User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 8

My poodle

From the depths of the abyss

Hi S_V, I'm b-a-a-ck! Where wasn't I?

I want to thank you again for your very kind, generous words you've written on Wally's talk page. I greatly appreciate all your support!

Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

Perhaps a returning problem

I just left the following message on the Talk page of Ta bu shi da yu and then I noticed that he seemed to be leaving. Then I saw your comment and so I have duplicated the following in case it would not have been seen. This is what I posted at Ta bu shi da yu ...

I have just received an annonymous demand for information about an article regarding Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and I have left a reply on my Talk page that I will be happy to respond, if I know who or what I am responding to. I also left an entry on the User's IP Talk page and this led me to look closer, and that is when I discovered that IP 128.143.218.12 is User:4640orFight about whom you had written Because you have given us so much trouble, I am blocking you permanently. If you have a problem with this, please take it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC). Someone else had added: "sockpuppet of Noah Peters". As IP 128.143.218.12 the User has made several recent edits to pages about various judges. Just to give you a heads-up in case this person is a returning trouble-maker. MPLX/MH 19:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Psb777

Hi! You once contributed or tried to contribute to artificial consciousness and gave up or were chased away. The edit war happening that time has culminated in a case being brought against me by Tkorrovi. I wondered if you might like to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell/Evidence. I do not want to lead the witness: all I will say is note I haven't called myself to the witness stand yet and Tkorrovi's evidence, read in context, shows a different picture from the one he attempts to paint. Paul Beardsell 03:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Message from IZAK about User:STP

Hi, please see and add your comments if you like at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:IZAK [2] regarding my above alert to you about User:STP. Thank you. IZAK 05:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote table on Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism VfD

Hey SlimVirgin. There is already a firm policy consensus against the use of tally boxes and similar tables, see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes. Although I won't revert your changes, don't be surprised if someone else removes it entirely. —RaD Man (talk) 06:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

anti-globalization and anti-semitism intro rewrite

Your edit is perfect, captures both sides accurately and succinctly. thx. zen master T 08:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ANPR FAC support

Thank you for your support at the ANPR FAC - it's nice to get positive comments when the objector is using their personal ideals and policies (a little frustrating!). Most of all its nice to have people commenting about it as I'm now worried it'll not pass FAC because of too few supporters! Thanks again. violet/riga (t) 09:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers (my mop and bucket, that is) for good not evil. It looks as though I have to set aside a couple days first for reading all the advice and instructions on how to be an admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon

My impression is that he's not anti-Semitic, he just believes that some people are over-sensitive or over-defensive on the subject, and he lacks the sensitivity or diplomacy to express that without being offensive. Of course, some people use that sort of view as a screen for their genuine anti-Semitism, but I really don't think that that's what's going on in this case. I might be wrong, but that's how I see it. (Incidentally, I speak as one who's suffered from mild anti-Catholicism and mild anti-Semitism — the former because I was brought up Catholic, the latter because people have often taken me to be Jewish. So far I've avoided being taken to be black or a woman, though when I had very long hair I was the butt of anti-gay jokes at times. All part of life's rich tapestry, I suppose) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but that's really what I was referring to; he's trying to do two things, neither of them well. First, he's trying, via hyperbole, to mock anti-Semitism, and secondly he's attacking those people whom he takes to be over-sensitive about anti-Semitism. The result is, of course, a complete and offensive mess. I don't have to replace 'Jew' with 'black', because I don't deny at all that he's being offensive. I just think that his offensiveness is caused by insensitivity and a short fuse rather than by anti-Semitism. Whichever of us is right, we're presumably agreed that he'd not make a suitable admin, because it's not the cause but the effect that matters here.

Philosophically, ethically, of course, his reasons matter — though even there I'm not saying that he's a good egg, but misunderstood. Rather, I think that it's morally wrong to fly off the handle and say offensive things like that, but I think that it's worse to say such things because one is anti-Semitic; the latter shows a corrupt mind, whereas the former just shows carelessness, insensitivity, lack of self-control, etc. (which can more easily be remedied, if only by time and maturity). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll ask him — but if he is anti-Semitic he's not going to admit it. I should say, too, that I discovered his political views simultaneously with the comments in question; I honestly don't think that I'm being swayed by them (and even his political views are generally too crude and unreflective for me). Still, perhaps you're right about him, and I'll certainly take another look (and, perhaps, contact him — though as I say, I doubt that that will get me very far).

Incidentally, looking at my message below, I didn't express myself very clearly. It's been a long day. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point was just that, as I discovered his political views at the same time as I learnt of the accusations of anti-Semitism, I don't think that my view of the latter were influenced by my having formed a prior view of him. I have left a message asking him, putting it in a neutral way; we'll see if, and how, he responds. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's true that my question was leading, but there's good precedent — the Socrates of Plato's dialogues... But I don't really see the point of asking someone a question to which he's already given an answer; the 'slime' business was a bit of sarcastic hyperbole in response to what he thought was unfair accusations of anti-Semitism. I've seen and heard exactly the same thing on many occasions (I've even done it myself, when an aggressive and slow-witted/hard-of-hearing person took me to be racist; it didn't work then, of course — it hardly ever works. In my case, though, the person was a middle-class white Anglo-Saxon, so at least I wasn't being offensiven and insensitive, just ill advised).

It can't be denied that there are some people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who confuse (or identify) criticism of the Israeli government's policies with anti-Semitism. I've only ever met one, but I've come across them on the Internet. The careless thinker can overreact when he thinks that that's what's happening, even when it's not, and use hyperbole as if to say: 'That's not anti-Semitism, this would be anti-Semitism — by sarcasm to show the other party their mistake. That's what he says he was doing. So far as I can tell, though, this is the only example of anything that even looks like anti-Semitism that anyone's cited; otherwise, it's a straightforward case of his being against Israeli polocy. Well, I'm against Israeli policy in many areas, as are most of my non-Jewish and all of my Jewish friends. It's a political view, not a racist one.

