User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 35

Atheism

Atheism is a specific kind of belief system which clearly and explicitly states the existence of no god. In general usage, particularly in the field of cultural anthropology/history of religion which I had been involved in, this qualifies it as a religion in the same way that Mormonism qualifies as Christianity; specifically, it does not accept the entirety of the existing canon of thought (in the case of atheism, it almost completely rejects it), but it does produce substantially similar results in its adherents, and on that basis it is generally considered beneficial to compare like to like. Also, frankly, when I was in the process of setting up almost the entire Project Directory, I did have to find a way to "pigeonhole" just about every project. Religion seemed one of the most reasonable places to put Atheism, and I even specifically contacted the members of the Atheism project for their input. On the basis of my not having received any, it seemed to me that the members of the Atheism Project themselves accepted that designation. Also, there have been specific creeds in the past which are classified as religions which do not acknowledge the existence of any sort of divinity. Certainly, some splinter groups of Buddhism qualify as such. They are still counted as religions, however. Lastly, the majority of the proponents of atheism are specifically, as it were, atheistic of the particular kind of belief which is prevalent in their society. Certainly, I have over the years met several atheists who, after hearing them propound their specific beliefs, clearly fall in the general category of religious people. They simply believed in a set of assumptions (call them what you will) which were out of step with the dominant religions of their cultures, and, because of their own faulty understanding of the subject, concluded that they were atheists, when their own speech clearly indicated they were not. However, once again, I will make the offer to you and the members of the Atheism project to move the listing of the project in the Directory as you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please feel free to do so. Certainly, I have no objections to having one less Project's articles to assess. However, as you have not provided any information where it belongs in the directory, I humbly suggest that you relocate it where you wish to put it yourself. As stated before, I received no objections from the project when I first notified them of the directory, and would feel somewhat out of place relocating it on my own volition to some other location. Badbilltucker 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A request

Chairboy, could I ask you please to consider unblocking Giano? The block will only make things worse, and he was arguably provoked by an editor he's been in conflict with leaving a warning template on his talk page, which was guaranteed to heighten tensions. It would go a long way to quietening things down if you were to unblock him yourself. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin, I'm not familiar with the provocation you're talking about, but I don't see any connection between it and the reason I chose to block him. Please review the diffs, including the message he left for me immediately above yours, his calling me childish when I asked him to be nice, etc. I'm an uninvolved third party, and he's being disruptive and incivil. Unblocking him would be absolutely improper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir

I've asked for full protection until editing disputes have been worked out on the talkpage. I hope this will be amicably resolved, but I doubt that it will. KazakhPol 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Slim Virgin, forgive me. I noticed an edit on Bad Bill Tucker's talk page as I was getting ready to leave a note for him. Atheism is not, in fact a rejection of religion. It isn't actually the rejection per se of anything, though many atheists reject religion and/or any conception of God, just simple non-belief. There are even religions that can be described as atheistic (not against God/s, just a non-belief in them), such as my own (which has been described this way often), and Buddhism in general. Forgive me again for the snooping and general buttinski-ness. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aggression?

You've read this all wrong. I'm just trying to be patient with the newcomers. I'm not making substantial contributions to the article at the moment a) because when I tried to do so you and Jay immediately started making accusations and b) because I am taking my time to weigh what, if anything, can be done about the POV that still, to my reading, pervades the article, despite your willingness to play by the rules and write for the enemy. That doesn't prevent me from making constructive suggestions on the talk page. I always try to assume good faith of everyone and respond well if it is reciprocated.Itsmejudith 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll all assume good faith all round. But an article like this will continue to attract those who want to write mini-essays, in the same way that the articles chav and even solar power attract vandalism of the immature type. Tiresome, but part of the wiki format.Itsmejudith 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I don't believe that I have reverted the 3RR: I did not " undo, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors" in the edit I made at 0:50. CJCurrie 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on past experience, I won't be completely surprised if FeloniousMonk suddenly appears out of nowhere. Please note that I will consider any 3RR block under these conditions to be unjust in the extreme, as I have not broken the 3RR. CJCurrie 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I will repeat that I did not violate the 3RR. I reverted the contributions of other editors at 7:53, 0:45 and 1:00. My 0:50 edit was not a revert. If I've somehow misinterpreted the policy (and I do not believe that I have), please direct me to the relevant text.

