User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 20

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

Mark A. Gabriel

Hello SlimVirgin. You mentioned in Talk:Mark A. Gabriel that you read of a reviewer, who stated that Gabriel's books looked as if they were written by a ten-year-old? Do know the name of this exact reviewer? I'd like to know about him or her. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 02:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Wow - that was a close one. Thanks so much for everything, not just nominating me but working hard to press my case. Next time I'll provide the Johnny Walker (Black Label of course!) I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, remember when you asked me how much support it would take for him to pass? Like 30 more people.. and he still pulled it off. My lord... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Daniel Brandt

Might want to check out the bottom of the talk page for my additional comment... - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anniversary

Hey, it appears that you have been editing Wikipedia for a year now (O.K., I missed the exact anniversary by a couple of days). Congratulations/Condolences! Keep up the good work! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with Striver

Slimvirgin, I'm turning everywhere in a search for help dealing with the user Striver, and coming up empty. He has made 500 edits in the last four days. Many of them have been to create new articles of complete uselessness. He is also trying to turn various Islam-related articles into items of Shi'a piety.

He has decided that he is going to make all his article references by creating an article for the book he wants to reference, then linking to it. I asked him PLEASE not to do this, and he asserted, basically, that I was not the boss of him and he could reference books in a new way if he wanted to do so.

For examples of both trends, see the Ali article. There are his cockamamie references. He is also filling it up with Shi'a myths (Ali born in the Kaaba) and quotes laudatory of Ali.

He can't write, can't spell, and has no sense of what is a useful reference and what isn't. Take a look at his user page and see if you come to the same conclusion that I do about his mental state. Is there nothing one can do about a editor of dubious ability and amazing stamina? It is going to take months to clean up after him, even if he's stopped NOW. IMHO, he's trashing Wikipedia. What CAN I do? Zora 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

BCCI

Hey, Slim. I notice you've been doing a lot of good cleaning-up of Abu Nidal recently. (Nice job, by the way!) I thought I'd mention to you that the BCCI article is pretty anemic. It's a very important scandal, tieing in a bunch of hot topics: John Kerry's biggest accomplishment in the Senate was bringing BCCI down; many of the folks that funded 9/11 made their money at BCCI; the CIA's involvement in finance really got started here; Saudi Arabia's money in the U.S. is a potential hot-button issue, and you can't understand that without understanding BCCI; and the banking scandals of the 80's (including the infamous S&L bailout) are tie in too. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut here, but it really is all related. So a comprehensive BCCI article is badly needed. I just haven't gotten around to doing the research and writing it. So I thought it I brought it to your attention, it might somehow magically blossom into a featured article without me having to work at it. ; )

Hope things are going well for you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great! Good luck! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. A guy named Steve has been editing the Salem al-Hazmi article, and it needs a little love. Could you give it a look-see? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Annoying vandals

Thanx for banning User:70.190.26.38. 68.39.174.238 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting me on my successful RfA, and I'll see you around Wikipedia! — Phil Welch 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Please describe your edits in more detail. In your last edit to PETA you decribe your changes as rv to New Testament; the "bible" doesn't only refer to the Christian bible). That's great, but you also deleted a reference I added as well as changing other text not related to the edit description. I accept your Christian Bible change, but it is fact that it is a minority of Christian scholars believe that Jesus was a vegetarian. I left you two references to this fact.--129.173.105.28 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)}

SV please check email. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Utterly frivolous request

Hey, I hope I'm not posting here inappropriately, but I wanted to email you a (frivolous for you, semi-serious for me) question regarding PETA. If that's not totally annoying (understandable if it is), can you tell me the best way to do this? IronDuke 05:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You coy bird!

"is npa3 defenestrated, by the way?"

It had been a while, but I was scratching my head, certain that that template had had its teeth pulled. You're really twisting a tom's tail there, and I have made a vow to be very very nice to the old tiger.

I'm interested in the whole dispute resolution spectrum, and this seems like an obvious thing to me. First we eliminate an atmosphere in which personal attacks are accepted, or even grumpily ignored. When someone makes an attack, other contributors, any contributor, should feel as though they have both the duty and the right to say, "Hey! Stop it!" They should also feel safe in doing so.

