User talk:SlimVirgin/archive20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wiki-stalking 2 User:Marsden 3 RFC 4 AH vegetarianism 5 Absolutely... 6 Vandal editor 7 Template:WivesMuhammad 8 coy 9 please explain 10 re:User:John McW 11 Organic food and veggie people 12 David Mertz 13 Moving discussion from Talk:Israel to Talk:PLO 14 Wikipedia talk:Verifiability 15 FuelWagon 16 dispute 17 Hi 18 E-mail 19 email 20 Common-use argument 21 Holiday 22 Spokespersons 23 definition of sic 24 Well... 25 Hamas, etc 26 Reversal of unblock 27 Yom Kippur War 28 Open gaming (protected) 29 RfC against AVD 30 E-mail 31 West Bank barrier 32 Heads up: your friend was right 33 Edit counts 34 west bank barrier 2 35 Block revert 36 Saxet block 37 Gimmiet block 38 Username Großhauptsturmführer 39 Dear fellow primate 39.1 Long-winded follow-up point 39.2 More long-windedness 40 Occupied territories again... 41 Open gaming and User:68.10.113.7 again 42 pardon 43 User:EKBK 44 Uhm... excuse me? 45 The barrier 46 Reverts 47 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/IndoPak relations 48 BCE again, again 49 A reference and religioustolerance.org 50 Your message 51 Arbitration case involving Yuber 52 Vegetarianism 53 Image:Monkey3.jpg has been listed for deletion 54 Re: Monkey 55 Gabriel 56 A, B, C 56.1 One 56.2 Two 56.3 Three 57 zoo 58 zoo + vege's 59 In reply 60 apples vs. vegetables 61 Kingdom_of_Israel 62 Rumi Quote 63 Quick note 64 Thanks 65 Hizb ut-Tahrir Article 66 Ann's Wikibreak 67 Template talk:WivesMuhammad 68 Your revert on Dhimmi 69 AVD 70 Wikipedia:Autobiography 71 Arbitration accepted 72 Problems at Talk:Otherkin 73 Six-Day War 74 Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd 75 History move if new page 76 FuelWagon RfC 77 Use of copyrighted images 78 Cambridge Apostles 79 That email id is defunct. 80 content dispute on coercive monopoly 81 bensaccount rfc meddling 82 ArbReq against Jguk 83 Not a personal attack... 83.1 Vegetarianism 84 Fair use and all that jazz 85 EKBK block 86 Veggy page 87 E-mail 88 I haven't forgotten 89 No permission 90 Talk:Ali Sina 91 Here's what you requested 92 Image 93 Age, etc 94 Issue on images still unresolved 95 Don't block indiscriminately 96 Still waiting 97 Dhul-Qarnayn 98 Hey SV 99 In cogs neato 100 BCE 2 101 Thanks for your comment 102 RfA 103 Vegetarianism 104 Image:Pikachu2.gif

[edit] Wiki-stalking

You indefinitely blocked User talk:SarahPhelpsjr. Please consider doing the same for User:Richardharrison and User:GordenWatts. Both appear to be sock-puppets attempting to disparage User:GordonWatts (note the second vowel). Marskell 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I (User:Benbest) request that you please also do the same for this link spammer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.122.51.203

[edit] User:Marsden

I am not supporting his behaviour, which I've criticised. However, I understand the frustration he feels. It's almost impossible to make headway on Israel issue articles and some of the editors involved need to have a hard look at their own behaviour, you included. I don't exclude myself from that, but I deal with it by largely giving that area the swerve. Grace Note 11:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that he did get his way on the occupied territories thing. To be honest, I tire of the bullshit way too quickly to hang around for the resolution. I remind myself that the article on Rachel Corrie still gives the opinion of a journalist on an event she didn't witness and knows no more about than you, I or anybody else when I ask whether the "opposition" is actually a problem. I also note that the article on what the world bar a vanishingly small minority calls the occupied territories is still called "the Occupation of the Palestinian territories" and is still biased. And worse, badly written! None of these articles is ever nice to read because the "opposition" prevents them from being written in normal, readable English, insisting on the circumlocutions favoured by one of the sides in the dispute. Still, it's true that I think that your POV should be represented. Just not as the basis of these articles. Grace Note 11:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

my pleasure. This Marsden guy is a real piece of work. Have you clicked on the User contributions link on his page and read the stuff he puts in? He attacks everyone and seem to be here only to harrass people and put his bias in articles. he keeps babbling about other people but he seems to be the worst user here. John McW 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did click on User contributions link for User:John McW, and guess what: He was "born" 25. sept -05..-and a high percentage of his contributions are about "This Marsden guy" on different talk-pages.....LOL!! Soooo: why don´t you tell us: what are your other names here? Hmmmm? :-D Huldra 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin: Some time back I did a few edits on Abdullah of Saudi Arabia..I therefore "watched" the page...saw that Marsden did a minor edit..then (almost) immidiately Jayjg reverted his edit (whithout saying so! Oh no, he was just "updating" ...a page he had never edited before)...then I started checking: you and Jayjg are obviously following Marsden around, changing all his edits (many on pages you have never been editing before). Wikistalking, I believe it is called? See: Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Suha Arafat, Gush Katif, Irene Kahn, Jacques Gaillot, Ometz Le'sarev, und zu weiter, und zu weiter. Now, this, I believe, is not against any Wiki rules (Its just very, very silly, IMO). However, what I find really hilarious is yours and Jayjgs claims about Marsden, e.g.: "he has pretty much stated that his only purpose for staying on Wikipedia these days is to revert me, which is inappropriate behaviour for an editor" (=Jayjgs, on newborn friend John McW talkpage). ROTFL!!! Oh, this is just soooo beautiful!! I´m not sure if you have in English the expression: "you should not throw stones if you live in a glass house"? Well, somebody must be wading in glass to their knees.... If you hear roars of laughter from Scandinavia -it´s just Yours truly, Regards, Huldra 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Hi. I have made a new suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#A new suggestion in order to try to overcome the present impasse. I would appreciate discussion of this on the talk page before we all get into reverting again. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 21:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AH vegetarianism

Slim Virgin, could I ask you to please do some research and carefully read the talk pages before making sweeping edits and reverts to these articles? Although Google is overwhelmed with the results of Rynn Berry's recent media campaign in the US to erase Hitler from the ranks of historical vegetarians, AH's vegetarianism (1931 or so to his death) is supported by virtually all of his serious biographers and even the new Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler documents this. Wyss

I read the pages in question. It's strongly disputed that Hitler was a vegetarian. I think that lists of this, that and the other should be very carefully drawn up and should not include those who are the subject of particularly vehement dispute. I don't see this overwhelming support in the page Wyss links to either. Quite the opposite. I see people who knew him well saying he ate liver dumplings. Doesn't sound like a veggie to me! Grace Note 10:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• So he was an inconsistant vegetarian. Me, I'm a lapsed vegetarian; but were I an historical or notable figure, it would be accurate to include me on a list of vegetarians (especially if my notable acts occurred between age 16 and age 48). So you're the kind of vegetarian/that only eats roses/is that what you mean/with your Beautiful Losers? (Leonard Cohen) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• No such thing as an inconsistent vegetarian, JP. You're either implaccably opposed to eating your brothers and sisters, or you're excluded from the book of light. We accept no half measures, no slackers, no EXCUSES! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh! my BROTHERS! well, actually, when I was a vegetarian, I was quite strict within my sect. But I always had one exception in mind: family members would be OK should the opportunity arise. You'd understand if you knew my brothers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can happily and cooperatively disagree, Slim Virgin. Truth be told, the evidence indicates AH was totally off meat, one way or another, by around 1940 (see the cites in the article and its talk page). Also, I'd say many, many people on that List of vegetarians wouldn't stand the scrutiny AH is being put to here, nor comply with your definition, and that's selective neutrality IMHO. Wyss 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely...

