User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm a new user, having joined on Nov. 2, 2004. My interests are current affairs, the Middle East, terrorism, Ancient Greece, philosophy, the history of science, human rights and animal liberation.
| My archived talk | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Archive 1 |
Archive_18 |
Archive_35 |
|
Pan Am Flight 103
After reading the edits you made on the Pan Am Flight 103 article I just thought I'd mention a couple of things. It's great that you've gone to the efforts of attempting to reach a compromise through different attempts at changing the article, through discussion on the talk page and through a post on the VP. It seems to be between just two of you and hopefully someone else will come along and lend their opinion.
I think the whole article needs a copyedit, to be honest, as the structure is not particularly great right now. One thing I must warn you to avoid is changing British English spelling to American English (or vice versa) - you'll just get yourself into arguments about that!
I hope the article can be sorted soon - it has great potential. violet/riga (t) 22:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Herschel
Herschelkrustofsky is, sadly, allowed to edit articles. He is a longtime member of the LaRouche cult and a shameless liar and slanderer, and nothing he says or writes here should be believed. Unfortunately the people who run Wikipedia are too gutless to defend their own project by banning him and people like him from participating, or to defend legitimate editors against their wrecking. That is why I have withdrawn from editing all articles except Australian ones, and even there I find Herschelkrustofsky spreading his poison. No doubt I will soon be banned altogether for reverting Herschelkrustofsky's edits. I wish you luck in dealing with him, but I fear Wikipedia's failure to deal with him and other like him will result in the whole project being fatally damaged, which is very sad. Adam 09:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Adam, is right when he says that people, like Herschelkrustofsky, who uncritically believe the information from a single source that is unreliable beyond reasonable doubt are a danger to Wikipedia. Another one is [1] I know all about this myself. I was a follower of Sathya Sai Baba Andries 10:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- With regards to the death of a man after he attended a meeting of LaRouche, I just wanted to say that this is impossible to prove. And he may indeed have been schizophrenic See also http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/AZ.htm about my former guru. Scroll down for suicides and murders. I can not tell here what I know to protect the privacy of people involved. Andries 10
- 34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jeremiah Duggan
Slim, an excellent article on Jeremiah Duggan. You can expect an immediate counter-attack from the LaRouchies. Adam 13:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I just saw your note on Adam's talk page. You might want to have a read of this prior decision by our Arbitration Committee regarding the LaRouchites. If you feel that they've breached any of these terms, then you may want to request that the case be re-opened at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Ambi 00:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The address is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, but don't expect any help from them. The sad fact is that Wikipedia has no mechanism for defending itself against extremists and cultists, the people who run it seem to have no interest in developing one. Adam 01:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mediation
Hello SlimVirgin. I've removed your comment from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on the mediation between Adam and Herschelkrustofsky. Because of the nature of mediation, we ask that those not directly involved in the dispute do not edit the page. I appreciate that you were aiming to help Adam, and I realise that removing comments is an unusual step, but in this case it is best to leave it to the mediators. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)
- The mediation committee will not make any decisions or judgements in the Adam/Herschelkrustofsky case, that's not our role. What we try to do is look at any conflict with an eye to helping the participants discuss issues and find common ground. Of course, that sometimes isn't possible, but that will become evident if that's so. I have found that it's best to start any mediation with the comments of the participants only. Sometimes comments from other parties, however well intentioned, can disrupt this process. Even if you believe that mediation is not possible, it's my job to start from a position that it is. You may be interested to read Wikipedia:What is mediation? which give more information about what we do. As a mediation committee member, I'd ask you not to comment on that page at this time - if the mediation gets under way then there is no reason you can't contact the chosen mediator with your opinion then. Or if this goes to the arbitration committee then evidence from anyone is accepted there. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Slim, thanks for your comments at the Mediation page. You make some excellent points, but I'm afraid I am not very optimistic about the likely outcome of this matter. Adam 03:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The group forming at Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards has potentional as a base for organising some action on this front. Adam 03:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Terrorism
No, I did not mean to say that. The word terrorism on Wikipedia is being regarded as POV, by the way. WhisperToMe 05:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's a debate at Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks - It looks like people are divided but I say that it's safe to try to not use the word that much - I guess I put it too simply last time... WhisperToMe 05:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Death of Jeremiah Duggan
Done. Jayjg 23:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
About intellectual accuracy
Hey Slim Virgin, the legend is not Indonesian but Javanese :-). Indonesia was founded only after WWII. Andries 12:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reply from Herschel
No, I do not. Why do you ask? --Herschelkrustofsky 14:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Returning favor?
Hi. I have put in a word on your disagreement about the Jeremiah Duggan article. Maybe you’d like to help with one of mine.
- Talk:Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004 How much information about the invasion should be included?
Thanks. Maurreen 03:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ZioPOV offends me
The Abu Iyad quote is taken out of context from Palestinefacts.com, a pro-Israeli site. If the original can be sourced, I'd be interested to read it. What you think about Arafat and his honesty is your POV and has no bearing on reality. --Alberuni 07:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I was just going to say hi. To get to know who you are dealing with here, take a brief look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alberuni. Most people here are helpful and friendly, though. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jeremiah Duggan draft
Hi, Slim. It's easy to make a new page. You can use this.