I had a guy jump me on the train Thursday because I asked him to leave alone a schoolgirl he was hassling. Half the time it's like that here, if you step in then all that happens is that you start copping it.

Once we've licked that, we begin to work on civility. Ok, we may have to start with me, but I can live with that.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yellow train

Hi, thanks for tidying up the small page i created....always appreciate help. But am interested in what flagged the page as needing attention? Collieman

User talk:SlimVirgin (Jeremiah Duggan draft)

Found this page in my travels, it looks like a temporary page. I thought I'd leave it to you to delete or move to a more appropriate location. -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Erica White

Hi, Slim!

Thanks for your help this morning. (Well, I'm not sure if it was morning where you are.)

I recently started an article on nutritionist Erica White, and looking at it now, I'm wondering if it's too anecdotal. I started one earlier on Patrick Holford, and am much more comfortable with that one, because it's based more on facts and dates (where he studied, what organizations he founded, what books he has written). In the case of Erica White, I find that the information known about her is less concrete – she felt ill, her doctor was unsympathetic, her husband carried her meals up to her, etc. Sure, there are simple historical facts with dates, like starting the diploma course or setting up her own practice, but these things are not so interesting as her transformation from someone who lay on the sofa all day long while her husband washed the dishes to someone whose business expanded so rapidly that her husband had to give up his job in order to manage it full time.

If you have time, could you take a look and remove or change anything that you think shouldn't be there. I'm positive that she's notable enough for an article, but I mightn't be distant enough to be sure how to write it, as eight members of my family are patients of hers (through e-mail and telephone) with wonderful results. I don't think the article should be controlled by a very satisfied patient, though, and so far nobody else has gone near it!

Despite the drama this morning at my talk page, which wasn't really that bad – I eventually stopped reverting because I felt it was just wasting server space with all the versions stored in the page history – I'm going to ask you to unprotect my userpage, and we'll just see what happens. I'd like to make a few changes to it.

Thanks for always being around to help! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the conflict

Please see [2]. If this is the origin of Willmcw's monitoring of my edits, then this whole mess is one giant case of mistaken identity aggrevated by bad faith assumptions. Rangerdude 06:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Israel

I'm sorry, but I doubt you read the changes entirely, or you would not have stated "rv to last version by Zero; I agree that it's better without these changes". That edition you two have reverted to contains outdated information on demography that changes from what is in stated in the intro to what is stated in the demography section. Further, I have also added Ladino as a spoken language. Please do not deny this. And I have also added that Arabic is also spoken my some Mizrahi and Teimani.

Please point out any inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. But do not revert under the guise that it “looks better”, but by doing so you delete so much relevant information that should not be omitted.

Again, I cannot comprehend how you could agree (I you have indeed compared version) that it is better without the changes, when the article content conflicts from one part of the article to the other. Al-Andalus 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

From your own user page: "Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR. Be self-limiting in how many times you revert a page in a day. Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk." I have done this. Please do also comply by your own demands. I am the only one who has explained my reasons. I'm still awaiting yours and user Zero's. Once more, please point out to me the inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. Al-Andalus 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive apartheid editor

I wonder what the guy was trying to prove by posting a link to a picture of me? It's not like I try to make a secret of my identity or anything. I know for some editors it would be an invasion of privacy or intimidation or something of the sort; but geez, if I was skeered of that, I wouldn't put my real name and my background on my user page. At least he chose a nice picture of me! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• That latest one he posted a link to is a funny choice. I'd almost never sung in public before; and I'd certainly never sung solo in public. As a result of the pictures taken at the wedding, I very quickly taught myself sing without looking like I'm in pain. I had no idea! --Jpgordon 05:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

would you mind helping out again? a reverter named Yuber does nothing but revert everything i do! I put in information with proper sources but he just reverts and reverts! John McW 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't listen to this guy. The section was worked on by several editors and he just wants to put his version in against consensus. Yuber^(talk) 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