...how cute! Thanks for good wishes, the card made me smile. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal editor

Hey SV. 80.41.183.233 (talk · contribs) has vandalized a couple of articles and my user page too a few times. Please block. I have warned him/her several times. Thank you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WivesMuhammad

I was wondering if you'd want to help broker a deal there. I tried a while ago on the talk but it just seems like it has digressed into an edit war now. gren グレン 19:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] coy

Don't be coy, SlimVirgin, the "Courage to Refuse" group uses the phrase "Occupied Territories" in the URL provided. They don't say they refuse to serve in gaza or west bank or whatever, they say they refuse to serve in the "Occupied Territories". Changing it to anything else is your POV as an editor getting inserted in the article. But from you, I would expect no less. FuelWagon 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please explain

And exactly what do you find offensive? And WHY? Please explain. (But don´t expect an answer from me the next couple of days: I have a life:-)) Regards,Huldra 04:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite easy to get a high edit-count: just parttake in edit-wars? Huldra 04:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Also: I`m so glad that you do not find user "John McW" comments about other users offensive.... But of course: he is a user of such long standing...LOL! Have a nice day! Huldra 04:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he doubtless is. It's not just "our side" who uses sockpuppets. We just all pretend it is. Grace Note 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re:User:John McW

At your request I have given a 15 minute block which will give him time to read the relevant rules pages then cancel out the longer block. If you have any other guideline pages that you think would help him please post links to them on his talk page so he can read them, I agree that he probably did not have bad intentions when doing this. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. I am still surprised he did that over an obvious accident. it wasn't very friendly or helpful, that is for sure. Would you be able to fix the problem I caused at the Israel page? I would like to say something there, but when I tried last time I messed the page up. John McW 03:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I will read through those pages. i still don't understand why the PLO can "liberate" Israel, but Israel cannot "liberate" the West Bank or Gaza. John McW 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

One would assume a strong affinity between the liberating forces and the population being liberated. :) El_C 04:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organic food and veggie people

Slim, I agree with you that from an ethical standpoint factory farmed dairy products are as bad as meat. Arguably even worse. The same is true of eggs from battery cage chickens, and other instances in which animals are not killed, but instead harvested in industrial conditions. But "organic" foods are not necessarily the same thing as cruelty-free foods. First of all, I don't believe that the regulation of the use of the term "organic" (at least in the U.S.) makes any stipulations about the conditions of the animals involved. It all has to do with pesticides, et cetera, just as it would if we were talking about, say, raisins (this is my understanding, it may be wrong). Of course, most often the organic products are the ones that are cruelty-free, but this need not always be true. And because "organic" foods are often pricey and sold at foofy health food stores, I tend to feel that it's just another form of conspicuous consumption for privileged people. Maybe that's unfair. Regardless, I would like cruelty-free products to be available to people of all incomes, even if they were loaded down with pesticides. Babajobu 20:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that all makes sense. And it indicates why there is a close association between organic animal products and cruelty-free animal products. Still, when I'm buying dairy products or eggs my concern, and what I investigate, is whether or not they have been kept in humane conditions. In theory, a cow could be loaded up on antiobiotics and fed pesticide-ridden foods, but still be allowed to graze and live a basically decent life. I would drink milk from that cow. But this is an academic distinction, I suppose. And you are probably right about cruelty-free foods not being economical on a large scale, but I have to say that in California (I don't live there) Trader Joe's manages to sell cruelty-free dairy, and animal byproduct free soaps, shampoos, et cetera for a very reasonable price. If we could get these things available around the world at Trader Joe's prices, I'd be satisfied with that. Babajobu 22:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Mertz

Hi Slim,

A user named Tanya Ravine has started doing weird stuff to the WP article about me. As I put on the talk page, I have no idea why, nor who s/he is. I reverted once just now (and another time a couple days ago), but I'm definitely the wrong person to get into an edit war on that page (autobiography and all). I think you did the most cleanup on the article, so if you'd take a look, that would be great.

Thanks, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving discussion from Talk:Israel to Talk:PLO

Sorry.... Ramallite ^(talk) 15:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

please comment on your proposed change to policy on the talk page. Mozzerati 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWagon

I will support an RfAr against this user if need be. I long thought good faith but have since realized (or at least consider) otherwise. When he is annoyed he acts annoyed—unilaterally and without regard to consensus. Marskell 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, you and Gordon both continue to misuse the term "consensus". A three-to-one vote is not a vote that can be called "consensus". This already came up before on teh Terri Schiavo article a while ago when Gordon tried to call a 4-2 vote (then turned to a 4-3 vote) to be "consensus". He complained to an admin or someone and they explained that for a vote to qualify as "consensus", it would need dozens of votes and the result would have to be overwhelmingly to one side's favor. So, I haven't acted "without regard to consensus", because there have been no votes around Terri Schiavo that got consensus (other than the FA nomination got consensus that the article should not get FA status and that the article was too long). And if you have a dispute with me, for example thinking that I violated consensus, you need to bring it to me first before you go to arbcom. You've said nothing to me about this. ever. FuelWagon 04:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon quoted you as saying that you are monitoring his contributions. Since you did not disagree, I assumed that you agreed. If not, then it was just a useless comment on his part that you ignored. Jayjg has shown the evidence of what FuelWagon is doing. We can agree that the RfC talk page should be used for discussion of specific RfCs and of the RfC process.

I am hesitant to say that FuelWagon is stalking you, given that the definition excludes following a disruptive editor to clean up their contributions, and that FuelWagon has concluded that you are a disruptive pro-Israeli editor. However, I do see that what he is doing is disruptive in itself. Robert McClenon 14:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] dispute

"FuelWagon, I'm writing to put you on notice that if you continue (what I see as) your campaign of harassment against me, and the recent wikistalking, I will file an RfAr against you. You've insulted me on several talk pages,"

I'd challenge you to point out "several" insults on several talk pages. There are none.

"and seem to do so whenever there's the slightest passing opportunity. You're maintaining an attack page about me."

I'd challenge you to find a single "attack" on my user pages. There are none.

"You're following me to articles you've never edited before within minutes of my making an edit, and reverting me."

Oh, I think I could likely make the same charges of you. I won't be bothering arbcom about it though, unless you wish to bring it to their attention.

Your sudden interest in the Bensaccount RfC a while back was most peculiar given that you had absolutely no interaction on the article in question, or with the RfC itself for the first week. Your attempts to supress criticism of your behaviour back then was less than stellar.

Truth be told, you've been harrassing me ever since I filed that RfC against you. You made clear what you think of a user RfC, and you've been pushing that into the RfC instructions ever since I filed my RfC against you. And you're the one who's pushing POV in the instruction page. I've been trying to separate facts of policy from your horrendous opinion of policy, but you won't allow it.

Your attempts to change the "words to avoid" and remove "however" as soon as I criticized one of your edits for using "although" is an interesting approach as well.

"As you know, in order for a case to be accepted by the arbcom, there must have been prior attempts at dispute resolution. I consider the RfC you filed against me, and the exchange of e-mails that I initiated, as fulfilling that requirement,"

The RfC I filed against you dealt with your edit of the Terri Schiavo article, and I withdrew certification to allow it to be deleted. You've made no attempts to resolve anything via the RfC, if for no other reason than you are complaining about stuff that happened a couple months after I allowed my RfC against you to be deleted. You've made no attempts to use any step of the dispute resolution system to address these insults that do not exist, the talk page with no NPA violations on it, or my completely legitimate edits of your POV pushing.

Of course, you've got friends in arbcom, so jumping straight to arbcom has its advantages for you. So, claims that you've tried other steps in the dispute resolution process have now been retroactively declared by you.

"though of course if you have further suggestions, or want to try again, I'll be happy to work with you. I don't want to file a case with the arbcom, because it will mean a lot of work for both of us, but I will do so unless this stops."

There is nothing to stop. There are no insults that you can point to. There are no NPA violations on my talk page. there is nothing wrong with any of my edits on various articles other than the fact that you don't like them. You've pushed some bad edits into some articles and I fixed them. And you don't like that, so you're threatening to bring your friends into the picture and gang up on me.

You continue to make these vague accusations against me and refuse to point to a single violation. If you had a legitmate dispute, you could resolve it by pointing out an insult or a personal attack. But you continue to ignore those requests for specifics while making more accusations. Because there isn't anything I've done that needs resolving. You simply want to get me banned, so you can edit the RfC instructions to be the way you want them and so you can delete the sourced quotes I put in a couple of articles that you happened to be working on. You've probably wanted me banned since I filed the RfC against you two months ago. And you're going to jump straight to your friends at arbcom to do it and claim that my RfC against you was your attempt to resolve something I'm supposedly doing now.

You want to show attempts to "resolve" the dispute? Try pointing out "several" specific insults and see if I apologize or not. The only thing is there aren't any, is there? Nor are there any NPA violations on my talk page. There are no policy violations that you can point to. Not a single one. The only problem here is that I edit the RfC instructions to report the facts of policy and you want them to emphasize your personal opinon of RfC's. The only problem here is that I inserted some sourced quotes in an article you were working on, and you didn't like that text being there. You and Jayjg deleted a sourced quote as "POV pushing", when the quote was clearly reporting the point of view of the source.

This is nothing but a number of unrelated content disputes, and you're trying to play hardball by threatening me with arbcom to get your way. Dispute resolution around content disputes is to file an article RfC, not go to arbcom. But you don't want to resolve a content dispute. Your version of compromise on the user RfC instruction page was to revert to your preferred version and act like you were reverting to Sam's compromised version. You want it your way or you'll go to arbcom to get it.

I seem to recall you questioning the legitimacy of teh RfC against Bensaccount because the attempts to "resolve" the dispute didn't meet your satisfaction. You said we should have offered a compromise, worked towards a specific solution, something to that effect. What compromise do you bring? What solution do you offer? All I hear is "stop or I'll go to arbcom". You want a solution? Point out "several" specific insults on various talk pages or retract the accusation. Point out an NPA violation on my talk page or retract the accusation. You want to show that you've attempted to resolve anythign, point out a specific instance that you're accusing me of insulting you or violating NPA. FuelWagon 03:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Slim, I just wanted to say that however hotheaded I might sound on the verifiability page, I have only the highest respect for you and for your judgment in every other case I have seen. At the top of your page, you quote "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost" Well, I see this proposed policy as anti-education and that may be a reason why "almost" is in the quote. Also, I really do not think there was a pre-existing consensus, rather, sources tend to be in English because of the systematic bias of the net and because that is extremely natural in an English work. With the natural tide going so strongly in one way, other sources should be encouraged, not discouraged. I've already seen people saying that they only have a source in X language and are not putting something in - it may have already done damage. I have seen you mention the original form of the idea several times on Arab-Israeli conflict etc. pages, and I do not recall a single person agreeing with you. So in the original form do you really think there was a consensus? - which should have been proper before making it a policy without discussion.

