User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 29

Omura Entry Efforts Appreciation

My appreciation for your efforts and good offices in re this. The entry seems to me fine, indeed, at this point. For my part, many thanks. Fucyfre 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your work in cleaning up a touchy issue. -Will Beback 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

It's hard not to when Will Beback harrasses me and I make a sincere effort to resolve our problems and he keeps ignoring me while trying to get me banned. He is committing slander and he ignores all of the positive edits I make. He cherry picks my edits and takes them out of context to make me look bad without even letting me defend myself. If that is how you want to operate wikipedia go ahead but it's not fair. I would be happy to do whatever is necessary to resolve this if you will let me.

Jerry Jones 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I just made my 3rd and last revert on Wikipedia:No personal attacks (talk|history|watch), in view of your warning you might want to consider that you yourself have already made 3 reverts now beforehand. --Col. Hauler 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

SV, I think the explicated examples of personal attack should remain. If you still wish to remove it I ask you discuss it with me first on the Talk page there. That portion really says nothing new. It merely gives explicit examples in line with sub-heading/bullet there. We live in a dumbed-down society, and peole need cold, stark examples. --Diligens 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

I noticed that you reverted some text I posted to WP:3RR [2], but I don't see any place where a reason was stated. The text did not constitute vandalism, so a reason would normally be given. I think it's entirely fair to ask you why you did this. Al 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Another unexplained revert

Why do you insist on removing factual and supported information from the Robin Webb article without discussing it? --SpinyNorman 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your BAYT work

Thank you for the good work. Crum375 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

Slim, I just got through proposing a move for this page when I saw that you were the one who performed it. Is there something I'm missing here? There doesn't appear to be any reason to disambiguate the title, and even if some other work were to exist, it would be substantially less notable and probably derivitive. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the excerpts could be merged with the original article. I think that the excerpts article was made because of the length. Merger could avoid complete deletion. --Drboisclair 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I see the reason behind that. But at the same time I feel that its inappropriate to parenthetically lengthen titles of pages in the absence of disambiguation. I have seen other examples of across Wikipedia, which inevitably don't work. American terrorism (term) is the most recent example of this that I can remember. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't endorse things that we write about; but explicitly attempting to make clear that we don't endorse certain things is equally problematic. Also, I think the capitalization and the old-fangle "On..." makes clear that its a book title rather than an article about the Jews and their lies. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you don't get confused, I think Drboisclair is commenting on the "exerpts" subarticle for that same page, not the move. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my archiving bobble on Talk:Juan Cole. I would have gotten there eventually, but it was nice to have help. Also, thanks for your clear and very readable comments on the policies and appropriate behavior. --William Pietri 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to emphasise some of my closest friends are Jews, most of them Sephards. But I'm aware most people share the Ashkenazi point of view. Foreigner 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin ^{Be excellent}

May 20 AFDs

I was closing some May 20 AFDs and came across a group of them you speedy kept, despite some of them having consensus to delete at the time of speedy keeping (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federation of Zionist Youth for one; the others were mainly no consensus). Could I inquire why? And, by the way, one you closed as speedy keep is currently up for a 2nd AFD (I assume DRV should have been undertaken, or maybe it was and sent to AFD again, I don't know). Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 04:51 UTC (2006-05-25)

My apologies, upon further investigation I've found the thread regarding this at the noticeboard. Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 04:53 UTC (2006-05-25)

Oh, no.... not again

Hello. Colonel Marksman here. I'm here to ask from an Admin. about NPOV and POV. (Sigh, I wonder how many times you answered these questions!)

You see... *Blaw, blaw, blaw,* and then because... *babble, babble, babble*.... please understand that... *yawn*.... for my conclusion for... *tsk, tsk.* thank you for your time.

-- (Replies I'm getting) Well kid, just go #### yourself ok? You have no clue what you're talking about. (Continues fighting) :(

Just make it clear to me Wikipedia's outlook on the differences on POV vs. opinion (what's the difference?). As someone explained it, "Do you want to say the glass is half full, or half empty?"

But something else didn't make sense to me. Why not just state the facts? I'm yet to come across an encylopedia that does any more than that. Also, is anything ever actually "implied" in any Wikipedia policy?

I guess, for everything I'm trying to say in a nutshell.