Second, I completely disagree with your assessment of this situation. I am not "reverting because I didn't get my way", I'm removing text that has no business being in the article. Please continue this discussion on the article talk page, if you wish. CJCurrie 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice the bullet changes, and I don't particularly care about them one way or the other. Are you seriously indicting me for a minor style change?

(I should clarify, in case there is still any doubt on this front, that the change SlimVirgin has chosen to highlight on my talk page is the 1:00 edit mentioned above. No 3RR violations were involved.) CJCurrie 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, I decided to add the "TotallyDisputed" tag to avoid a nasty revert war. Since you deleted the tag without giving a valid reason, I decided that I was justified in returning it. My preference would have been to leave the original notice up, and take the discussion to talk. Apart from the fact that there was no technical 3RR violation, there was also no "system-gaming". Btw, I didn't apologize for anything. CJCurrie 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

rfc

thanks for the message. I've added one more diff. There was already one diff with my edit under this heading. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 03:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

HT

When you are mentioning RadioFreeEurope, the full title is "RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty." Please use this when referencing. KazakhPol 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wieseldeathmarch.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Wieseldeathmarch.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How to save that image- Click on it and coppy it in to 'My pictures' as one usaly dose with pictures. Print it on your printer. Draw on it with a black pen. Scan it on your scanner, make ultra-pail using your M.S.N. priner program and then print to ge rid of the origmal immage. Pen over it again and scan in (prehapse do this again if it's still shadowy). Scan it in to my pictures as a monocrome map. Open it up as a M.S.N. paint program and save it as a monacrome bitmap. Save the moachromet again as a 24 or 16 colur bitmap. open this map and clour it in as usual. Save it as a JPG image. Uplode to the Wiki as usual. Coppy wright tag- 'You did it your self and agree to renounce any right whatsoever'.

--Homer slips. 21:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I am M.S.N., not Appel-Mac, good luck.

--Homer slips. 05:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not 3RR

Slim, the third and fourth edits were part of the same sequence. Unless the 3RR rules have changed yet again while I wasn't looking, there was no violation. CJCurrie 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Or have I somehow misinterpreted the esoteric meaning of this passage: For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert. CJCurrie 09:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page for more diffs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again: there was no 3RR violation here.

On another matter, I see that Lance is actually in violation of the 3RR on the PPNA page. For reasons of consistency, will you ask him to self-revert? CJCurrie 10:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I misread one of his comments. CJCurrie 10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your kind attention

[1]. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of apartheid

In this diff [2] you have removed a comment by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I assume this is a mistake (edit-conflict?) and you will restore them. Cheers. Catchpole 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Johnson (writer) article disambiguation change

SV, I quite agree with your decision to make the above change. Particularly since Johnson's award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom last week, I had anticipated something of an improvement to be made to the article. Obviously his works will not be read by subject specialists (fair comment?), so it has remained fairly static since I heavily worked on it, but his writing on religion (Judaic as much as Christian) should be more heavily featured than is currently the case. Philip Cross 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Palestine: Peace not Apartheid

Thanks again for defending Alan Dershowitz's claim against CJCurrie. --GHcool 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hostile Comments

Please don't leave hostile comments on my talk page. I will delete them, unless I am forced to retain them by Wikipedia. Also, in the future, I would appreciate if you would ask another admin to deal with abuses you believe I have committed, due to our previous interactions, which make it difficult for me to see you as anything other than harassing me. Of course, I don't believe I can insist on this, but it seems like a reasonable request. Thanks, Mackan79 03:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Just to say, in case it isn't as obvious as it seems to me, the problem with your advice is that it looks like masked hostility. I'm pretty sure it is, but just in case it's not, I thought I'd let you know that. My comments to GHCool (I assume that's what you're talking about) may well have been inappropriate, but it's hard for me to tell that when you leave a hostile message yourself, after doing other hostile things to me in the immediate past.

If you said to me, "Mackan, you may have seen GHCool's statement as unfair, but on Wikipedia, you're not allowed to use words like 'malicious' on someone else's talk page," and quoted that policy, I may well have taken you to heart. Of course that would raise the question of why GHCool's own statement was ok, but presumably, that would be in your explanation. I'm being a little facetious here, but only a little. The principle of Assuming Good Faith seems to me to require that you talk to me as if you think I'm a good person who made a mistake. If you talked to me like that, I would actually probably like you.