I have also planned for a while to make an important and ticklish edit -one of many- on a featured article page that could fall afoul of the translation requirements, which I find incomprehensible. In short the main source of a featured article, the Yom Kippur war page is Rabinowitz's book; in my opinion, and I think you might have noted I never talk like this, he is a professional liar, one of many repeating the same standard lies about the background of this war, who also misuses his sources. A major piece of evidence I have for this is the English translation/paraphrase in the book Politicide by Baruch Kimmerling, a respected scholar, of a short passage from the second edition of Dado, the Hebrew biography of David Elazar, by Hanoch Bartov. According to Rabinowitz, Dado is the second most important source he and everyone else uses for the war - but he only refers to the first edition, when the second edition came out well in time for writing his book. Why? - imho because it apparently decisively contradicts the picture he paints. Egypt repeatedly offered peace treaties to Israel, and Israel repeatedly refused them, wanting to keep some of the Sinai. According to Kimmerling, Dado 2 quotes a meeting of the kitchen cabinet where Israel Galili says, 6 months before the war "if we refuse Sadat's generous offer, there will be war". To this, Dayan and Meir replied, "so what" utterly confident that they would win with ease. So the war was not really a surprise after all, what was a surprise was that the war was not so easy to win after all. What would this obscure translation policy say in this case? Is it more important than information?

As I have repeatedly said, the only good thing is that the policy, if it has any content at all, will be unworkable and ignored. Just another source for useless wikilawyering. I think you are greatly overestimating the efficacy of rules over gentle and rational persuasion, which makes no sense, as you are hardly unskilled in the latter. Finally, have you ever seen any scholarly resource with such a policy? It really makes Wiki look unscholarly and amateurish to me. I hope I have explained my feelings a bit better - it really and honestly did not and does not look like consensus to me, and still seems to me something that can only result in harm. My highest regards again, John Z 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not see the email, and still can't find it. I have some additional objections and will post them. My second paragraph above is based on a misapprehension of what the translation policy says; I still find it very badly worded and simply do not understand it, and would probably oppose it if I did. :-) I am just extremely conservative about changing rules, and this really seems to be a major change to me. Regards again,John Z 12:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

From looking at the talk page, glad there's some convergence; I guess I am moving a little too, I just like to move very slowly. As for fear of being ignored, no. (I had decided to be bold there), Fear of the men in white coats, yes. RegardsJohn Z 15:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

E-mail for you, SV. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] email

Nope - just checked - nothing.

Ok got it, thanks, and I have responded. Have to get going now, have a good day :) Ramallite ^(talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common-use argument

Thank you! I so tired I can barely keep my eyes open but I liked reading your comment and will get back to you the next time I'm awake. --saxet 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday

Could you take a look at the Holiday article please? I tried to NPOV a recent insertion, but it probably needs more work. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spokespersons

You're quite welcome. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] definition of sic

Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally. [1] (bolding added by me) Wyss 18:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well...

I'm sorry you find me dismissive, but I really can't take that argument seriously. We are having an argument about whether we should title a page by a name that is in common use, but which is objected to as inaccurate by one of the parties to a conflict. Now, I think there's arguments to be made on both sides on this, but comparing this to a question of whether or not we should say that women are inferior because a lot of people believe that isn't helpful. It seems to me that your example is more about riling people up with an emotionally resonant example than it is about actually making a point about the issue under discussion. Even ignoring the whole naming question, do you really think that saying women are inferior is analogous to saying that the West Bank is occupied? Would Ms. refer to women as inferior? The Jerusalem Post, as I've repeatedly noted, has been prone to use "occupied territories." How disputed can a term be when a right wing Israeli newspaper and right wing columnists within it uses the supposed left-wing/pro-Palestinian term? john k 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas, etc

The Hamas argument was, I think, more a propos, and you're right that I didn't end up addressing it. So, I'll give it a whirl now. If there were no other way of disambiguating the terrorist group Hamas from another group called Hamas, and both were similarly well known, I would not object to Hamas (terrorist group) as a title. That said, there would be other ways of disambiguating - Hamas (Palestinian militant group), for instance, would seem acceptable. I would add that for parenthetical disambiguators, the "don't use neologisms" rule doesn't apply, because the disambiguator isn't (in my view, at least) part of the formal title.

Reading your discussion with saxet, I agree with you fully about the human article, and that it's ridiculous to say that because most people in the world believe that humans have souls, that should be mentioned. This is because I don't think in terms of a "common use" rule for article content. As far as I am aware, there is no such rule. What we do have is a rule to "use common names." This is different, in part because it only applies to article titles. I fully agree that the article we're arguing about shouldn't just say that the West Bank and Gaza and the Golan Heights are occupied - it should explain that this is disputed. But I don't think these kind of issues can come to play so much in article titles, unless we can come up with another title which is a common name and which is more NPOV.

In terms of Iraq, this does seem problematic to me. I would suggest, however, that the problem is more on the side of not describing America's current position in Iraq as an occupation than the other way around. (I would suggest, though, that if it is necessary to describe the Iraqi government as a "puppet regime" to make the case that the US is an occupation regime that there are clearly strong POV arguments on both sides). I will go on to suggest, though, that the question of whether Israel is occupying the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights is not the same question as whether the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are collectively referred to as the Occupied Territories. It is perhaps to be noted in defense of this that nobody (I think) would deny that the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon after 1983 was an occupation, but that these areas were never referred to as part of the "occupied territories" - in some sense, use of this term seems to have escaped from the conventional meaning of the term "occupied" to be almost a proper noun referring to territories which may or may not be occupied. john k 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely what I said. Whether they are technically "occupied" is entirely moot to the question whether they are called "occupied". No one has suggested any problem with a correctly sourced discussion of whether they are. Grace Note 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversal of unblock

I agree with your decision in light of policy review. I honestly did believe I was consulting with a fellow administrator when I promptly informed Rama of my action. This I felt was appropriate ex post facto rather than previous to the unblock as the user by all accounts was not trolling or being vandalistic and upon reinstatement would not go off on a spree of poor behavior.

Regardless, I was in the wrong and apologize for creating a problem by not taking it upon myself to be more informed before engaging in administrative action. I have sporadic use of wikipedia due to other obligations and am not as up to date with policy as I was previously. I will make every effort to be fully informed and be more reserved to take administrative action in the future. If you wish to report this occurrence to the arbitration committee that is your right, I hope this will be seen as the honest mistake it was. I have given a more detailed response on Rama's talkpage. Thanks and happy editing. Arm 21:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yom Kippur War

I'm very disappointed not to see you at Yom Kippur War. I'm applying the principle you argued for at Occupied Territories (Israeli) but I'm meeting fierce resistance from a POV pusher. Surely you agree that "Yom Kippur War" is a POV title? You must be aware that the Arabs call that war something different. You argued at the "Occupied Territories" page that we could not name a page with a title one of the factions disagreed with. I think the obvious conclusion can be drawn if you do not apply the same logic to Yom Kippur War. Grace Note 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your WP:POINT has already been refuted on the Talk: page of that article. Furthermore, no-one disputes that the Egyptians and Syrians attacked deliberately and specifically on Yom Kippur, so your analogy is specious. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open gaming (protected)

On the comments page for the Open gaming article, you state that I have been disrupting that article since February 2005. That is not correct: User:Axon has been disrupting this article, dating back to December of 2004, when he began using this article as his soapbox[2]. It's unfortunate that you did not take a few minutes to read the history of the article before protecting it. Okay, let's say for sake of argument that you are just too busy to bother reading the edit history of the Open gaming article, and all you have to go on is the word of two editors. Let's suppose that you don't have the time to investigate the vandalism complaint I made against Axon -- since you obviously didn't check the facts before summarily deleting it.

Why on earth would you assume that one editor's complaints are valid and justified, and the other's are completely fabricated? Why would assume that one editor, whose only contributions to this article have been a) to revert other editor's contributions (primarily mine, but not just mine[3] [4] [5] [6]), and b) to post unsubstantiated opinion laden with weasel words?

Why would you assume that the complaints of the other editor, who has actually contributed much of the article's current content, and who has actively sought discussion on said content, are baseless?

For pete's sake, can't you exercise just a little effort before you declare that one editor's opinion should be enshrined as the incumbent version of the page? I even provided you a link to the last undisputed version[7] of the page! Do consensus, verifiability, and NPOV mean nothing to you? I am more than happy to discuss Axon's edits -- but you'll note that he doesn't discuss them. He has never discussed them, and you people do not do anything about it! That's part of why I took a break from Wikipedia for so long, out of frustration and disgust (other than taking a few minutes once a month to revert Axon's latest vandalism [8]). Of course, once I was no longer actively participating in Wikipedia, Axon was free to claim all kinds of things without fear of anyone contradicting him. It's easy to claim that you want to discuss things when no one is around to take you up on the offer (I won't even address his other slanders during that time, all of which you appear to have taken at face value). You'll note that he still isn't actually discussing anything. What he does (which seems to work quite well) is "contribute" his unsubstantiated opinion, and then complain to you when anyone else makes any edits at all. And, incredibly, this tactic works, because you are either too busy or too indifferent to check the facts.