yuber keeps deleting information that I provided links at the Syria and History of Syria, articles, and he even takes out the link. at first he wouldn't even say why he reverted but now he keeps using different reasons. instead he puts in other stuff that doesn't even have any links, he just made it up. also he changed the Lebanon article to say silly stuff and revert me on november 6 and when i fixed it he keeps pretending that I am the one who changed the article. also he keeps adding a link to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon article about "Israeli occupied territories" which has nothing to do with lebanon. he keeps pretending they are about the same thing. yuber is a syrian apologist who only knows how to revert. everything I do he reverts, he doesn't even say why. how can I edit here if he follows me everywhere and reverts me? is there some way he can be stopped from doing this? John McW 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

I have been asked to provide the details of our conversation of March 2005. Accordingly, please undelete what is under this Deletion link to some non-controversial place, such as to the as yet unconstructed page User_talk:Rednblu/Human. Thank you. Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There is need to have the discussion on that page available because the discussion on that page is integral to the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page as you can see at this link. The discussion on that page was moved from Talk:Human/Rednblu, is that not so? Rednblu | Talk 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to remember our discussions. Many people have written to me asserting that what is on that page is needed to assess the User:Rednblu account. That whole deleted page was moved from the Talk:Human discussion, is that not so? Perhaps if you could restore that page just temporarily to some page under my account we could both look at it and perhaps then delete it again. What could be the harm in that? Rednblu | Talk 04:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have time to restore that deleted page to some page under my account? Sorry to trouble you. I am not sure what you meant when you wrote "there is a problem regarding the Rednblu user account." But we don't have to ever figure that one out.  :) Let's move forward. You created the page Talk:Human/Rednblu where we had that March 2005 discussion, then you moved that discussion to User_talk:SlimVirgin/Rednblu, and then the page disappeared. Isn't that exactly what happened? Many people write to me saying that they have to see our discussion that was on that deleted page. My only interest is to have our discussion available for them since they ask for it. If what they tell me is right, and that is how I remember it also, this deleted page is not just your thoughts and cogitations. Many other people were part of those discussions also; so the discussions are a proper part of Wikipedia proceedings. Maybe you don't want that page restored under your account? Fine. Then please restore that page under my account, thank you. Sorry to trouble you, but we need that discussion undeleted. And I cannot do it myself. So I would appreciate your help here. Thanks. Rednblu | Talk 05:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:MENTCOM

Hello Slim! I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the Mentorship Committee... Just read the page for some details on who we are and what we do.

P.S. when ya gonna join the medcom? :P

Redwolf24 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Crazy changes by Gilgamesh

Unfortunately, User:Gilgamesh is now imposing his own views by changing the transliterated Hebrew names of articles with redirects to unreadable Hebrew names and fonts, as if his criteria are the only ones to reckon with, when there are in fact several. My computer, as I am sure many others' as well, does not pick up his type of fonts, and thus he is messing up articles such as Safed, Hadera, Holon, Afula, Arad, Israel and many others defacing them and making them unreadable on the web. He is going to DESTROY the normal usage of Wikipedia's Hebrew transliterations to satisfy his own needs without there being any consensus. Common usages are being thrown out in favor of obscure and pedantic academic usages familiar to only a handful of unkown academics. He should be called upon to stop BEFORE he rushes to do further damage without any consensus being reached. All his changes should therefore be reverted. See all his recent contributions via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilgamesh I thank you for your interest, and urge all readers here to act. IZAK 03:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

At the present time there is a serious discussion taking place, aiming at some consensus that will result in "official" Wikipedia guidelines about how Hebrew should be used and written in Wikipedia articles. Because of your past or ongoing interest in these type of articles with Hebrew words in them, your attention is called to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [3] TO MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN AND TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE "DOORS ARE SHUT" PLEASE SEE THE RELATED DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [4] Thank you! IZAK 03:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

DOM Conflict

SV, I just thought I'd let you know that the conflict with Johnski has gone to arbitration. I saw that you blocked SamuelSpade as a sockpuppet. Can you tell me what proof if any you found? Thanks... Davidpdx 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

