User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 25

World Trade Center bombing

Hello Sarah. I'm having a disagreement with someone at World Trade Center bombing -- see the page history and the talk page -- and I was wondering if you could come over and offer your opinion. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim

Thanks for your recent support, Slim. Greatly appreciated. Nice to know that I still have some friends before I get desysopped [2]. ;-) Cheers. AnnH ♫ 12:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that your time will come before mine. For example, every time anyone files an RfC against you, you come out of it looking so good that I'm seriously thinking of filing one against you myself. :-) AnnH ♫ 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

Good idea. There's a lot of good information in there, and lots of citations, but organizationally it's a mess, and I have original research concerns as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I was careless with Will McWhinney. Still, since as I see I was not one who was fooled, I a bit improved the protection notice. mikka (t) 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Khmeinichild.jpg

Hey, User:CltFn has repeatedly uploaded images without proper copyrights and I have warned him again and again... now he uploaded a bunch more and I would think of blocking him for them... one of them is that picture above... obviously an attempted attack. Does that warrant a day or two block in your estimation? He has also been having troubles apparently with bickering on a few pages with SouthernComfort but... then again, Zora and I have had some problems with that too. gren グレン 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you're wondering... I'm just enacting a strict policy of source it or it's up for deletion. gren グレン 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkpoint watch

Hi Slim,

I think we had some edit conflict on checkpoint watch.

Anyhow:

The issue (IMHO) is to be NPOV about the checkpoints themself. Checkpointwatch has one view, most israelis has another view and they belive that the checkpoints protect israelis from terror.

Personally I think both are right. In any case, it is important to bring in the intro the watch goals (as they see them) and IDF head response about the broader Human rights issue. This is under mediation and you are welcome to join. I want to understand why you think critisim should go on top and not NPOV discussion about the chiken and egg about terror and checkpoints (which IMHO, is the controversy to describe)

Zeq 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your view here Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation is very important. dono if you want to be name a formal party to the dispute. In any case, I want to understand your point better what should go on 1st paragraph. Zeq 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hidden source citations

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the following. Often, particularly in articles on non-academic topics, vigorously citing sources inline for minor facts would tend to produce an unappetizing text, while footnotes are somewhat ridiculous. I've occasionally used an xml comment in the text for the purpose, like this: "<!-- SOURCE -->". This is an unobtrusive way to maintain verifiability. Since there are no formatting issues to be considered, I also think it is lightweight (for the authoring editor) and therefore would tend to produce more source citations and thus further verifiability. If you agree, do you think it's worth spending a paragraph on in Wikipedia:Citing_sources? Perhaps create a template {{hiddencite|SOURCE}}? Lambiam 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin 2002

What's wrong? A complete revert? No explanation for my other concerns? As for your edit summary, was there anybody reporting from inside the camp saying there are secret mass graves holding hundreds or even thousands? There are major bias problems in that intro. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a word of appreciation for your willingness to debate this and Rachel Corrie in good faith... I hope it's not causing too many headaches... I normally don't make a fuss unless it's a big deal (to me)... Thanks! Ramallite ^(talk) 23:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I left an note on Joys page but in case she is not in [3] this is too close to her's (found in new}. Sorry but I think it needs attention if she's not in.--Dakota ~ ° 22:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

The introductory section of articles is supposed to introduce and define the topic of the article. Machsom Watch is not defined by the attacks that have been made on it. Please look at other articles on organizations and you will see that their leading sections do not include quoted criticism from others. I'm very surprised that you are taking this position contrary to normal practice and contrary to the obvious requirements of good article structure. Perhaps you will go to IDF and quote Machsom Watch in the first paragraph? I feel very strongly about this and am prepared to go to the wall on it. --Zero 00:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So you will support me to add criticism from, say, Amnesty International and the EU to the introductory section of IDF? When we are done with that, we can go to Israel and put in a nice quotation from Hamas right at the top. This is going to be fun, don't you think? --Zero 00:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty and the EU are very reputable sources. Hamas, whether you like them or not, is the elected representative of the Palestinian residents of the OT. But that is not the point. There would be fierce opposition to quoting any criticism right at the top of those articles and I would also oppose it. If you would oppose it, you are being inconsistent. --Zero 00:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't address the issue. I am not opposed to quoting the IDF position on Machsom Watch. They should be quoted. I'm opposed to quoting them in the introduction. This is being done by Zeq et al purely because they want this article to be not about Machsom Watch, but to be a critique of Machsom Watch. This is POV-pushing and has to be opposed. --Zero 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