Will you READ the edit history of the page before giving preferencial treatment to one editor's unsubstantiated opinion? Or if that is simply too time consuming, at least read the section on the Talk page titled "Time to get serious" (which gives a brief overview of the current status of the Open gaming article)? PLEASE?

But you won't. You refuse to read the page you've protected, nor the Talk page, nor even check the citations where I give you easy, one-click links to Axon's edit history. Any editor can recognize weasel words: you don't need to know "the issues" to spot them. Any editor can choose to protect an undisputed version of a page rather than being completely snowed by an editor who has never discussed their edits despite MONTHS of outright begging that he do so, but who is obviously better at "playing the system" than I am. Is it any wonder that I'm frustrated? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

On Talk:Open gaming, SlimVirgin said, "How can you call your version undisputed?" Oh. My. God. The most recent undisputed version -- for which I've given you the link at least THREE TIMES (make it four now[9]) -- was from a completely different user, predating any conflict between myself and Axon. Not only have you not read the page you're making decisions about, or the Talk page where most of this has been explained in detail over and again, you don't even read the Talk comments that you're replying to! AAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH! -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 19:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC against AVD

I noticed at the RFAr page against this user, you was able to get into a agreement with AVD and another user to stop the RFAr. I wish to tell you that a RFC has been filed against AVD and it is pretty much over the same stuff, except with a different user. It can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon. Zach (Sound Off) 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Since this seems on going nowhere, I highly suspect that another WP:RFAr will be filed against AVD very soon if he does not calm down. Zach (Sound Off) 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I filed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ArmchairVexillologistDon_-_Reopening. Zach (Sound Off) 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

No, of course I don't mind. I have (unfortunately) promised a friend to help him move, but I'll send you an email as soon as possible. Cheers. --saxet 19:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope everthing is allright. My email adress is dervishtsaddik at yahoo.com (if yahoo doesn't malfunction again), sorry I didn't have the time to reply to your ideas regarding common-use. Best regards. --DTemail 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Bank barrier

Dear Slimvirgin. Thanks for your note.

I am very willing to contribute and I learned the rulls as we go. Your help is appriciated. The subject is hard and there is much misinformation about it. I am very willing to cooperate with Ramallite and any other editors) but please make your best that he does not insert non relevant info or uses "copy edit" as an excuse to delete properly sourced information.

Strongly suggest that you read the latest israel court descision. many of the facts about the barrier were reviwed in an court procedure where each side got to present it's case and the court rules based on facts.

[edit] Heads up: your friend was right

I told the idle guy that "You are vindicated on the vegan article page: I repaired the damage my friends, SlimVirgin and Viriditas did --but you ALL were wrong to not cite your sources: I fixed that as well --yes, as a struggling vegan myself, I too find it hard to deal with gelatin caps, but I listed the alternatives -and cited my sources.--GordonWatts 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

--GordonWatts 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counts

93. User:SlimVirgin (16784)

94. User:Willmcw (16774)

Hey, I see you're just ten nine edits ahead of me! Watch out, I'm gaining on you! -Willmcw 06:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I may be pulling ahead in the overall edit count race, but you seem to have a clear lead in the drawing-fire competition:

• 25 points, User:Willmcw, 103 days admin, 9 times reverted
• 44 points, User:SlimVirgin, 200 days admin, 31 times reverted

Thanks for taking the heat. -Willmcw 10:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] west bank barrier 2

Thanks for your advice slim. I read what you suggested and appliied it (see section about the 2nd supreme court rulling)

If the criteria is that "no one should think what the editor opinion on the subject is" then with hi degree of certenti I am surprized that you are reverting back to ramallite revisions and dismiss everyone else. Surly you know what he thinks on the barrier by reading his contributions.

I am surprized that weeks after the court rulling no one bothered to update that wikipedia article. Since I am familiar with the subject (and don't assume you know my viwes) I decided to help.

My goal is to have an accurate, balanced article on a subject that has many POV and non neural propeganda about it.

So I want to work with all of you toward this goal. I would expect to learn on wkipedia from you.

I hope that the pratice of just reverting other people work (when it is quotes which are well sourced) without proper discussion is not what you want me to learn. So thank you for setting a good example. Zeq 19:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin - just wanted to say thanks for your words on Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier regarding my edits. I think that Zeq is slowly going through the learning curve, hopefully things will turn out okay. Thanks again! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block revert

FYI, I've reverted the block on User:EKBK as there was no "justification" aside from an accusation of sockpuppetry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It'd be easier to avoid reverting your blocks if your blocks had some explanations attached to them. Please see Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks for some examples on how to avoid having people summarily revert your blocks for a lack of justification. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"sockpuppet used to evade block" and "sockpuppet used to evade policy" are not sufficient explanations as far as I'm concerned. If you'd actually reviewed the policy page to which I directed your attention, you would have seen the following:

4. Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the "reason" message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.

5. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.

I see no justification of your acusation that EKBK is a sock puppet. I have only your word (and, until I questioned you, not even an User: that you asserted was using EKBK as a sockpuppet) that it is so. I do not even have a peak at your reasoning. I do not care if EKBK is a sock puppet, procedure is important. We cannot simply block whoever we feel like blocking and write "sockpuppet" in the block log. That just won't do. I exhort you to, as amends for your violation of procedure, revert your OWN block, bring the issue to the Admin Noticeboard for consensus, present your case and see what the community has to say about the issue. I have indeed received several of EKBK's emails, and he/she does have a point. EKBK has been blocked unilaterally with no evidence offered as to him/her being a sockpuppet based simply on an assertion by one administrator. Sockpuppet or no, attempt to disrupt or no... this is unacceptable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Having been involved with the whole Zephram Stark affair, I can state with near certainty that EKBK is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Zephram. EKBK's first edit was to Talk:Terrorism to support some of Zephram's original research. The vast majority of EKBK's edits have been to pages that Zephram edits or to Zephram's talk page. After not editing for a full week, EKBK appears mere hours after Zephram was blocked for personal attacks and disruption. I think it's quite likely that EKBK is actually a meatpuppet, but the policy on meatpuppets states that "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." It also states that "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." I support this block and I believe that Wikipedia policy also fully supports it. Carbonite | Talk 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

THIS is precisely the sort of rationale that should have been associated with the block from the very get-go. I believe I made it quite clear that it's not the block itself that's the problem, it's the failure to follow procedure. I *still* believe that the appropriate thing to do is follow procedure, despite assurances from individuals as to the merits of the block. Between your and Jpgordon's explanations below (and my review of the relevant pages... which I was not even AWARE of prior to now... hence my complaint about procedure) I accept the prima facie evidence that EKBK is possibly a sock or meat puppet... there is certainly a pattern that fits. However, given the ArbCom case against Zephram, it probably makes sense as Jpgordon says below to allow the ArbCom to deal with the issue of potential sock/meat puppetry by EKBK as well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm ambivalent (I've been saying a lot recently). It's blazingly obvious to anyone who has spent too much time at Talk:Terrorism that EKBK is just another one of ZS's legions of puppies (most of whom show up for one edit, support Stark, and then just coincidentally vanish again.) However, it's also the case that few people with any regard for their own state of mind spend much time at Talk:Terrorism. At any rate, the case of Zephram Stark (and, thus, his alleged sockpuppets) is under arbitration now (it wasn't yet when Slim blocked EKBK); blocks and such should now be under the direction of ArbCom, preferably in the form of temporary injunctions, until the case is resolved. I also believe that a "sockpuppet for the purpose of circumventing a block" is ipso facto blockable; am I mistaken about this? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, what's blazingly obvious to those who are "in the loop" is completely opaque to those of us who aren't and are presented only with a block log message that states "sockpuppet" with no corroboration. We are simply to take SlimVirgin's word for it... something I am loath to do (with ANY admin, not just SV) when the issue is a perma-block. THIS is why it is so important to follow procedure and leave a "paper trail", as it were, so outside parties can understand what the heck is going on. As for blocking a sockpuppet used to evade a block, those are certainly blockable, but there is still the issue of KNOWING rather than SUSPECTING or ASSERTING that the account is a sock before the actual block occurs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears you took issue with my last message here (which you unceremoniously reverted, IMO without cause), so I'll try a different tack. All I've done is respond to a user who claimed to have been unfairly blocked. In an attempt to examine the situation, I researched as much as was possible regarding the block. The sum total of information available to me indicated that the block was inappropriate, so I reverted it. You then re-blocked, and opened a dialogue. I've been rather patient, haven't re-reverted or done anything to antagonize you. In return, I've been accused of accusing you of acting in bad faith (an error on your part) as well as leaving inflammatory messages (if you note, the last two comments are not even directed to you, but to others who chose to comment on this issue), and (apparently) summarily blocked from leaving you messages on your Talk page. I've not impugned your character or done anything untoward. I've attempted to appeal to your fairness and reason as an administrator. Kindly inform me as to precisely what it is that I've done to incur so much defensiveness and ire on your part. I've patiently explained every one of my actions and rationale behind my motivation. What more do you want? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saxet block

Hello, I just sent you an email in response to your email to me. I'm not sure I expressed myself that well, so I thought I'd supplement my response here. Basically, I don't see how unblocking someone who was apparently unjustifiably blocked for a reason having nothing to do with the page in which he and I partially agree about a page title dispute is an abuse of admin powers. If anyone abused admin powers, it was David Gerard for banning someone for using sock puppets in a way which, so far as he has yet detailed, is not in violation of policy. You will note that I did not unblock saxet until after David responded with his justification. Given that two users questioned the block, and specifically mentioned that use of sock puppets alone was not sufficient to justify a block, David's response - reasserting that Saxet was using sockpuppets - was completely inadequate. Blocking a user indefinitely is a serious matter, and should be very clearly justified. David has failed to do so, and I made a judgement call to unblock Saxet. This was a use of admin powers, but I don't think that unblocking is to be scrutinized as closely as, say, page protection or blocking. Users shouldn't be blocked without good reason. David has yet to provide one. If he can, in fact, provide a good reason, he can reblock saxet, and I would accept that.