AFD

Hi Slim, I'm trying to list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Evangelization for deletion, but it seems to be hosing up the Nov 13 listings. Help! It's the first time I've listed an AFD. I clicked on "Add a new entry" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and added {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Evangelization}} at the bottom, but it somehow is merging with the previous listing. Weird, I don't know what I'm doing wrong. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 13:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

oops! never mind, figured it out! there were more directions at the bottom of the page I didn't notice the first time : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! that was probably me in the edit conflict. I originally didn't have the template set up on the page listing --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

DRV

Based on what I see of your discussions with Rednblu, I assume you're aware that a subpage of yours is currently being discussed at WP:DRV. As it's an odd case, I think it might be useful to get your opinion. I noticed on Rednblu's talk page you said something about not wanting to get involved. That's fine, but does that mean you have no objection to undeletion? -R. fiend 18:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Double degree again

Sorry, I know that this is a pain, but I'm not sure what to do about this Howardjp (talk · contribs). He's still insisting (despite universal disagreement from those who have commented, and a clear set of definitions at Wikipedia:Spam) that the sample list of universities is "linkspam", and he has deleted the list again. He seems to have some sort of obsession with this, though I don't know what's at the root of it. I don't see any alternative but to protect the page. It's not clear that what he's doing is vandalism, though he's certainly fallen foul of "no personal attacks", and possibly of W:POINT (in that he tried adding a ridiculously long list in order to demonstrate that a full list was impractical). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I said before, and I will say again. I never engaged in a personal attack. You did above. And you did previously. Additionally, the "clear definition" at Wikipedia:Spam shows the sample list is spam. Finally, I have, more than once, offered compromise solutions which you have failed to even address. It is clear, through your actions and words, you are not acting in good faith. Your inability and unwillingness to participate in this in a civilized manner makes it quite difficult to resolve this issue. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Spellchecker

I saw your block on User:Spellchecker. User:Spellcheck8 may be the same editor/bot. BlankVerse 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk

I just wanted to let you know that I've pitched in to help the mediators on the Ingrid Newkirk issue. It's a little thorny but it doesn't seem like it should be too hard to find a neutral solution. I've extended the discussion on the talk page a bit given my reading of the Martosko transcript. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 19:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

We seem to have a mess between different versions here. Did you do a straight revert to your previous version of 13 November? There were quite a few other changes in the meantime (I thought the article was badly inadequate and made some changes as well as suggesting to a couple of other users interested in the area that they might take a look at it). Palmiro | Talk 23:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to be able to disagree completely with someone and still discuss it in an entirely civil way. I appreciate it.

By the way, I've pointed the issue out to a couple of other users, who may be able to shed light (or heat) on it. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of Life

Care to have a look at this? It's a mess at the moment, and needs some work from people who actually know something (other than Douglas Adams and the Celestine Prophecy...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, my Talk page has light blue text, and your page is all underlined. I'd assumed that it was my browser playing up. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Ann's talk:

==Messed up pages==

Hey, I'm noticing something very strange going on. At your RfA, someone messed with Journalist's (Orin's) sig and managed to screw up the page (I fixed it). And now it has happened here. I took a look at Slim's talk and it seems that has been messed with as well. I don't know if this is malicious or a prank but isn't coincidence methinks. --hydnjo talk 23:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Would this eplain it, or is it an unrelated problem? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I found it. Someone changed Al-Andalus' post by substituting <u/> for</u>. I'll leave it for you to fix in case you want to trace back to the doer.  :-) --hydnjo talk 00:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's your fault...

That I'm now obsessed with my user page. I wanted it to look nice so that my star (thank you!) could be displayed appropiately. So I've used up my yearly rations of disk space and server time in the last three days, and the devs now say I'm allowed to edit articles no one will ever look at. So, if you want to help me with Witty sayings by GWB or How videogames make you sexy, let me know. And thanks again!
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

Yeah, that was bad.