I'm not asking you to fight my battles, and I'm not asking you questions because I'm a child in need of an adult (I'm not even asking you to say anything in the discussion). I'm asking because I'm concerned and all anyone around me does is the above example.

It concerns me that NPOV is constituted as simply "balancing the POVs". (E.g. So-and-so says the glass is half full, but so-and-so says the glass is half empty... why not just say, "The glass is 50% filled with liquid" and avoid everything?)

Something tells me Wikipedia tried that once and it didn't work. (Only stating the facts.) Colonel Marksman 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Put briefly, it's because people don't agree on what the facts are.

• o.0 ... I'm terribly sorry, but that is never the issue I ever come across.
• The issues I always see in any arguement (thus far) is not whether or not so-and-so is true or such-and-such is true or it really did happen, but rather, inserting the sources way of putting that truth (POV). In the Hitler page for example: the arguement is that "this source says this about Hitler's religion". "Oh yeah? THIS source says this!" and worst of them all: "You want to take out my source because it hurts your personal POV, and you suck because of that." -- Most of this is about deciding Hitler's religion. In trying to help at one point by saying, "Hitler's religion was never of any importance. This is the first article of Hitler I read saying anything about his religion. Its only a few paragraphs... can we take it out?" -- "NO! We must keep up controversy about this, and we must keep arguing about it because his religion was what influenced his actions." (My look on it)
• My question is, why is anyone arguing about it? Just state the facts with a reliable source, ignore any personal opinions, and on subjects that require certain information a POV, fall back on the NPOV. (E.g. in my example about sources stating Blacks are whores screwing America, that's not really any necessary information)
• In order: WP:NOR, WP:V, then WP:NPOV
• I doubt it's the disagreement on what the facts are (never at all), it's who said the facts and how they word it. Colonel Marksman 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For laudable work

		The Original Barnstar
		For your laudable concern for good editing and sourcing and your tireless efforts toward the same I award you the Original Barnstar--Drboisclair 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we bring the discussion on the village pump to an end?

Hi Slimvirgin, can I request that you help me put an end to the argument about Arniep on the village pump? I do not think anything is gained from further debate. I have told Arniep, in my capacity as an admin, that his assumptions/generalizations are not acceptable whether he believes there ok or not. I would like to request, strongly, that the argument not continue. -- SCZenz 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, at least, that it not continue on the village pump; if you feel it's useful, take it up with him on his user page. -- SCZenz 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, saying that much of the Israeli media has distorted information on Rachel Corrie does not make someone strongly anti Israel. Arniep 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata

Just to be clear, User:Aquirata (who has indeed enormously gotten under my skin) has not once at this pointedited the Wiki space. He is good faith near as I can tell--talkitive and verbose, but good faith. Did want to make that clear given that you brought up his editing experience. He may be tying up NPOV talk at the present but there's nothing that says he can't. And it's not as if NPOV doesn't need a tweak or twenty... Marskell 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

I deleted the article once; please see Jayjg's page for my explanation. Demi ^T/_C 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me what you find unclear then, since "An AFD would result in a huge battle and many nonconstructive interactions, for almost no value to the encyclopedia." pretty much sums it up for me. And please verify in the deletion log that I deleted the article once, before you say again that I deleted it twice. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you could and should have discussed this with AdamBishop before restoring. This shows extreme hypocrisy. Demi ^T/_C 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep this page deleted. For legal and tactical reasons, it is quite unwise to supply any information at this point in time. Kim Bruning 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh, well, whatever we think of it, SPUIs putting it on DRV has killed it dead. Kim Bruning 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Idea

Hi Slim,

I'm testing out an idea. One thing struck me. We have many long and extremely good articles. But many readers just come to the site to glance at articles and won't read the full text. I'm testing out the idea of adding in a summary box, called an infobox synopsis, containing a two or three line basic summary, in articles, to see if they work. For example: Template:Infobox synopsis