As to my personal connection, I feel that this is very tenuous. Saxet and I agree that the Territories under Israeli control article should be renamed to something based around the name "occupied territories." We may incidentally agree on some other subjects. As far as I am aware, that is all. Saxet is not, I think, a terribly eloquent or helpful advocate for the views which we agree on. I have no particular connection to Saxet beyond this single article. David's reasons for blocking Saxet had nothing to do with his behavior in the one article in which I have had contact with Saxet (Saxet did not use sock puppets in that article that I am aware of. If he did edit as different users, which I'm not completely sure he did not do, he always signed as Saxet, so there was no intent to deceive). Frankly, I don't see how the fact that I agree with Saxet on one particular content dispute means that I am unqualified from unblocking him. I've seen unblocks made on much more dubious gorunds in the past. john k 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you so much for awarding me the Oddball Barnstar Award! I hope this is the right place to contact you! devotchka

[edit] Gimmiet block

I'm sorry, I won't unilaterally undo a block again, and I was misinformed about what's considered a "revert" and what isn't. Having mulled it over, I now do think that, regardless of whether or not it truly violates the injunction, deleting the tag a second time was highly inappropriate and deserving of a block. Sorry about that. ~~ N (t/c) 05:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Username Großhauptsturmführer

You have banned my previous username, Großhauptsturmführer. Though I feel your ban may have been POV motivated, I am going to assume good faith and give you an oppurtunity to apply your rules equally. I find User:V. Molotov's username to be offensive because it obviously refers to genocide accessory Vyacheslav Molotov. Banneduser96 18:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• V. Molotov's page says Hello all, my name is , and I had once went under the name "Dbraceyrules" but have now changed it to V. Molotov after - well, not the Soviet politician - but the Molotov cocktail. Even a marginal student of Soviet history will tell you that Molotov cocktails were called that as a symbol of defiance to Molotov and his lies during the Winter War. On the other hand, your invented term "Großhauptsturmführer" is obviously a Nazi reference; around here, you need to keep your Nazi affinities a bit more subtle, since, like most decent people in the world, we don't have much respect for the needs and feelings of professed Nazis. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy in wikipedia that forbids users to express a controversial personal belief? Just wondering. I have seen several users with Nazi signs, anti-religious symbols, etc. on their user pages.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Not as such. But see Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames. Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory or offensive user names. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks jp and SV for making that clear. Now about this issue. If this particular user's name is offensive, does that mean that names such as user:JerusalemISIsrael are also since they might offend Palestinians? For me, this is just to become more familiar with wiki policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that you have openly admitted you POV bias against me, I feel it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself and unblock my username at this time. The other user's name is V. Molotov, not Petrol Bomb, Molotov Cocktail, or even simply Molotov. If we are to accept Molotov's disclaimer on his/her userpage, may I continue to use my username if I provide a similar disclaimer, distancing my name from any Nazi organization? I don't think you would find the term Großhauptsturmführer anywhere (a google search turned up no results [10]), let alone in Nazi history. Or is it only acceptable to allude to the mind behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and genocide (Stalinist purges), so long as one is alluding to a communist?

As an admin, you have voluntarily undertaken addition responsiblity. You must execute your powers in an equitable manner, without regard for your personal opinions. If you do not feel you can execute your powers in an equal manner, you should resign. Banneduser96 22:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't read very well, do you? The allusion to Molotov cocktails is, as are all reference to Molotov cocktails, opposition to Molotov and his evils. But keep trying; it will be amusing to see what you can invent to show that a "great" or "big" Nazi Storm Trooper Captain is somehow not an allusion to Naziism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear fellow primate

I'm really perplexed by your anger over edits to primate and ape. I avoided duplication one-page-to-the-other but absolutely no info was removed. In fact, taken together, the concept has been expanded upon, particularly given that the ape page previously made no mention of the topic. I also tried to make clear that Ape is not synonomous with Primate. It's an important point which people often miss. To address a few of things:

• "It strikes me that you're personally dismissive of the idea and therefore feel it has no place here..." Not at all! It's an absolutely fascinating topic which deserves a mention. Two things. First, again, apes are not primates in the same way dogs are not wolves and my main concern was which page does this belong on. Secondly, great pains have been taken (particularly by Uther, who deserves a lot of credit for his fastidiousness on animal articles) to cover taxonomy and biology comprehensively first and then get into other considerations. He actually moved legal considerations back down, not myself.
• "If you've inserted it wholesale into Ape, you'd better adjust the figures in it to cover only apes." I didn't insert it wholesale and mentioned no figures. I moved the expanded paragraph about what the "Great Ape Project" is to ape because it makes sense there and left the stats about research on primates on primate (and for what it's worth I never added the "there is no discomfort" line which is indeed a joke as you said).
• "And yes, people are very serious about extending the notion of personhood, a legal concept, to lemurs." I have read around this topic and I have honestly not seen any reference to lemurs and monkeys being included (as I recall I have encountered comments about dolphins in this regard!). I apologize if it came off as glib to say "Source?" as a single sentence, but I'd honestly be curious for the source. I did search around and can't find one.
• "You're now engaged in WP:POINT, deliberately inserting false material elsewhere." I'm sorry but that's just not true. I really haven't inserted false material anywhere.

As an ancillary point, do we have a "grandfather" article along the lines of Legal status of animals which we could point to in discussions of this sort? Can't find one in the animal cat. It's certainly an interesting topic and I'd help if you want to make an article. Marskell 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long-winded follow-up point

Apes are primates but the term ape is not synonomous with primate (like again, dog is not synonomous with canine). That is, apes are one type of primate (and actually a quite limited one, if you exclude the 6 billion us).

If there is a truly mis-apprehended word in this regard, it is "monkey". We are not monkeys. Apes are not monkeys. But of course, an off-the-top-head discussion of evolution inevitably includes "hey, we're monkeys!"

Anyhow, there is some POV on my part and I'll admit that the previous edit summary "placing legal status at bottom and removing great ape project ref. should lemurs be considered persons under law? a) no b) i don't care. save it for the ape page" was hasty and sarcastic. But again, it goes back to apes versus primates. To go over quickly what I view as a starting point for discussion.

1. Apes (or maybe just chimps--disputed) appear to have self-recognition, passing the "mirror test."
2. Apes may have theory of mind (again disputed); that is they appear cognizant of what another is thinking and will act on that knowledge. Knowing "you" basically being the step after knowing "I".

To my mind, if you pass both tests you are a person (POV obviously, but not out of nowhwere). Trees don't pass either. Dogs don't pass either (place a mirror in front of them and they get ready to fight the "intruder"). And the vast majority of primates (as far as I know and I'm not claiming expert knowledge) may pass the first but not the second test. Only chimps come close. The Great Ape Project says this without saying it IMHO. Their declaration is clear but their reasoning is not and they don't clarify the "before this why not before that point" (ie, you include chimps so then you include gorillas and orangs—why not all primates, why not all mammals, why not insects, and on and on until hydrogen ought to have personhood...). My getting uptight about the edits has a lot to do with this reasoning; again it's POV but it's not non-thought-out or over-general. I really do think the paragraph I placed on ape makes more sense there than on primate because the project has, to this point, only sought to demand rights for apes.

Anyway, I'll chew over the suggested addition of Legal status of animals. It shouldn't be added in the "just a stub everybody add an incidental point" fashion because it could wind-up badly. Well-done it could be a good addition.

Finally, after much long-windedness, thanks for your gracious comments on my talk page! Marskell 02:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More long-windedness

Thanks for your post; all of your points are well-taken.

Before proceeding I thought I’d make a general clarification about persons in law versus persons as such. An infant is and should be a person in law though I wouldn’t actually consider them a person as such—just a loveable bundle of neurons. I’d make a similar argument for the severely disabled. Sorry if this is a bad example considering other issues, but I’d suggest Terri Schiavo essentially ceased to be a person as such when she entered a PVS (though again, she was and should have been a person in law). I don’t mean that to be callous—I mean it to be intellectually consistent.