Regarding [5]. I'm surprised I wrote that, actually. I was desperately searching for some way to say "nutjob" in an NPOV way. The difficulties of describing LaRouche neutrally, I guess.. Anyways, thanks for getting rid of that little bit of crappy prose on my part. Cheers, Sean|Black 07:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you for responding to my RfA. I appreciate the comments and will certainly strive to interact more notably with the community. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory redux

"This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends..." See [6]. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

yuder again

can you help me with this yuber reverter? he is reverting me again and claiming (lying) that what I put in is not sourced or that there is "consensus" that people have agreed to. he is even reverting me using an IP address. if you can't help me can you tell me someone who can? John McW 03:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

thank you. it is 4 articles, Syria, History of syria, Syrian occupation of lebanon, and Lebanon. John McW 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

thank you, but your question won't help, he keeps making up new reasons. read up higher on the page, every time it's something different, and then his edits use even more excuses. John McW 03:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Henry King

It's entirely appropriate to have minor subjects listed only in a disambiguation page, such as Henry King. If the redlinks offend, it'd be better to unlink them than to remove the info. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Acceptable sources?

Hi SlimVirgin. As you're an expert on the policies regarding sources, I was wondering if you could provide some advice. An editor has added large sections to the Israeli Arab article using two French sources, and have quoted Marxist analysis as fact. I've argued that the sources are not verifiable (as they are written in French), nor should they used in any event (at least for the economic analysis section), because Marxist economic analysis is an extreme minority opinion. Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think in my own defence I should note that this (specifically the claim "has quoted Marxist analysis as fact") is not just an insubstantiated, but a highly inaccurate account of what has been going on. Palmiro | Talk 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I live in Syria, where there are very few books of an academic standard available in English (I have some of my own, of course, but that's quite limited). I have quite a lot of books available to me in French and Arabic, though. This sort of problem probably applies to a lot of editors who don;t live in anglophone countries. Should I just give up on trying to edit?Palmiro | Talk 00:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand. If I reference a book in English, I am not obliged to provide a verbatim quote of what it says. The policy doesn't seem to me to imply that more stringent requirements apply when a foreign-language source is referenced. The two examples you give are both of direct quotes, and I got that bit all right. In any case, Wikipedia is full of foreign language speakers, many categorised or listed as available, so the citation of a foreign-language source (particularly in a language such as French) may make the verifiability a little more complicated, but hardly makes it impossible.

To make my concerns a bit clearer, this is an example of an article I created based entirely on one foreign language source (by a respected academic) (here here is another example, which also would have been impossible without using a foreign language source). I made two direct quotes, which I now understand I should also give in Arabic. But the rest is summarised or simply based on the Arabic source, as one normally does when using sources for any work. Should I have cited in Arabic every element of the book that I actually used? This would make the process of creating the article almost impossibly burdensome.

Also, there may well be sources available in English, but I don't have them. Does this mean I should have refrained from writing the article? I'm not claiming it's a particularly good article (in fact, looking back over it now it strikes me as pretty poor in many respects), but it gives Wikipedia some level of coverage of a notable figure in the intellectual, and to a degree political, history of the modern Middle East.

As regards 'saying what your sources are', I actually did, and I still got jumped on despite the fact that lots of articles, including articles about the middle east, are filled with stuff that is written without any sources, or with tendentious internet sites as sources, and with no effort to seek information out in reliable sources and write it up, which takes rather more effort.

Thank you for your calm and rational intervention, it's a pleasure to work with you.Palmiro | Talk 00:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite keen to hear your views on this, when you have time. Palmiro | Talk 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Double Degree

James, if you continue to delete that list of links, I'm going to consider blocking you, which I don't want to do, but the page can't stay protected forever and this can't continue. No one agrees with you that this is spam, and you've used a couple of abusive edit summaries too. Please either discuss the issue on the talk page, or let it go and move on. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply: First, there is not sufficient grounds to block me. Removing linkspam is not vandalism. So blocking me would be an abusive act for an admin. Second, it's irrelevant if nobody agrees with me. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Third, there have been no abusive edit summaries (though the last one I made was "rvv" when it should have been "rv linkspam", due to lookahead in Firefox). Claiming so is a personal attack. Fourth, I am the only one discussing it on the talk page. I have discussed the issue ad nauseum on the Talk page. I note, quite simply, that I have answered every question you've posted whereas User:Mel Etitis continues to ignore any attempt at dialogue. I suspect you intended to post the above on User:Mel Etitis's page, since it is a far closer description of his actions, than mine. -James Howard (talk/web) 00:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so that you're aware, official policy states:

Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited...

