User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 30

Hi Slim

Hi Slim,

something bothered me greatly in this edit: [1]. The creation of the Critism section.

People usually don't read such sections. especialy when they are tucked at the end.

I think that NPOV demand from us to make sure each section (as well as the lead which is a mini-article by itself) is by itself NPOV. I am going to chenge the intro and I think that in similar atricles it should also be changed meaning:

Biased and unfounded accusations (like Hafrda in Israeli apartheid ) should be NPOV in the same sentence as the biased/unfounded claim. (see talk page of Israeli apartheid )

best, Zeq 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS here is a similar problem: [2] this one I can not fix. Zeq 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

the term "Jewish state"

many many use it by I think it is not correct. Israel is really not a jewish state. some areas are jewish but they are very different from the rest of the country which is mostly secular.

as much better definition is "homeland of the jewish people " which is very accurate and also does not exclude others who are non-jewish who also live here. Zeq 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, please see this: [3] Zeq 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Huntingdon Life Sciences

Hi Slim,

I'm posting my comments here too in case you don't read them on the talk page:

SV, please explain this, you've just removed a lot of work including any mention whatever of the fact that attacks against Huntingdon have included violence. It's giving an extremely distorted picture and you didn't even discuss it. When I made my changes I posted comments on the talk page and gave people time to object and we could have worked something out. I would like to work out some sort of compromise and I agree that all the stuff you've added has merit which is why I'm not reverting. The page is now somewhat disorganised though - I don't see why Brian Cass's receiving of an OBE is now listed as a controversy: I'm sure you didn't mean it to be but it kind of looks like a back-handed attack on the fact that it was granted. I look forward to hearing from you. Best. --Lo2u 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--Lo2u 10:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment - it's really nice to be told that. Again I'm sorry if I was a bit sharp with you. Best.--Lo2u 23:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A Sandwich Can Be Very Satisfying...

Hamster Sandwich 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 page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Israeli apartheid and academic sources

There are actually a number of "serious people" and academic sources that have drawn or explored an analogy between Israel's policies and apartheid. See, for instance:

Glaser, D. J. (2003). "Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison." Ethnic and Racial Studies 26(3): 403-421

Shahak, I. (1988). "Israeli Apartheid and the Intifada." Race & Class 30(1): 1-12.

Zreik, R. (2004). "Palestine, apartheid, and the rights discourse." Journal of Palestine Studies 34(1): 68-80.

The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid edited by Roane Carey, published by Verso (October 2001) ISBN: 1859843778

See also Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS for many more.

You may not agree with these sources but they are all academic. Also, I expect you consider Desmond Tutu to be a "serious person". Homey 07:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: AfD

Hi Slim. AfD is not really about pure voting numbers, rather it is about judging whether there is a rough consensus. When I first looked at it, I only saw deletes too - but there are quite a few keeps dotted around (actually I think the delete:keep ratio is not far from 2:1) and the majority of comments from both sides seem to be making good valid arguments. Because of this I didn't feel that true consensus had been reached.

Having said that, I don't expect this one to go away quietly - given the subject matter and the large numbers of contributions to the discussion. I was going to close it last night, but then decided not to touch it with a barge-pole. Not sure what changed this morning, but I think the decision was right. Cheers TigerShark 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:82.0.148.209

Hey SlimVirgin. Could you look at the contributions of 82.0.148.209 please? All warning levels have already been tried on his/her talk page, without any effect. deeptrivia (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to your request

1) No.

2) Could you please explain your reversion of the opening line? It incorrectly suggests that there is only a single phrase being used.Homey 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is not advisable. You a) restored a repitition and b) removed sourced info. Please be more careful.Homey 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq had been blocked for a day and will likely be blocked indefinitely. He is a unique problem and he's gone. Homey 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also banned from the article, as you know. Homey 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was subjected to an AFD and survived. I understand there are individuals who would like to see it disappear, you may be one of them, but given that the concept has numerous hits on google, has been referenced in a number of academic papers and scholarly books as well as mainstream publications such as the Economist and given that it is part of the discourse within Israeli politics itself I don't see how removing the article is justifiable just to fit a POV preference that it not exist. Sorry but you are not NPOV on this issue and are not in a position to suggest that people who disagree with your POV leave the article.