I already asked you for a sign of peace, though, and you didn't give it, so I'm continuing to assume that your suggestions are meant to harass me. If you're simply trying to bring me into compliance with Wikipedia policies, though, you can feel free to tell me that in a friendly way any time, and I'll be happy to take any advice or consider any requests you may have. Mackan79 04:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, You are such a great administrator and so sensitive about preserving the truth about Israel. I cannot thank you enough for this. However, as much as I would enjoy your support, I must reluctantly ask you not to interfere into minor disputes on my talk page. The reason for this is because I had already told Mackan79 on his talk page that "Pco is perfectly capable of defending herself" and that he has "no right or obligation to butt into a place where you are not needed."[3] If I were to accept your help when it was not needed, I would justifiably be accused of called a hypocrisy. On the other hand, if your duties as an administrator obligate you to maintain order against users that cross the line, that is a different story. --GHcool 07:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now I actually would like your advice. If you have been following the dispute between Mackan79 and me, you will know it was about my quoting Pco on my user page that she thinks "that a holocaust deniers [sic] conference is a good idea." He has threatened to report this as a personal attack, while I think I was simply reporting what she had said previously. I included citations that users can check if they wish. If you think I misrepresented Pco and have a suggestion about how I can improve my exposé of her, I'm all ears. --GHcool 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Putting up screeds about other editors on your user page is simply bad form -- especially since it's bad form for other editors to reply there. It doesn't help develop the encyclopedia at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, Thanks for the speedy response. I value your opinion. I interpreted your response to mean that I haven't broken any Wikipedia rules, but that it may get me in "trouble of some kind." I am going to accept the risk. --GHcool 02:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm thinking perhaps we need a totally uninvolved opinion on this. I realize I'm biased because I'd already formed a strong opinion about User:Pco following her antics on Zionism (among other places). But I'm not sure what GHcool is doing is entirely civil. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Although as far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a rule against wacko opinions ..., its important to note that Pco has a funny way of defining what is and is not racist. Her defense of the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran in which she wrote, 'I think that a holocaust deniers [sic] conference is a good idea' speaks volumes about her point of view when it comes to the Jewish state, Jewish history, and perhaps even Judaism in general." (emphasis added)

"Although as far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a rule against wacko opinions ..., its important to note that Pco has a funny way of defining what is and is not racist. The fact that she made light of the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran in which she wrote, "I think that a holocaust deniers [sic] conference is a good idea" speaks volumes about her point of view when it comes to the Jewish state, Jewish history, and perhaps even Judaism in general." (emphasis added)

I know that you and other fair minded Wikipedians agree with me that editors who are breaking rules by using Wikipedia as a soapbox to spout lies and racism must be shunned. Pco and others must know that they are accountable for their statements and their edits and that their dishonesty and meanspiritedness will be noted. These are not articles about underwater basket weaving we are talking about here. This is about whether or not the Jewish people have the same right of self-determination as other nations of the world. This issue has been a matter of life and death for an entire nation for 5,000 years. Anyone who tries to poison that well of verifiable accuracy is committing a grave sin against history and must be treated as such. I hope we don't have to discuss this further, but if you deem it necessary, I await your judgement with an open mind. --GHcool 08:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I accept the compromise. I hope we do not have to discuss this any further. Thanks again, SlimVirgin. --GHcool 07:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FoR

New antisemitism

I have commented on Sandy's page re. the {{facfailed}} tag. Regards, Dr Zak 20:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It looked like a WP:POINT nom that should have been noticed and removed sooner: I've archived it in a way that will hopefully please all - record is still there, although the nom doesn't seem to have much useful commentary. Sandy (Talk) 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

David Irving

Hi, I just wanted to congratulate you on your recent edits there (eg [4]) and also to thank you for implicitly supporting my drastic shortening of the lead to answer another user's POV/emphasis concerns. I expected that one to be unceremoniously kicked out by all, so it was a nice surprise to see it has stuck this long. No doubt the article's semi-protection has played a part as well. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

HT stats

Regarding the statistics you are using on your article on HT, I find it hard to believe that HT has 5,000-10,000 hardcore members when they have 20,000 followers in Kyrgyzstan[5]. KazakhPol 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

Hey Slim, in preparation for peer review, I have edited and expanded the excellent introduction you wrote for the Mary Wollstonecraft article. Please look over my work, and let me know if you have any further suggestions for improving it. Thanks! Kaldari 22:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but I certainly can't take all the credit. I've been working with Awadewit to hone it into an FA-quality article. She's done most of the writing, I just take care of the details :) Kaldari 03:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case