In general, it is possible to hold pain and personhood distinct. I can acknowledge an animal feels pain without granting that they’re a person as such. If you want to take pain as your starting point for personhood, OK—"the answer could be pain," as a teacher once said to me—though I won’t agree.

If not, then what is the starting point? What is a person as such? And how can the GA project present a declaration on personhood in law without taking a stab at defining the term more generally? I’m sure individuals take a stab in the book but their declaration doesn’t. Similarly, in the statement of goals from GRASP we find: "Nonhuman apes meet the generally accepted criteria for personhood." And then they fail to define those criteria [11]. Note, that I actually agree with all of the points in the declaration from GAP but my reasoning is this: apes are large-brained, intelligent mammals with a robust sentience and a relatively robust emotional sense; I don’t see we have the right to hold them and we sure as hell don’t have the right to torture them. But note I’m not asserting that they’re persons; if accepting the points as law makes apes de facto persons legally, fair enough, but in the ontological sense I'm not obliged to consider them such. And the "if this, why not that" point still holds. What about Lesser Apes, Gibbons? (Did you see my happy Gibbon picture on the ape page by the way :)?

"Theory of mind…is a dodgy concept in general." Far from it—it’s a valid point of scientific distinction and it’s discussed in philosophy. Robin Dunbar is one needs-to-be-destubified scientist who has worked on the issue recently. I haven’t pushed it on any page but I think it as valid a criterion as any. I will definitely admit the Theory of mind page needs work (as does intentionality). I’ve never, incidentally, bought the idea that an average autistic doesn’t have theory of mind (particularly after my sponsor’s autistic son took my by the hand and said "I love you Mr. Tim!" :)

"I may not have the same theory of mind as you." Yes, in the "I can’t disprove a solipsist" sense but not true in more practical ways. Here is a statement: "Marskell wants Slim to know that Tom’s brother Joe is aware that user:Mary has been lying about Tom’s edits on the Main Page." I think we can both follow that sentence and in more or less the same way; if we didn't follow it in more or less the same way we wouldn't be able to communicate. It’s five orders of intentionality, about as much as an adult human being can intake without getting confused. This IS something that’s tested and I see nothing dodgy about saying the fact that human beings can apprehend such information and no other animal can is one reason we differ in kind from other animals. OK to underscore similarities but we can’t ignore the differences.

Well now, this has become quite lengthy. Take care and of course respond as you please. Marskell 10:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occupied territories again...

Hey Slim,

You say over at Talk:Yom Kippur War with respect to the Territories under Israeli control article:

The issue there is that the article is in part about whether the territories are rightly regarded as "occupied," under international law.

Seeing it put like that, I am all the more convinced that this is not a valid way to go about deciding article titles. I say this because we use the term "war" in article titles for conflicts which may not be regarded as wars under international law, or, at least, where there have been arguments made that they are not wars. I think specifically of Korean War, which was officially defined by the US as a "police action," and which, I believe, may have been so defined by the UN. It seems to me that the American position that the Korean War was not a war is quite analogous to the Israeli position that the Occupied Territories are not occupied. Many other wars fought by the US are also officially considered by the US not to be wars, notably the Vietnam War and both conflicts in Iraq. Under international law, any of these conflicts may or may not be considered wars - I'm not really sure. But it's a fact that the official position of the United States government has been that none of these are wars, because only Congress has the power to declare war, and the last time Congress did so was in 1941. Therefore, ipso facto, these conflicts are not wars. And there are various justificatoins as to why - Korea and Gulf War I (and perhaps Gulf War II...) are UN police actions; Vietnam was an effort to aid a friendly government against an insurgency. Our articles on these wars should certainly deal with these issues. But our article titles are very properly at Korean War, Vietnam War, and so forth.

To get back to the "territories under Israeli control," the issue you are having seems to be that whether or not the commonly used name is technically accurate is a matter of dispute, with one side maintaining that it is and the other claiming otherwise. This is evidently true. At the same time, the fact that the technical accuracy of the most commonly used name is under dispute, with POV arguments being made by both sides, does not make the name itself POV. So, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Korean War as not being a war, the name Korean War is still NPOV. Analogously, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Occupied Territories as not being Occupied, the name Occupied Territories is still NPOV. It is the name of the article not because wikipedia is asserting that the territories are occupied, but only because this is, as a matter of fact, the name which they are given. Another example: according to the reigning legal theory in the United States, the Confederate States of America never existed. Secession was illegal, and thus, either a) those individuals in state governments who attempted to secede were behaving illegally, and the southern states never actually seceded at all (Lincoln's position); or b) the southern states were in illegal rebellion, and had no legal right to form a sovereign confederacy, even though their rebellion temporarily deprived them of status as states in the union (the radical republican position). Thus, one might say that there is a POV dispute as to whether or not the Confederate States of America existed. But that does not mean that it is POV to have an article titled Confederate States of America.

Anyway, I won't go on, but my point is basically this: even if the Occupied Territories are not occupied under international law, that doesn't mean that it is POV to use the title "Occupied Territories" when this is how they are most commonly known, and when there is no other commonly used name available. john k 19:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open gaming and User:68.10.113.7 again

Hi SV,

Once again, 68.10.113.7 (talk · contribs) continues to disrupt Wikipedia and is repeatedly reverting and deleting content to the Open gaming page every other day despite multiple attempts to open a discourse on this subject[12][13]. He is also mismarking legitimate edits as vandalism and resorting to personal attacks in his edit summaries[14][15]

I would also note that this IP address was involved in an attempt to game and meat-puppet this page[16][17] for which the user was previously blocked[18]. I appreciate if you are reluctant to get involved, but even if direct action is not possible I would appreciate some help or advice here on what I can do to resolve this issue. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your attention in this matter. The user (quite likely User:Bblackmoor) did indeed start an RfC (which found in my favor) and an RfAr against me, which was rejected by ArbCom. I would note this user is the author of said license (OOGL) who, for reasons known to himself, is motivated in erasing all mention of the license. When he did not succeed in convincing RfC's and ArbCom that the section on the OOGL should be deleted he "swore off" Wikipedia and started using meat puppets, but now continues to delete content from Open gaming anonymously. I'm not sure what to do if he continues to delete content or disrupt the page after the block expires but I'm pretty sure he will start again. Any advice you can offer would be great. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for removing me from the Vandalism in Progress page: I hadn't even noticed he had reported me for vandalism. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to see what happens next and keep blocking him if he continues to be disruptive. If he does use circumvent the block, protecting the page would seem a likely candidate, but I'm unsure if you can protect a page for longer than a month, which would be diserable in this situation to counter his "long-term" strategy of reverting the page every month-or-so. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that this user, now logged in as User:Bblackmoor has once again reverted the content from the Open gaming article[19] without prior discussion on the talk page and despite multiple warnings. While he has started a weak attempt at discussion on the talk page (without waiting for anyone actually to respond), it seems almost completely unrelated to the dispute at hand. Axon (talk|contribs) 17:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Axon seems to be under the impression that his edits are the only edits which can be made without discussion, consenses, or citation, and that any other edits must be approved by him beforehand. Furthermore, the only "contributions" User:Axon has made to the article Open gaming for most of the past year consist of reverting other people's contributions (primarily mine, but not just mine).[20] [21] [22] [23] It would be of benefit to Wikipedia, and the Open gaming article in particular, if a Wikipedia admin would disabuse User:Axon of these notions, and remind him of the Wikipedia policies concerning citations, verifiability, and avoiding weasel terms. See Talk:Open_gaming and the Open gaming edit history for more details.

Incidentally, if it becomes important to know the most recent undisputed version of the Open gaming page, I believe it was this edit by User:Liftarn, from 2004-12-02. -- Bblackmoor 18:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that that version is "undisputed": it is BB's stated objective to remove all mention of the OOGL from the article, so effectively that version is disputed and I'm suprised that BB would not mention this in the above when he knows it is a central point of contention. Please see my reply on the Open gaming talk page for more information.

I will admit, when re-adding my deleted content from open gaming I have sometimes inadvertantly reverted other edits for which I apologise, but such is the nature of reverts that sometimes other edits are included be accident of expediency. I dispute BB's characterisation of this (especially compared to his own tactics) and i have always endeavoured to include edits not related to the OOGL section where possible, incuding BB's own[24]. I would also note that BB has at times reverted construtive edits unrelated to the dispute when reverting himself. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"I dispute that..." Of course you do. But dispute all you like: I am done with this back and forth with you. I am focusing on the content of the article and improving it, regardless of what version SlimVirgin decides to annoint as the "protected" version. Others may join that discussion, or not, as they please. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pardon

not trying to be rude, but my last edit to ['[Jenu]] might be seen as a revert, i aint sure, and it got undone by an anon, calling it vandalism, when all i did was remove the merge tahg and tghe ciutation needed thingee, the latter becasue the information is in the book noted as a reference, and the former becasue it will be added to soon to be a full article. if you see fit, could you restore ( at least some of) the changei made?Gimmiet 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:EKBK

Just a headsup, this user seems to be mighty pissed at your block. See her talk page, (s)he's been spamming admins - and her complaint has now been copied onto WP:ANI. Thought you'd want to know. --Doc (?) 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uhm... excuse me?

