
• [4]

There is much more I could have added to the article, if not for FoC's constant agenda-pushing. Also, we should be asking for sources from FoC, not me, since it's he who is trying to squeeze his version of the story into the article. -Hmib 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I added some sources as well, with the aim of better establishing historiographical consensus. El_C 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, El C, they look very useful. I look forward to reading them. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Here to help! :) El_C 02:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies for this edit at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It was careless of me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it was bold. These things are bad when the issue is one of disagreement over meaning, but language errors don't matter, that's what the whole collaborative editing is for. for trying to improve WP:3RR. --fvw* 02:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Help

Hay, Slim Virgin, will you do me a favor and change my user name from User:Dbraceyrules to User:V. Molotov. I got this idea from a new user that had put barnstars on my sight. I really like that name alot. D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of whom...I get the most fun messages on my talk page, no? Ah, Wikipedia. - Lucky 6.9 22:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hope I didn't scare you

I know my words were radical on Lucky 6.9's talk page, but I was pissed off at the moment because I had a class canceled. Thanks, V. Molotov 00:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose those ultra-leftists wanting to execute some for possessing millions of dollars, just as you should oppose those ultra-rightists who wish to execute people who steal (or exporpriate) from the millionaires and billionaires. Comrade Nkrumah would agree, I'm sure. El_C 00:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You terrifed me, VM. If that's what happens when you miss a class, what happens when you get really angry? ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, class, that's what I'm talking about! :) El_C 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The real problem, El C, is with all of the damn moderates!!! Damn them and their left-of-right, right-of-left nonsense! Func( t, c, @, ) 00:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Damn pacifists — when will they learn? Non violence dosen't work! El_C 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus vs. supermajority

A consensus is not 66% nor 80%, nor 100%. You're confusing a supermajority with consensus. Consensus is a decision or resolution that all parties in a dispute or discussion can accept, even if they disagree. Please take care to note the difference. In day to day matters, such as VfD and RFA, a supermajority serves as a practical substitute for real consensus. However, such operational conveniences do not change the proper definition of consensus.

Jimbo's decision forced a consensus that was probably already developing, but had clearly not been reached at the time he announced his opinion. Regardless of its history, it's now a fact of Wikipedia life that virtually everyone accepts, and I don't intend to argue it further. Unfocused 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

CfD on LGBT philosophers

Lulu, I still can't find Category:LGBT philosophers on the deletion page. The page link goes to the page but not specifically to an entry for that, and when I do a search, nothing comes up. Sorry if I'm just missing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. I know I did this wrong, and created some Wikispace cruft. I was trying to follow the VfD procedures rather than CfD, and didn't even really know how to do the wrong thing either. I just got back home, and I'll try to follow the CfD procedures I finally located. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:38, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

...followup: I think I have done it correctly now. Could you let me know if there is still some formal error in the category deletion recommendation I made? Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:49, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Protection

Request denied. You don't get to decide when something gets unprotected just because you initially protected it. There were compelling reasons for unprotecting, and two people had requested it on the talk page. Moreover I regard this edit warring as very low-level and think it's ridiculous to protect an article on something current just because there's one or two reverts in a two day period. Finally I did not edit the page myself except to fix some typos. I have contributed no content to that article that I can recall. Everyking 03:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not hours. 3 days according to the history. And it's been almost a week since the unprotection before you noticed it. If you're not paying attention to it you can't insist that you be the gatekeeper. In any case this is all new to me, this idea that one admin has to get approval from another admin to act. You protected it. 3 days passed. Two requests for unprotection were made, coupled with a good reason (chart updates). Therefore I unprotected. Everyking 03:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

West Bank

I consider myself to be a (critical) supporter of Israel, and know plenty of people who are completely uncritical supporters of Israel. Neither I nor anyone I know calls the West Bank "Judea and Samaria." I don't think this term is ever used in English except as a translation of the Hebrew Yehuda ve'ha'Shomron. So I think my original formulation was correct. Adam 03:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)