User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 26

Quadell's proposed remedy

Just thought I'd make you aware of the existence of User:Quadell/remedy. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(rv see WP:CITE)

Care to be specific? WAS 4.250 03:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Synarchism

Too bad both accounts weren't blocked indefinitely. BTW, I discovered the source of the information in the disputed paragraph on privatization hot off the press from in the "March 31, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review." Rohatyn, Shultz, Cheney 'Privatization' Scheme To Wreck U.S. National Security I was correct all along; the LaRoucheies do claim that the Middlebury conference was a synarchist conspiracy involving Rohatyn, and that's why they're so adamant about keeping the paragraph: "On Oct. 9, 2004, two leading American figures in the International Synarchy, George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn, teamed up in an assault upon the national sovereignty and national security of the United States." 172 | Talk 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, HK has made a major edit of noosphere. [2]] I'm sure that some LaRouche material worked its way in the edit, as the term appears in lots of LaRouche nonsense. [3] But I'm in no position to revert, as I know next to nothing about the subject. Will you be able to take a look? 172 | Talk 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have rarely found an edit by HK that didn't, in some way, further some theory traceable back to LaRouche. Fortunately, most of the LaRouche material is on the web so research is easy. I did a little checking and found that Rohaytan is one of their obsessions. He's a financier who stole their idea for a "New Bretton Woods" only he got it wrong and didn't credit LaRouche (Cf SDI). I'm sure there's something available about Noosphere or its proponents. -Will Beback 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is-- check this Google search of LaRouche's website for "noosphere." BTW, LaRouche's obsession with Rohatyn obviously stems from anti-Semitism. Although LaRouche's followers seem to avoid explicit Jew-baiting, the way in which they describe the foreign "species" to which Rohatyn-- a Holocaust survivor-- echoes classical anti-Semitism: Most Americans, even among those who imagine that they have known him for many years, lack any understanding of who or what Felix Rohatyn is. Why? Because Rohatyn is neither an American, nor does he resemble anything which more than very few living Americans have ever knowingly encountered. Not only does he belong to a species—the European Synarchist—with which they have not the slightest acquaintance. Worse, their ignorance of European history, or, what is the same thing, the dumbed-down, flat-earth versions of history which they have swallowed, leave no room for the even possible existence of such a species as Rohatyn's. [4] 172 | Talk 08:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wells and cyanide

I think you make some good points. Either way, I am not too hung up about the issue one way or the other. Lokiloki 10:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arab transference from Israel

Please take a look at Talk:Israeli Arab transference from Israel (and the article itself), basically Lokiloki, the article's author, asserts that Avigdor Liberman's current political agenda is to forcibly transfer Israeli Arabs from Acre, Sakhnin, etc. to the Palestinian Authority. Now, we all know Liberman doesn't love Arabs, but with all fairness, he has abandoned that campaign for a more moderate approach a long time ago. The 5 or 6 sources used to support this claim are also questionable, as they are all opinion pieces, and there was even an article written by Uri Avneri (the archrival of Arutz 7, so to say). By the way, I'm asking several users to look at that page, so please don't feel I'm insencere because I C&Ped the paragraph ;) -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 10:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_Arab_transference_from_Israel

Technical question

I attempted to block this new user Izula wow (wow was my criteria) and it kept coming up in the box as "Izula+wow" 3 times with a red error message that there was no such user. I removed the + and blocked it as "Izula wow" and it took it that way. Have you ever seen anything like that and if so what caused it? I am wondering if maybe it was bot attack and if it was really blocked.--Dakota ~ ° 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you can see what I mean when you hit the block button here.[5].--Dakota ~ ° 16:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Hi, you did some work on this article last year. Perhaps you could have another look at it now. I'm trying to get people to agree on some kind of consensus on the talk page, but I think I need some help. I'd understand it if you don't want to get involved, the discussion is starting to make my head spin. Cheers, jacoplane 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RE:Romanians

Slim, I'm not at all happy that you blocked and I assure that I will contest this. I'm accusing you of blocking me for nothing, because I was reverting the page how it was before, and I will talk with the other administrators to see what can I do with you. I'm also objecting the thing that you favorised the user Jayig, because he too he reverted 3 times in 24 hours what me I wrote, and you didn't blocked him. For those things and acts you don't deserve at the administratorship, and I wil try to stop you. NorbertArthur 31 March 2006

Actually I will try to make the truth with the help of all the users that participated there. And please stop threating me that the next block will be longer, because we'll see who will win.