Aside from being offensive and inensitive, the only thing of which I think that he might be guilty is holding the position about which I've asked on his Talk page; that's what his reference to you and others might indicate. He hasn't replied yet. Of course, he's probably seen this discussion, which might well be the reason that he hasn't replied. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His answer is on his page; I responded with:

I'm not sure what your objection is. It should be obvious to you that my view was that you're not anti-Semitic, so I'm not trying to trick you into an admission (and besides, you insult my intelligence of you think that I wasn't aware that you'd see the discussion between SLimVirgin and me). If your answer to my question is 'no', what't the harm in giving it here? If I'm not to insult your intelligence, i can only assume that your answer is 'yes'. Feel free to delete this response; that makes no difference to anything. I'm not going to indulge you in private discussions about a public matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He deleted my message without a response. I still suspect he's merely boorish and arrogant, but he seems unwilling (if you're right, unable) to deny that he holds anti-Semitic views. 12:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank (dates)

Hello again. With regard to dates in summaries, my preference is (especially in long articles with lengthy summaries) to give the standard {yyyy–yyyy) in the summary, and the full dates in the article. This simplifies the summary, and allows it to do its job — to summarise the fuller information in the article. I've checked over at the MoS Talk page, and there's agreement that my approach is in accordance with the MoS; I'm trying to get it accepted as standard, though there's less chance of that I think. Do you deeply object to it? If so (or even if not) you might like to come over to the discussion and explain your position. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I need your URGENT help, please

I originally posted the following on another Admins Talk page only to discover that he is no longer active on Wikipedia. Please read the following because tonight the same annonymous (and previously banned) user has reappeared and carried out a total deletion of material. Since this User appears to have already been banned I sense that I could enter into a revert war if I undo his deletion. The person claims to know the subject and then claims to know that I am wrong. However, anyone who has read any of the references that I have already provided would know that all I am doing is citing existing and well documented sources. I would like your advice because I do not as a rule engage in reverts. I can usually settle any disputes in a relatively friendly matter. Please take a look at the following and at the Hugo Black discussion page - copies of the comments from the same annonymous User were left on my Talk page. This is how it began:

I have just received an annonymous demand for information about an article regarding Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and I have left a reply on my Talk page that I will be happy to respond, if I know who or what I am responding to. I also left an entry on the User's IP Talk page and this led me to look closer, and that is when I discovered that IP 128.143.218.12 is User:4640orFight about whom you had written Because you have given us so much trouble, I am blocking you permanently. If you have a problem with this, please take it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC). Someone else had added: "sockpuppet of Noah Peters". As IP 128.143.218.12 the User has made several recent edits to pages about various judges. Just to give you a heads-up in case this person is a returning trouble-maker. MPLX/MH 19:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please let me know how you wish to deal with this person who by rights should no longer be here. Thanks. MPLX/MH 05:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to my Talk page. However, this same User has a history that is reflected on the Talk page of User:4640orFight and this is what it says:

User talk:4640orFight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Revision history

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, m = minor edit

(cur) (last) 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 128.143.218.12

(cur) (last) 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Permanent block)

(cur) (last) 04:40, 1 Mar 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Remove vandalism.)

(cur) (last) 22:27, 1 Feb 2005 Noah Peters

(cur) (last) 04:22, 25 Jan 2005 Raul654 (2nd warning)

(cur) (last) 04:16, 25 Jan 2005 Raul654 (→Welcome to the Wikipedia)

(cur) (last) 16:20, 18 Jan 2005 Sam Spade (Welcome)

This is what the page of 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Permanent block) contained:

Tagging articles

Please do not tag articles with a template that is up for deletion. Wait until either the template is deleted or survived the deletion process before tagging articles with it. →Raul654 04:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

2nd warning

Stop tagging articles with that template. Keep it up and you risk being banned. →Raul654 04:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Permanent block

Because you have given us so much trouble, I am blocking you permanently. If you have a problem with this, please take it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4640orFight")

So if the User is blocked, then why is the same user allowed to return as "annonymous" (the User's own description) to cause editing havoc? MPLX/MH 17:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem began with unreasonable editing as I was contributing to an article. The previously banned editor issued me with an ultimatum and when I missed his arbitrary deadline, he simply began hacking out all of the material that he objected to. The entire discussion is on Talk:Hugo Black.

However, he did force me to get my skates on and I have been adding a lot of new material and documenting all of it from well-established, acceptable and qualified sources. I have a lot more to add. What this person's gripe is I don't know. I don't know if he feels that it was "his" article (I got that idea from his comments), or whether he has a right-wing or a left-wing POV and jumped to the conclusion that he did not like whatever it was that I was adding. When I found that I could not discuss matters with this person I decided to find out his history and that is when I stumbled across the fact that he had been blocked as User:4640orFight.

As of this moment all is quiet and I am editing away. (Well, I am taking a break for a bit to rest my eyes and fingers,) then I shall return to complete my contributions to Hugo Black. MPLX/MH 01:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A brief word

To tell you that I have very much appreciated your attitude in the Anti-globalization_and_Anti-Semitism. If it way only for people like you, edition would be both more pleasant and efficient. I take the liberty of saying this especially since we have not always shared the same appreciation of the matter, which makes me appreciative of your politeness and your genuine will to discuss things (with a two-way exchange of informations).

Also, I am certain that you do not give credits to accusations of trolling and such toward you, but I would like to say that from a third party point of view, these accusations look totally groundless.

I hope that I didn't upset you in any way (either now or before on the article), and I look forward to your future contributions. Cheers and appreciative regards ! Rama 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)