Have you made the same suggestion to Jay, Humus or Moshe? If you have then you can suggest that I leave. Otherwise you are displaying a bias. Homey 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zeq seems to have survived. In any case he is banned from the article so isn't an issue. The best course is to ignore him on the talk page.Homey 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, you are not a neutral arbiter here. Please don't pretend that you are.Homey 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay has edited very aggressively - to the point of reviving an article after there was a consensus to disperse and redirect it and of trying to merge articles against consensus. He has upset a number of individuals who have complained about his behaviour. I await, with interest, your request to him to leave the articles.Homey 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then don't repeat it and please don't mindlessly revert. Homey 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain how this is not redundant:

The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations from the far left to the far right of the political spectrum, including United Nations officials, ^[1] South Africans, ^[2] Israeli political scientists, ^[3] members of the Knesset, ^[4] Palestinian-rights activists, ^[5] and neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals ^[6] and groups. ^[7]

Why not say "neo-Nazis and anti-Semites"? It seems like you're trying to belabour the point by saying "neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups and individuals". I'm not going to get into a revert war but I find your reversion bizarre and would like an explanation. Homey 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are implying Guilt by association. Homey 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I'm sorry for posting this on your talk page but you are now in danger of violating 3RR at Israeli apartheid. Please desist. Homey 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remove personal attack from Talk:Israeli apartheid

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Homey 00:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Last call

I'm about to go to bed so which is it, will you voluntarily recuse yourself for 24 hours or not?Homey 09:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, time to stop your incessant threats. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly a threat, it's an offer. One SV has made to others in the past. Homey 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of PETA

Would you be willing to rethink your semi-protection of PETA? User:Allisonhenry and User:24.247.234.195 were almost certainly the same person and, unless I'm missing something, it's highly unlikely that there was any malicious intent - just ignorance of fair use policies and of how to set up her display to show full color properly. If there's no vandalism involved and it's only one user, protection seems like an overkill solution. BigDT 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Eustonmanifestologo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eustonmanifestologo.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. 20:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reciprocity principle

If you don't want me to post on your talk page then please don't post on mine (or talk archives)- in any case I have no idea what you are talking about, just that there's an anon posting things on my talk page and getting reverted by you and others. Homey 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

I thought your wee edit on the page was a good fix. I'd encourage you to continue to weigh in. This page has had a lot of strife and can use some new perspectives. --Mantanmoreland 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Monkey

Yeah, sorry, I forget about that. Now, though, there is a bot (User:VoABot) that reads the protection log every 30 minutes and updates that list automatically. (Except judging from its contribs list it's more like once every few hours.) -Splash - tk 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

References

SV,
What do you think of the idea of changing the Manual of Style to reflect the expectation (not policy) that every article should have a non-empty "References" section: containing either references or an {{unreferenced}} warning. My view is that this minor and non-aggressive change would result in a lot more articles being referenced, and a lot more unreferenced articles being tagged as such. I predict that this change would cause so many articles to get dumped into Category:Articles lacking sources that we would quickly see the creation of an "unreferenced article sorting" project, analogous to the "stub sorting" project. And that might just get some people enthusiastic about hunting down references for our many many unreferenced articles.
Snottygobble 06:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does one make such proposals? Snottygobble 07:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NewUser needs input

Newbie User_talk:Rdengrove#2 contacted me[4] about a large rewrite he did on Mephistopheles, and I plead 'ignorance', save for superficial passing familiarity. If you've got some knowledge in the area (or perhaps, instead on or about 'Faust'), or just want to be 'welcoming', see if you can lend a hand. Thanks! // FrankB 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther POV

Slim, FYI

• (1) sourced material is again deleted[[5]],
• (2) the anti-Semitic Person category is again removed and to top it off,
• (3) the POV flag itself is unilaterally deleted. .

--Doright

BLP tag

I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the edit to the BLP tag. I liked your last version better, gave a bit more information in the tag itself. Thanks! Dreadlocke 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been been updated to a better version - guess more eyes are on it! [6]. Dreadlocke 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:BernardWilliams.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BernardWilliams.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cloak

Heya,

I've been told that you might want a cloak for IRC - do you want me to go ahead and grant you one, and if so, what is your IRC account? :-)

James F. (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)