blocks

Please elaborate on your rationale for blocking User:Zadil. You stated on his talk page: "I warned you on March 21 against posting any more of those quotes, and I have therefore blocked you temporarily from editing. As Jayjg says above, future disruption will incur longer blocks each time." You warned him on March 21, I assume, for posting POV quotes against talk page consensus (which I agree he has done). But then you block him. The timing is a bit strange, to begin with - you blocked him immediately after he made an edit to Israeli Arabs, before he could rationalize his edits on the talk page (which he has done, and to which there has been no response yet). So obviously, you didn't block him there for making edits against consensus, because between his edit and your block, nobody said anything on the article's talk page or anything relevant to that topic on his talk page. It was his first edit to that article (as far as I can see) and there was no "consensus" against his edit before you blocked him (or even now, for that matter).

So I assume you blocked him for the numerous POV edits since your March 21 warning. Now the only thing anywhere near a "warning" he received between March 21 and your recent block was the edits by Doom127, who was simply cautioning him from the same side of the issue. Now if obvious IP vandals get 2-4 warnings... then why didn't you (or anyone else, for that matter - again, Jayjg's warning was for a completely different issue) engage in some sort of discussion on the issue, or at least give him a more immediate warning? You warned him 10 days ago then you blocked him out of the blue, hours after his most recent relevant "infraction." 10 days is a long time - after all, even the 3 revert rule is only applicable for 24 hour periods.

Now say you have a reasonable rationale for this (after all, one must assume good faith, right?). If I take 10 quotes out of the Bible, highlight random sections that are... how did you term it... "provocative"... and put it on my user page... I guess that's enough to earn a revert? Or 10 quotes out of my high school biology book that mention evolution? That would be provocative to some practicing Christians, I assume... as provocative as a Communist userbox, for which there is no consensus to remove from userpages... – ugen64 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been blocked in the 72.14.192.48 block on User:Zadil. My IP address is 72.14.192.14 and I was hoping to get some editing done tonight, I especially need to do some stuff related to an ArbCom case, in my role as a member of AMA, and also was hoping to do some vandalism reversions. --Wisden17 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad?

Hey, I noticed this article: Arbonne International it seems like a bit of an advertisement. Sumergocognito 01:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

photos w/o consent

Sorry to bug you twice in one day. I noticed that the article Chatswood High School a school in Australia has the names of faculty and their photos posted. Does that create a privacy problem? Sumergocognito 08:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu

Just to clarify, I'm not defending him. I was the one who extended his block from a week to a month when he continued to call you, and others, trolls. However, being accused of being anti-semitic is serious, especialy when your real name is involved, he should have a right of reply. If he is a bigot, that will become more evident. I felt it better to open up a small channel of communication rather than having a cycle of socks and blocks. I condone nothing I can see on the WR trollfest. --Doc ^ask? 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I find that the "edit count tool" is not working on your page. Please update the same with this link: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=SlimVirgin&dbname=enwiki_p. And, how are you? --Bhadani 17:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vrba

I've read it through. It looks great; clearly superior to the current version. Do you mind if I make some minor fixes, then pop it in in place of the current article? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of it is quite good. There are a few errors that need fixing, including one or two in critical places. --Zero^talk 07:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Khaybar&oldid=45493088

and what took place since. This revision above seems like the last "complete" version although it is totaly antisemitic and seems fictional at best. best, Zeq 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Done with Wikipedia

Hello SlimVirgin. Suffice it to say, I am done with Wikipedia. I do not intend to carry out my disputes any further here; nor do I intend to even continue to contribute under my main account (whether or not I decide later to come back as a sockpuppet and make legitimate edits I have not decided), even if that account is ever unblocked. I don't feel any further need to defend myself to you, but to suffice it to say that I am not an anti-Semite, Neo-Nazi, Nazi-sympathyzer, or racist of any kind. You can read my response at my talk page. It's in the history, since an admin-troll saw fit to hide the discussion and protect the page, which in turn led to an escalated dispute... you can read about that on WR or on WP:ANI. In fact, I'm quite sure you're dying to get over there and express support for the ban from all projects that your fellow abusive admin Kelly Martin has proposed.

Anyway, on to the point - I'm not going to be back on Wikipedia, at least not on an identifiable account. I would like an apology from you for the attacks and accusations you directed at me. If you decide that you will oblige me in this, you may email me. If not, well, so be it. User:Blu Aardvark at 72.160.87.87 14:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)