I've placed it on a handful of articles as a test, including Bertie Ahern. Any opinion? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

juan cole

i"ve copied some discussion for your interest

Some pages on controversial subjects, like Talk:Evolution, explicitly send people elsewhere to discuss the topic rather than the article, perhaps that's a good idea here. Personally, I'm staying out of editing the article itself; I've just dropped by to put out enough of the flames that this article gets unlocked and editing proceeds as normal. I do agree that it seems like there is a consensus on Sandbox/1, so perhaps a couple of the regular participants should ask an admin to unlock the pages. --William Pietri 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should discuss the topic elsewhere. As for the apparent consensus on sandbox/1, I really don't know how to ask an admin to change the damn page finally. It's like we're all sitting at the dinner table looking at each other, waiting for someone to start eating. Greg Kuperberg 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the discussion went off topic in this section. I unprotected Juan Cole/sandbox/1. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. But what I meant by "the damn page" was not sandbox/1, but the actual Juan Cole page, the one that was locked weeks ago. Almost everyone here agrees that sandbox/1 should or could replace it, but we plebes cannot do it. Greg Kuperberg 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought William was an administrator but if he's not and if Humus is not willing to take the action why not put a request on SlimV's talk page to pull down what's there for the Juan Article and put up Sandbox1 take CAre!--Will314159 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [edit]

So what's the deal?

It appears there was consensus to replace the protected page with the stripped down sandbox page but keep it protected. That hasn't happened yet. It's also not clear what sandbox page new additions should be made to. Can anyone clarify whether we are moving forward here or not? Thanks.--csloat 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Take Care!--Will314159 00:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

blp/defamation templates

SV, I noticed you were adding template:blp to talk pages and I know you've been involved with developing that protocol, so I'm wondering if you can help me. I'd like to find a template I can use to put on user talk pages to warn against placing defamatory material in articles. However template:defwarn is so strongly-worded that I'm reluctant to use it in many cases. I'm thinking there should be a message that is shorter and less dramatic for instances which are not serious, such as kids who may not even realize that a "free encyclopedia" does not mean they can use it to call their teacher "fatso". Essentially a nice note saying that real people have real feelings, that we only want verifiable information, and that writing false derogatory things about living people can have consequences. If there isn't usch a template, can we write one? Cheers, -Will Beback 08:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Hizb1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hizb1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of Saladin1970 to Arbcom

Saladin has requested to appeal his indefinite block to Arbcom. I have entered his plea on his behalf at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (making no judgement as to its legitimacy) and have named you as a party in the request. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Partnership minyan discussions

Hi Slim: You may be interested in the comments and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Self-promotion concerning the Partnership minyan article, and the edits by User:Shirahadasha, for example, User:TShilo12 reports below, Best wishes, IZAK 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh. This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz). In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006. It was Anystat (talk · contribs) along with 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs) who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, Shirahadasha (talk · contribs), and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs). My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat". Tomer^talk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, would appreciate your commenting here. Complete discussion (so far) is below. My concern is that the basic thrust -- I've done nothing but links to Shira Hadasha, it's one minor minyan and doesn't deserve an article, I've somehow done something sneaky -- isn't factually true, and there seems to be much POV gnashing of teeth about the evils of feminism etc. --Shirahadasha 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) is self-promoting a particular format of tefilla as practiced by, no surprise, a minyan in J'lem called Shira Hadasha. While no doubt there will be plenty of people fascinated by this development, it is still quite a small-scale thing. Could some others have a look at Shira Hadasha and the innovatively titled Partnership Minyan, and see if they can be merged?

My personal view is that this amounts to revisionism for political reasons (feminism). I'm not personally aware of Orthodox critics of this development, but I doubt this has gone unnoticed in Israel's Haredi circles. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Shirahadasha contributions do not seem like those of a new editor, but of some who has experience with Wikipedia. Perhaps there were edits as an anon, or under a different name. I believe that an admin can look into things like that. Jon513 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not too concerned about sockpuppetry or something. Some people edit as anons for months before finally registering. I'm more concerned about a push to have the Shira Hadasha view pushed on multiple pages while it is a very small development. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh. This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz). In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006. It was Anystat (talk · contribs) along with 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs) who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, Shirahadasha (talk · contribs), and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs). My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat". Tomer^talk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Chodesh Tov everybody! I'd invite folks on this board to take a closer look at both my edits and my articles.

If you take a look you'll find the majority of articles I've edited don't deal with particular forms of tefilla at all. Take a look at the history of Passover, Passover Seder, Korbanot, Birkat Hamazon, List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings, Amidah, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Avi Weiss, Zugot, and much more. Some of the content may be controversial, but there's nothing like self-promotion going on here, no irrelevant content, no spurious links, no refusals to participate in discussions, no simple pushing.