Quit messing with my talk page. You spend enough time deleting criticisms from your own talk page ([25], [26])to spend time worrying about mine. That wasn't criticism, it was a gripe message with no proof whatsoever of his statements. It is a "personal attack" message, not based on your loose definition of it, but rather based on wikipedia:no personal attacks official policy. If you keep bringing up the "personal attack" ("For the love of God, don't mess with a zillion articles you know nothing about", for example which deals with a personal flaw "knowing nothing" as opposed to the actions of an editor.) I will make sure you are reported this time. In fact, I promise you. --Vizcarra 00:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I was going to delete your personal attack, but I realized that this attack is self-inflicted. You are calling me a hypocrite, for... wait no proof. Ring of truth? Every criticism towards your actions that you have deleted has more than a ring of truth. They are almost entirely true ([27], [28]) if not 100% true. So, now you are calling yourself a hypocrite, when you meant to insult me. From my part, I've always kept "unpleasant" posts to my talk page (unlike you), but certainly this one deserves to be deleted. Again, read wikipedia:no personal attacks. At least I reverted the post, not deleted the user page, like you have before. "You're quite happy to make criticisms of others without evidence", and you are providing evidence of these actions of mine? I don't think so, strike three. Cheers, --Vizcarra Cheers, --Vizcarra --Vizcarra 00:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm referring to your comments about my "distort[ing of] facts" and your comment that I "do involve... in issues [I] have no knowledge of", and that my "hypcrisy" (sic) is noted that you posted on my talk page. Here's the link for reference [29]--Vizcarra 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The barrier

Hi SlimVirgin- Thanks for your comment on my talk page, it is indeed getting frustrating because when he decides to insert a "stray comment" from otherwise highly critical UN reports that he himself provides, I try to incorporate it properly (context and grammar-wise) instead of deleting it (as most probably would) because I don't want to revert sourced text. But then he comes back with more. ARGH. Anyway, I've told him on the discussion page that I wish he would just tell me point by point what he wants changed and that I'd help him do it, but he seems to have no desire to do so. In a strange way I understand his POV, as an Israeli who doesn't want to see the barrier described in a way that hurts his country's image, but mainly critical UN and Palestinian sources can't really be ignored either. Plus, his entries look "desperate", which actually doesn't serve his POV as well as he'd like - and I'm still willing to help him nevertheless as a neutral editor, not as a Palestinian. So I'm planning on taking his POV and incorporating it into a more encyclopedic entry on the overall (general and not stray comment-oriented) effects of the barrier on both parties. I hope he'll let me do so without bombarding the page with his entries, because that will just set me back. Anyway I'm not too coherent right now so I'd better stop. Thanks! Ramallite ^(talk) 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Slim,

I know you are a well respected editor and administrator but I would like to make a suggestion:

The tools that work against vandalism may not be the tools that work for editing.

I welcome you contribution to west bank barrier but would welcome them even more if they would be real contributions not just reverts. We are after all trying to write an encyclopedia here and participation require to spend the time and understand the subject matter. I worked on the subject of the barrier for nearly two years (mostly with the UN) before making contributions to wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Zeq 10:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/IndoPak relations

Hey Slim, long time no see.

This is rather unorthodox, but Ed Poor suggested before embarking on his break that you or Improv take the above mediation. Improv is busy with a case himself. You aren't a mediator, but I have no problem with you mediating if you feel up for it. Would you like to? Redwolf24 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you're a life saver. Some links would be WP:M and WP:MC. If you like mediating afterward I also encourage you to join the medcom (at WP:MC.) You can mediate through email, IRC, or on the above subpage's talk page. Leave a note at that page's main page (not its talk page) that you've accepted, and notify the two users to see that page. Good luck and God speed ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic mediation ;-) If interested, you can file a nom at WP:MC. :-P Redwolf24 (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work SV! :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCE again, again

Hi Jguk, I left a question for you a few days ago on Talk:Kingdom of Judah, but you may not have seen it. I'm repeating it here because I think it goes to the heart of the issue. The arbcom ruled that BC shouldn't be changed to BCE and vice versa "unless there is some substantial reason for the change." That is, they ruled that the first-contributor or first-major-contributor rule does not apply where "there is some substantial reason for the change." So my question to you is: what kind of circumstance do you see as counting as a "substantial reason for the change"? That is, what change of BC to BCE would you regard as being consistent with the arbcom ruling? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a difficult one - if there were a clear example then no doubt the ArbCom would have given one, despite there being many Arbitrators who could have proposed ideas. No doubt they were mindful that no suggestion made by the community to date had come close to reaching consensus. I'm also mindful that a proposal to leave date notation questions to the talk pages of individual articles also failed to gain community consensus, largely as there was no appetite to repeat the same arguments over a large number of articles. I think a "substantial reason for the change" would be if it was consistent with a proposal discussed community-wide that gained consensus. However, I don't see any proposal gaining this consensus at present. Another reason would be if it were a change that was so obvious that no-one would rationally oppose it - again I can't think of a real-life example here, jguk 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, since you are aware of the earlier debates, could you ask humus sapiens to respect their conclusion? I know he doesn't agree with the conclusion (and for different reasons, neither do I), but if we are going to come close to editing harmony on the issue, we have to have a modus operandi going forward. I'm also getting somewhat fed up of the religious abuse he is throwing my way, so a word to him on civility wouldn't go amiss, and would be so much more valuable coming from someone who perhaps is closer to his view on what the policy should be (rather than is). Kind regards, jguk 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. By "substantial reason for the change," the arbcom can't have meant "something consistent with a proposal discussed community-wide that gained consensus," because there was and is no such proposal, so they must have meant something else — because they clearly saw their ruling as coming into force when the case closed, and not at some distant date in the future when consensus was reached (in which case their ruling would anyway be redundant). As you know, the MoS isn't policy and any editor is free to ignore it, so the closest thing we have to a policy regarding BCE is the arbcom ruling, and that's what we have to adhere to, like it or not. It seems to me that they left "substantial reason" deliberately undefined, leaving it to editors on the page to decide whether a "substantial reason" exists. If an article being about Jewish or Persian history doesn't constitute such a reason, I can't see what would. By the way, where was the proposal to leave date notation to article pages that failed to gain consensus? I wasn't involved in the dispute, so I don't know everything that was discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If the ArbCom had meant to imply that articles on Jewish or Persian history should say BCE, I'm sure they would have done - so I don't believe you can be right there - especially as they would have been aware that there was no community consensus about that point and wouldn't have wished to get involved in a content dispute. Absent the "substantial reason" rider, I suppose they could have been accused of deciding policy, the rider makes it clear that there could be a way of changing what styles were used, but they can't think of what it may be, jguk 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have with what probably amounts to appalling naivety left a comment on jguk's talk page about this - you might take a glance. I normally stay out of other people's rows, but this one doesn't seem to me like how any of you would presumably really want to be spending your time. Palmiro | Talk 12:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A reference and religioustolerance.org

The reference I was thinking of was Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting. The proposal that "In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics (for example, Gautama Buddha) BCE/CE should generally be favored over BC/AD" was rejected with 55% voting "oppose" so well off the 80%+ majority needed to enforce it as policy.

I haven't gone to the page you mentioned that referred to religioustolerance.org, but clearly it should not be accepted as a source. We had a long discussion on it on Talk:Common Era, where I objected to it even being listed as an "external link" on the grounds that it lack academic rigour - and pretty much debunked it as a good resource. Opinions were divided on that (as it was used there only as a link, not as a source), jguk 09:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks — very much appreciated. On the whole I'm OK about it; on one side are pretty much just the expected names – the people with whom I've been battling on behalf of Wikipedia for so long – and on the other are the people I respect. For the most part I'm not letting it get in the way of my normal editing (though term's just starting, so I need to cut down significantly, especially as I'm unusually loaded with teaching). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case involving Yuber

The Arbitration case centred on Yuber, to which you gave comment, has closed. As a result of this:

• Both Yuber and Guy Montag are each placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either of them be banned from an article where they is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including them, at the end of the ban. If they edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, for up to a week for repeat offenses.
• Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week.
• Guy Montag is banned from editing any article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005).

Yours,

James F. (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please check Zionist terrorism… user Guy Montag is active there, as of 11. Oct. Huldra 07:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

Hi - I see that we had the same thought re: Michelle1. Looking at her editcount she's very new to Wikipedia, so I've slanted my message towards explaining how "things are done around here". Hopefully she'll prove to be co-operative. SP-KP 20:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Monkey3.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Monkey3.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.

--Sherool 23:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Monkey

Yes it was a perfect example of good fair use, that was not the issue. However fair use itself should only be used if no free alternative exist. So I replaced your image of a monkey in a chage with a PD image of a monkey in a cage. Granted it was a different spechies, and in a zoo rather than in a labratory, but I figured it was only used to ilustrate "monkeys in captivity" as that's the section it appeared in. If it was of critical importance to show a monkey in a labratory setting then my apologies. --Sherool 00:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel

Aaaaaaaaaaughhhhhh. Thanks for the e-mail.