- User talk:SlimVirgin (Jeremiah Duggan draft)
- I put it here for now. I figure some semblance of privacy is better for drafts. When it's ready, you can let the others know. :) Maurreen 08:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Wow! I'm glad that worked out so well. Give a yell if you need me to come back.
- Thanks for your comments concerning the Iraq occupation article. Sometimes all that is needed is an outside voice. When I went to the occupation article the first time, I was just checking on an old RfC that someone else had listed but which had apparently died out.
- I've been a little discouraged on Wikipedia lately, and the occupation article is the lesser problem, but your success heartens me somewhat. :) Maurreen 05:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Racialism
I see you were involved in the discussion here. I am looking to restore the page to a stable state, and remove surrounding disputes. Would you mind speaking your mind on the subject? Awesome user page, BTW. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tavistock
Yes, the article on Tavistock Institute bears little relationship to the activities of the Tavistock Insitute and seem to be mainly derived from LaRouche conceptions. Any user may remove such material, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Removal_of_original_work, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Should it be re-inserted or an edit war develop, "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Edit_wars_or_re-insertion_of_original_material. As of now, no one has removed LaRouche derived material from the article Tavistock Institute nor has anyone tried to re-insert it or engaged in an edit war. Fred Bauder 02:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
That sentence
I get paid to edit better work than that sentence you left me. :) By the way, I've recently done a little work at the Simple Wikipedia. It appears much less contentious, probably at least partly because it's smaller. Maurreen 08:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
From Herschel K
Please note my response at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Response_from_Herschel.
--Herschelkrustofsky 22:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9/11 attacks
SlimVirgin, please add your objections to the use of "freedom fighter" to the talk page. If you had checked the history, it would be clear that this is not a case of vandalism here. --Rebroad 14:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi again. I've replied to your comments in the "WOW" section of the 9/11 attacks debate. Shame I didn't see this one earlier, as it looks like I might be starting to agree with you! --Rebroad 14:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Edits on Anti-Zionism
Hi Slim, your edits on anti-Zionism seemed fine, I was just surprised you removed the headings for the links. No harm done. Jayjg 14:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Copy editing
Thanks for your work on the copy editing article. Maurreen 16:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- One thing about copy editors (I am one) is that we agree that everyone needs an editor. :)
- Actually, I think there are three versions of the expression "copy editing". I think magazine and book people tend to write it as one word, which I abhor.
- And I've been following Rebroad's changes to the Sept. 11 article. You seem like a person interested in the language. If you're bored sometime, you might want to see the archives on the title, which is missing a comma. Maurreen 16:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dogs
Nice dogs! Are they yours? I've got it on my desktop now. It really captures a moment of doginess, doesn't it? --Rebroad 17:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Spirit of wiki
Well spoken! The metaphor of a wiki as a living thing works for me. Dr Zen 05:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Haute Couture
Joe, I inserted "haute couture" back into the Culture article. If you really feel it's inappropriate then I won't keep re-inserting it, but my reasoning is that many men and women (the group that also goes to the opera, buys expensive art etc) have it as an article of faith not to buy clothes off-the-peg. Haute couture doesn't only refer to high-fashion designer clothes. It refers (I believe) to the very best tailoring (the phrase means "high sewing"). So even the Queen, though it doesn't always look like it, wears clothes of that quality. That's why I thought it would be classed as part of that "high culture", but if you still feel it's wrong, by all means remove it. Slim SlimVirgin 03:18, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, your usage is correct, but look at the context. Do you know of 18th or early 19th century uses (or use by Matthew Arnold, etc.) of "culture" to refer to fine clothing? (I don't.) Does it add anything? I think even haute cuisine is pushing it, but I put it in because the previous wording was "fine cuisine, art, and music" and I felt that the 18th and early 19th century sense was better conveyed by "haute cuisine, museum-calibre art, and classical music": just the word "elite" was a bit flat.
- Anyway, I reverted you once on this, and I think it is no big deal either way, not enough for me to revert again if you actually thought this over and honestly believe it is an improvement. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yasser Arafat
Aloha. Regarding your recent edit, do you think it's possible to add a reference to the Bibliography section for the 1972, Al-Dustur article? Also, is this considered to be a reputable source? --Viriditas 10:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think a date will definitely help, as will a full citation in the proper format (author, date, title, page number). I think that this is important, because if you don't do this, someone will eventually remove your content. Verifiability of cited sources is de rigueur. --Viriditas 10:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
C Colden
Jimbo felt we had not established enough of a factual basis for banning C Colden. I unbanned her myself. There is also a problem with Frederick Wills as he seems to have been closely associated with Lyndon LaRouche, thus his article is not the sort of unrelated article the arbitration decision was intended to cover. Fred Bauder 12:13, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