So with that in mind, it strikes me that the threat of a block is probably in violation of policy, at least in spirit. Therefore, I ask that you immedietly retract the threat. -James Howard (talk/web) 01:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't come close to disrupting Wikipedia. Content conflicts are, by definition, not disruptive. Additionally, I am under no obligation to keep misguided threats on my talk page. -James Howard (talk/web) 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:Mel Etitis is a linkspammer. Wikipedia:Spam is especially clear on the topic. Also, you'll note that not everyone disagrees with me. User:Jasonglchu and User:BenAveling openly agree that the list shouldn't be there and User:Carolynparrishfan thinks it would be better to offer a list of institutions that didn't. Out of eight people (not counting you, since you claim to not be involved in the dispute, and User:Hollow Wilerding who just made a flip remark), four don't think the list should be there. There is no consensus to keep the list. There isn't even a majority. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

James, the list shouldn't be there but it isn't spam. It is abusive of you to call Mel a spammer, especially in an edit summary. And blanking a warning off your talk page, that's not the done thing either. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Email

Please check. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you look at this?

Hi. I need some admin help. First see this, and look at my questions at User talk:Zoe. If you have time, please tell me what you think, and/or take appropriate action. Thanks!--Sean|Black 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion

About a month ago I placed this note on Israeli Arab talk page Talk:Israeli_Arab#One_big_POV. Since then the article has been improving. I find it odd that you as an editor, as an admin have allowed this article to be the way it was as that time. Surly you have seen it. Are you really looking to improve wikipedia to make it comprehansive NON POV. If so, even if you don't "like" me you should take part in the effort of improving such articles. So far you are not helping. You allowed a text that is clearly Marxist propeganda to be on this article. Zeq 05:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia the place for such propeganda ?

"The Israeli Communist Party played a major role in mobilising the Israeli Arab community ...Its newpapers and journals were important outlets for Arab Israeli expression and cultural production. " ?

Slim,

Maybe you can point me to the Wikipedia policy that support having such a sentnce on an article. Is it POV ? Is it sourced ? Is it add anything to the reader who looks for a encyclopedic info about "Who are those Israeli- Arbas ? I thought all Israelis are Jewish ?"

When I write an article I have my kids in front of my eyes: If they have a school project what would they be looking for ? I don't think what goes on in "Israeli Arab" article add any respect to wikipedia or any value to Wikipedia readers. Do you ? See other examples (one of many) in the talk page. A kinder, gentler 07:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Icke/Littlejohn

The Littlejohn interview is notable, it is often shown on those clip/compilation/worst moment things. Icke himself references Littlejohn in a letter he wrote to the producers of This Morning http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:WPnII5E4FywJ:www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2004/shu.html+littlejohn+icke&hl=en Jooler 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No response

Hello SlimVirgin, Can you please respond to my last gmail? Thank you, Johnski 08:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (with a few quibbles)

Thanks for editing the_eXile page. It does obviously need a 3rd party or "disinterested referee."

I'd think that the Edward Limonov section does need all the links, simply because the issue is so contentious, yet so straightforward if the links are consulted. Also removing the the "Our own Limonov" quote and link decreases the connection made between Limonov and the eXile. But maybe that was overkill in any case, the connection is clear.

As long as the section on Libel is accessable (not buried even further or split into even more pieces), and the material on Fascism is not deleted, the section about me is obviously fair. The question is how to keep it that way, and how to make sure the Libel section is not further downgraded.

Also I think you should take the reputable source issue more seriously and contribute to the RfC.

Thanks again,

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 16:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again

Peter D. Ekman

A few questions

I have a few questions about your various comments on several talk pages, and on my user page.