I don't want to drop your name without telling you about it. My talk page has such a mention. Geogre 03:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

...and your message was my first inkling. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Why did you delete User talk:Jimbo Wales? -- Renesis (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange. See [6]. It hasn't been restored, and clicking the undelete page nearly crashed my browser, loading 11300 something edits! Do you want to restore it? -- Renesis (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! -- Renesis (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and wondered if that was why it had been deleted. Do you know if past revisions which had been deleted and left out of a restore for similar reasons are left out again when you "restore all edits"? Or are all revisions restored again? It sure would be painful to restore 11,814 edits by clicking checkboxes. -- Renesis (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad, but it probably doesn't matter by now. It's a good thing we have oversight's for that now. Also, what you said made me realize, that it would be MUCH better if the checkbox meant revisions to keep deleted instead of revisions to restore. In almost all cases, revisions to be restored make up 99% of the process. I guess there are probably automated tools to help with this anyway, but I don't have or know of any. -- Renesis (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

essays about you on talk pages

I don't know wtf is going on here, but I thought you might want to know about it. That ip address posted the same essay on a few other talk pages. P4k 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure

Thanks for the notice. If you look at the history you'll see it was me and Netscott reaching a gradual compromise over wording, so it wasn't much of an edit war. If you look further you'll also note that John himself is involved in the dispute. In particular, several months ago an MFD was closed "against the numbers" to delete a page John was involved in; this deletion was overturned on DRV, but ever since John has been arguing that Wikipedia should work strictly "by the numbers", and of course WP:DDV states the opposite. It's a rehash of the perennial debate of letter vs. spirit. Oh and btw, merry christmas! >Radiant< 13:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to SlimVirgin. --Homer slips. 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfair blocking of my account

Hi SlimVirgin. Since you have contributed to the foie gras page and have seen some of the conflict that is currently going on there, I would appreciate your comments about the blocking of my account by administrator Tom Harrison following an alleged 3RR violation. See at the end of the 3RR noticeboard. David Olivier 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congrats

Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Malber's continuing disruption

Can you please review this and possibly remove it? User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington appears to be confusing WT:RFA with WP:RFC. This discussion has woefully gone from a discussion on the nature of my question to an attack on me. You know me and you know my history and you know that I'm the last one to cry, "Rogue admin!" but Mimsy's behavior of late has become bizarre. I've even been blocked by this administrator in order to prevent me from participating in discussion at WP:RFA. Thanks! —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected Edit page

Hi! See this and if you can, link it into the main page. T'would be a good idea to disimbedd the three 'In-Your-Face' tags to a seperate sub-group, and then fix up the order in this to match. Also, is there a tag which asserts something smells of pov, along the lines of {{Fact}}? I'm rushed and can't find right now. Thanks // FrankB 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Dancer

This User is clearly a sock puppet for someone. Is there no way it can be checked? He is changing articles on right-of-centre Tory groups in Great Britain so that fundamental details relevant to them have been removed altogether. The articles naturally become demonised. The only other Users I can see who relentlessly did this before were Guy Chapman, Ed Chilvers, and Homeontherange. Chelsea Tory 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Karenga4.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Karenga4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — BigDT 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School

Appreciate some help at the above page, I think I've got a POV or OR pusher, who is attempting to slowly insinuate the school endorsed a drug culture based on their schooling their. It's quite a complicated debate, you may need to read the whole talk page to get the gist of it all. Anyway, your thoughts would be most welcome, I've had an RFC up for a couple of weeks and gained no responses. Steve block Talk 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your congrats

Hi SlimVirgin :-) Thanks for your congrats and your support. I found out I got the seat by seeing your congrats on my talk page! Wishing you a Very Happy New Year! --FloNight 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

lol ;-) FloNight 13:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Trying to improve the above.

Encountering arbitrary & capricious Reversions.

Your expertise (against "troublemakers?") would be useful & certainly appreciated by me.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marsden/Lotuslander

Check the earliest edits to the article in the deleted edit history, looking for a specific red-linked user. I'm not convinced in the present case, and the user's other edits are too old for checkuser, so the only thing that could verified is a "likely" finding based on the geographic location of the IP address. Dave702 and Lotuslander and Howlder are certainly knowledgable about wiki procedures and the Marsden case, and I doubt they are either of the two admins in good standing who previously edited the article. Thatcher131 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)