Tomer is correct: I made a decision to separate professional and religious edits. The reasons why are obvious. There's nothing nefarious about it. I've forgotten to sign on at times, but I haven't presented myself as multiple personalities in the same place. FYI I've also used several computers, some of which were shared.

As to the Shira Hadasha and Partnership minyan articles, given acknowledgment that the stuff is notable even in "Israel's Haredi circles", and given the sources proving notability (listing minyanim, conferences, etc. quotes by leading OU and YU figures, etc.), I'm not sure I understand why there's a problem. SlimVirgin and others have added articles to Wikipedia's collection on Orthodoxy and feminism including articles on the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, Blu Greenberg, and Jewish feminism. There's enough going on for this to be notable. One's certainly entitled to think the whole shebang is a bad thing, "revisionism", "political", whatever. But what's personal POV disagreement with an article's subject-matter got to do with labels like "self-promotion"? See Personal attacks#consequences.

--Shirahadasha 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

For your work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For demonstrating calmness, resolve, and dedication to editorial excellence in the face of controversy and abuse, I, Xoloz, award SlimVirgin this well-deserved Barnstar of Diligence. Xoloz 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Dakota ~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Jack Hensley videos

Why did you remove the Jack Hensley videos?

If the links no longer worked, that's okay.

But if it is because you are personally offended by the content, than it's not okay and they must be placed back. The videos are technically primary sources and historical evidence. WhisperToMe 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

SlimVirgin, you might want to read the secion above the ones that you added, I am in a discussion there already with the person who insists to keep it in. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you did a good job on the article! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Wilson College and the Polytechnic may be some pre-university schools, which may even no longer exist, but nobody knows that for sure, except perhaps Mr. Lewis himself. For now I've removed any references to them so as not to mislead the readers. Pecher ^Talk 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the fair use rationale. Pecher ^Talk 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiles

I am glad you liked [3] the smiley --Dakota ~ 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for adminship

I wanted to alert you to an adminship application I've filed. Given our disagreement that night, I figured it would be fair to alert you to give you an opportunity to vote on this, even if indeed your vote is an oppose. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy question

I have added a request for clarification on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on whether it is acceptable to blank your own talk page. I am notifying you because I (believe I) have specifically seen you take a stand in the past that it is acceptable. However, I have seen many other admins say it is NOT acceptable. I'm trying to get an unambiguous determination one way or another. Anyway, I thought you may want to weigh in on the issue. To be clear, we are not in conflict. My problem is that I do not know what Wikipedia policy is. If official policy is to allow such blanking, that's fine with me. --Yamla 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mistress Selina Kyle reblock

Dear SlimVirgin: I am writing in regard to your reversal of Linuxbeak's mentorship unblocking of Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs). Although I strongly respect your desire towards wishing adequate community consensus prior to permitting an unblock of this user, due to charges of misconduct previously levelled and indeed justified by user contributions, I do feel that there would be no adverse consequence to permitting a mentorship unblock of either MSK or, indeed, Blu Aardvark, provided the users' actions are watched with adequate attention and that the users are expeditiously reblocked should a user renege upon the conditions of their mentorship agreement. I would ask you to please reverse your re-blocking and permit MSK perhaps a final mentorship chance. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I second NicholasTurnbull's comments and am surprised that you stated that MSK "was never a useful contributor", which is extremely unfair and untrue. wikipediatrix 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Slim (or is it "Ms. Virgin"?? GRIN!), and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Support from senior editors such as yourself is especially gratifying, and I'll do everything in my power to live up to the trust you've placed in me. Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Discovered something

On a template discussion, someone pointed out to me that Image:Anime by nima.jpg is actually fanart/a tracing of "a character from some Anime series". This is protected by copyright; see [4] and so forth. I therefore had to reclassify it as fair use, so (unfortunately) you'll have to remove it from your userpage. Ashibaka tock 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that I really have nothing against you and there is no reason for me to hold a grudge against you. I don't know you in real life. I have no wish to disrupt the encyclopedia. You are not interfering with anything I do. I'm sorry if I caused you anguish. We're just two strangers on the Internet, and we can disagree or agree, but in the end we're here for the same purpose. Peace. Ashibaka tock 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)