1. What do you mean by linkspam, exactly? Could you give me a link to the policy page that discusses it? I did a search and found only link spam, which referred to it as irrelevant advertising. In what sense is linking to, for example, the eXile's articles in the eXile or Mark Ames' autobiographical writing in his article linkspam? What policy page prohibits citing the subject of an article as a source? Certainly not wikipedia:NOR.
2. Why do you object to my citing Ames' writing about himself? It is an outside source, no? Can you give me a quote or link from a policy page that says not to do that?
3. Why do you object to citing the eXile in its own article, to show what it has published? Isn't the eXile an outside source? As before, please provide a quote or link.
4. Why don't you think the eXile is a credible source regarding the fact that their editors hit Michael Wines in the face with a horse sperm pie? They had a picture of him in the article, pictures of the sperm, the horse, etc. Why did you take his name out? In accordance with what policy? Again, a quote or link would be nice.

I, and several other editors on the eXile page, had hoped that this anonymous ip was totally alone in his opinions. But since you agree with him, maybe we should have a content RfC or some other form of arbitration? Obviously neither one of us wants to revert war over this. Let me know what you think, thanks, Dsol 20:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions about a dispute

Slim, you know Anonymous Editor well, so I was hoping you could help with a dispute I'm having with him. On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he keeps inserting as fact that we know what Iranian politicians believe; my argument is that we can't know what they believe, only what they claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I said to Jayjg that if Iranian politicians have constantly called for the destruction of the Israeli state, that that must be what they believe. "Claim" seems unecessary here and I don't know why jayjg wants it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA Request

Greetings SlimVirgin, I've recently put myself up for an RfA, and I figured I'd ask two people specifically to voice their opinions, both that I've had a level of contact/conflict with, to try and get a fair opinion. If you forget the spat, it was over Shehzad Tanweer. Hopefully I've learned more since then, but I'd appreciate your honest opinion, in either direction, on the RfA Sherurcij 03:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Nobs01

Hi! Have you been following Statement by Nobs01 at the RfArb, and particularly Exhibit 4? Thanks. nobs 04:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The intent issue; I never set out to trash Cberlet as alleged. Would it help if I demonstrated it. nobs 06:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The point being, Slim, I beleive I've read two posting of yours referring to me as acting with "malice" and I'd like to give you every opportunity to amend that statement. Thank you. nobs 20:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

An allegation has been made that nobs has acted in "malice"; nobs stands ready to document (a) nobs has made good faith efforts to resolve disputes since nobs first contact with Cberlet; (b) Cberlet has violated policy provisions for dispute resolution; (c) user:Cberlet has fanned the flames of disputes by editing practices in violation of policy provisions; (d) nobs raising the current issues at Talk:Chip Berlet was only delayed by nobs good faith recusal in August [7] from further editing, "As gesture of good faith in anticipation of collaborative efforts & dispute resolution"; (e) nobs raised the issue (i) substance of Laird Wilcox report (ii) basis for Chip Berlet using Wikipedia to smear of Mr. Wilcox's integrity on 20 September [8]; (f) Cberlet responded by repeating the unsubtantiated smear of Wilcox and delivered personal attack against nobs [9]; (g) nobs gave second opportunity to substantiate using Wikipedia as a platform to deliver personal smear against Wilcox [10].

I could continue if necessary, but clearly this dispute did not arise over night, and Cberlet has done nothing to mitigate it. And I do not believe yourself, or anyone else, can substantiate the charge that nobs has acted with "mailce". Thank you so much, and let me add I do believe you have an earned reputation for fairness as a Wikipedia Administator. nobs 21:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed wording

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by SlimVirgin could be amended with an addition like this,

Let me amend, where he term "malice" appears with reference to User:Nobs01, delete a "malice" and insert "questionable".

Just a suggestion, so it looks less of a personal attack. Thank you. nobs 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Noitall

I don't think he's around anymore and hasn't made an edit since early October. You probably already knew that though and he may return or is at least watching things.--MONGO 06:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but its the eXile page again.

I don't know what else to say, but could you check out the eXile again.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 15:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

User:SamuelSpade

SV, just to let you know another account has been created, SamuelSpade is now User:Spadesam. I'd appreciate it if you could ban this person as well. Davidpdx 19:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)