An actual quotation from the IDF is not "summary", nor "concise" and is in fact "excessive detail" for the introduction, so both the sections of guidelines you quoted imply that it does not belong in the introduction. It is also not a disagreement on the nature of Machsom Watch, but a disagreement with Machsom Watch on the nature of the checkpoints. The other "quotation" being put in the introduction is from the activist organization NGO-Monitor, who are not significant enough to be quoted in the introduction (I would say not significant enough to be quoted at all). Btw, an organization in some ways opposite to Machsom Watch is Women in Green. Comparing that article to this one is quite instructive in several ways. --Zero 01:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC) --- I'll copy this to the talk page and continue there. --01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

You're right about the David Irving edit; it was not intentional, I must have edited the wrong version by mistake. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

From Checkpoints watch talk page

explaing why I changed the intro last night:

Slim,

My intention was to avoid edit wars so I broke down to two steps:

• 1st step: To have in the intro the undisputed parts (no edit wars). Shorten tham as much as possible.
• 2nd step: To add the Balancing POV. To that end I made this suggestion: Talk:Machsom_Watch#suggestion

I appologize if this was not clear. In anycase, there is an RFM about this very issue and I hope it will go through with everyone participation. Zeq 06:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr

it is u who are reverting MY editing, not vice versa. 2 rpt my friendly advice: LEARN abt the topic b4 u start interfering. it saves a grt deal of time. Jamaissur

Pro-Test: Footnotes.

Good point(s). I think the changes I made are an overall improvement, particularly in the display of the page, but the way in which the footnote redirects work is not an unalloyed good – in fact, they can be a bit confusing until you get the hang of them – and having the full refs. within the main text does make editing slightly more difficult. Kind of a wash, overall. --Dcfleck 17:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

...well, no comments yet. Using WP:CTT as my guide, I've gone and made another major change to the references on Pro-Test. The "improvement" is that now the refs. don't sit in the body of the article, making it a pain to read/parse; they are all at the end, and there are only small template refs. within the body, so that the refs. are actually less obtrusive than in the original. Still the double-click, though. (At least I didn't try using the arrangement used on Hugo Chavez -- three clicks to get to an external URL.) --Dcfleck 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Menzies Campbell

I wonder if it's really necessary to semi-protect the article. The vandalism appears to be coming from just one user through a multiplicity of IPs, and there have been only five or so edits in the last day. It appears that a number of admins are watching the article (I've just added it to my list; it should have been there anyway). Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do my part to protect Sir Menzies ;)--Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

20Kg

An explosive charge, 20 Kg, was just captured in Beit-Ibba CP outside Nablus.

it takes 5-6 Kg to finish a bus or make serious damage to a resturant. 20K'g could injure well over a 100 or more with maybe 30-40 dead.

Zeq 21:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

here is the press report about it in english:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/693234.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3226973,00.html

Anti-Semitism

Hi slim. You restored the reference to the left that I removed. Maybe you did not see my not in the talk page, but I question the accuracy of connecting the notions of a Zionist conspiracy using it to support anti-Semitism with left wing politics. The left wing is anti-zionist, sure, but they don't use such a possition to conflate it to a support of anti-Semitism, which the left has always been strongly opposed to. Since you say its accurate can you provide some examples please? Thanks. Giovanni33 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)