My opinion? This is hideous and he should be blocked another month. Plain and simple. He is just not immature enough to edit Wikipedia. Now we just need a third admin to endorse this. I'll ask Bryan Derksen. ~~ N (t/c) 00:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• No need to contact Derksen. I'll gladly endorse whatever enforcement of the arbcom decision is called for at this point. This is getting ridiculous. I've been watching this current batch of nonsense from afar (not as much time to get involved as I would have liked). This user simply can't be reformed. android79 12:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the deed. I've logged it on the RfAr page, informed him on his talk page, and permanently blocked the Gabriel and Gavin accounts, as he doesn't seem to be using them anymore. ~~ N (t/c) 18:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Its disappointing, but it happens. Ho hum. -- Solipsist 20:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A, B, C

[edit] One

OK, I’m going to cherry-pick a couple of points and create an archive for it all.

First, your last point: “what differences could be sufficiently morally significant as to allow us to say of any animal: you must live in a laboratory in great discomfort, loneliness, and pain for the entirety of your life in order (maybe) to benefit us medically, perhaps only so that we can buy Chanel No. 5, and possibly for no reason whatsoever?” I stated that I actually agree, for instance, with the points in the GAP declaration. I just do not believe I have to consider an animal a person to accept they shouldn’t be tortured or kept in awful conditions.

“Occam's razor, for one thing, demands that we adopt the simplest explanation for their apparent close similarity to us — namely that they are closely similar to us.” Hmm, well, this is a tautology and it can also be inverted: “Occam's razor, for one thing, demands that we adopt the simplest explanation for their apparent differences to us — namely that they are different from us.”

“It's a whole branch of philosophy. But I meant it's a dodgy way of judging the mental world of animals.” But it’s almost always brought up in reference to the mental world of animals (or autistics) and that’s why I brought it up here. If you’re not a fan of it, OK. (Philosophy of mind, rather than theory of mind, is a branch of philosophy, incidentally).

Indeed it is assumed autistics “can't see the world from the point of view of another person” but in the simple words of a colleague who works with them “no two autistics are the same.” Obviously this is true of many cognitive disorders but I think especially so with autism which is what I meant by “I have never bought” that we can make a blanket statement that they don’t have TOM.

“But isn't that example just a generative-grammar thing?” I don’t think so: if I am capable of five-orders of intentionality I can incorporate five individual viewpoints and/or multiple viewpoints from two or three individuals at once. I believe animals can’t do this not merely can’t express it generatively. We don’t waste metabolic resources on our 1300g brains for no reason :).

[edit] Two

Check: User:Marskell/Legal Status of Animals. A lot of work needed but a start.

[edit] Three

I followed FW's contrib's to a couple of pages where he is creating conflicts with you. Specifically, I suggested creating Religion in Israel as a placeholder for the points that are being revert warred over on Historical persecution by Jews. An anon took up the offer and created Status of religious freedom in Israel and I moved it to Religion in and expanded. You may want to check that out. Marskell 11:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the bad writing in the intro to Historical persecution by Jews was me :(. Or at least bad diction in an attempt to incorporate. Perhaps I should just leave off pages you and FW are on, but I thought I'd hang around to find compromises where you will inevitably revert each other. On this page, I thought the intro odd, as it basically asserts the substance of the article title never occured and largely contradicts the main content. "Historically, the Jews have been accused of religious persecution" is true yes? Shouldn't a sentence to that effect be there? Marskell 18:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] zoo

[edit] zoo + vege's

hi

i got your message regarding zoo magazine. originally it had been about the german magazine, but somewhere along the way it got changed to the UK version. so i took it upon myself to correct it....as it was I that made the original submission some time ago.

as far as the vegetarian/vegan issue is concerned, it seems there is a varying opinion on what defines a proper vegetarian. i'd like to concur with people on the correct definition, and i've left what i thought was an intelligent edit, based on science. that was, eggs simply are not vegetables. a vegan is the same thing, in fact if you look up both words in the oxford dictionary you'll see they say the same thing. so in fact my edit was based on what is believed to be the correct intellectual information.

how can we proceed? i'm only here to help. Michelle1 21:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In reply

I don't think that I said anything inaccurate. I think that my description was accurate. If you disagree, please explain where I was being inaccurate.

However, since you ask me to leave the subject alone, I will do so for about a week, unless something is addressed to me. Robert McClenon 02:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] apples vs. vegetables

hi

thanks for your note, it really made me laugh, but what are we are discussing is plants vs. animal products not apples vs vegetables. do you not agree?

i'd like to correct the definition of vegetarian, based on the definition in the dictionary.

please let me know if we can proceed, as the way it stands it's not logical.

thanks  :)

michelle

[edit] Kingdom_of_Israel

I thought you would be interested in the latest controversy over at Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel#BC.2FBCE_-_reminder_of_sitewide_de_facto_compromise. Jguk is misstating WP policy regarding BCE/CE vs BC/AD. When confronted, he claims he has trouble understanding the policy as stated but given his obvious command of English I find this very, very hard to believe. Note too his changes to the Khazars article this morning and his invention of a policy mandating such changes. I think his behavior is increasingly disruptive and in violation of policy. I don't want to be the one to block him though, as I've involved myself in the argument with him. What is your position on this? --Briangotts (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rumi Quote

That is a great Rumi quote on your user page, just wondering where you found it and if you have a cite. "Three short phrases tell the story of my life," Rumi said, "I was raw, I got cooked, I burned". — © Alex756 05:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick note

Just a quick note to say that I chatted briefly to Mark Pellegrini on IRC last night, and he confirmed what I thought was the case - (i) that ArbCom really does not want to revisit the BCE debate; (ii) they meant their ruling to mean "no changes" full stop - no get-out. I hope this means the recent differences can soon be resolved, jguk 07:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I had my doubts when you first became involved in the Open gaming nonsense, but regardless of how that turns out, you've been enormously helpful in assisting me to understand the Wikipedia way of doing things. If someone had assisted in this manner a year ago, I suspect a great deal of unpleasantness could have been avoided -- I know I would have been more pleasant. :) So, thanks. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 14:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hizb ut-Tahrir Article

Hello Admin SlimVirgin,

I'm rather new to the Wikipedia process but it seems to me the HT thread has some issues which need to be resolved. User Kaashif is making changes without any real justification, I was surprised at his ad hom attacks against me which I felt were inappropriate, and there is a citation needed notice which is aging. I was hoping since you have played an active role in the article you could act as a sort of mediator or judge and bring some of these issues to a conclusion... or at least decide which arguments have real merit - rather than allowing us to simply go back and forth with NPOV notices and semantic games.

Thanks! --141.195.143.145 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry if I posted this in the wrong place)

[edit] Ann's Wikibreak

Hi, Slim. Just to let you know that Wikipedia is taking up too much of my study time, so I won't be back until my exams are over - late next week. I'm even temporarily removing Wikipedia from my Favorites menu on my browser – as an aid to resisting temptation! Please leave my user page protected in the meantime. I'm going to archive my talk page just before I go, but if you're around you might check for anything strange that might appear. There was a "friendly" post from a "former piano student" that was almost certainly SarahPhelpsjr, but there was nothing sinister in it. See you in a week from now, and hope nothing heats up too much in the meantime! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:WivesMuhammad

If you have any advice on where to go with this I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not really in either camp fully but I have my leanings of course... and, well I think talk with Zeno has just failed miserably. Just want to know your view whenever you have a chance. gren グレン 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert on Dhimmi

It is a view of almost all scholars that the Dhimmi concept comes from the Pact of Umar. Why are you denying this? Yuber^(talk) 01:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AVD

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon has violated the ArbComm's injunction against him twice now since the RFA was reopened (Zscout moved that it be reopened. Fred warned AVD that the injunction was in effect and posted an advisory on the Requests for enforcement page re AVD). I've told AVD that each violation he commits will result in escalating tempbans so I banned him for 24 hrs the first time, 48 hrs the second. I don't think I should be the one implementing the ban though so I've lifted it. Please keep an eye on him though and consider tempbanning him if and when he violates the injunction again. Homey 04:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Autobiography

It concerns me that an anon editor with no edit history would change the policy/recommendation page while a vote is underway on its talk page to decide its status. Such a language change would apparently invalidate all the votes case by editors who were unaware of the new page version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It was my addition, somehow I got logged-out mysteriously when I pressed submit. Anyway, I do not edit policy and guidlines pages often, so I'm not sure if it is against the rule. Although, citing Jimbo's comments seems to be a common practice in wikipedia namespace. --Vsion 08:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin has been accepted. Due to the length and complexity of the original request it has been placed on the talk page. Please make brief statements regarding the issues at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin and place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence. Fred Bauder 14:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems at Talk:Otherkin

Hello, you don't know me but I've noticed you were involved in a lengthy discussion on original research and verifiability as it relates to the article on Otherkin. It seems the same issues remain a problem; DreamGuy is still pushing for information on Clinical Lycanthropy to be present in the article, even though that is certainly Original Research and his source points only to information on lycanthropy itself, not a medical source which relates lycanthropy to the otherkin community or vice versa. Also, Agriculture and Friday continue to maintain that the article is not properly sourced simply because the sources are not scholarly, when you clearly refuted this in the prior discussion, as did Antaeus Feldspar in a separate conversation in which Friday supposedly agreed that the sources were appropriate. This, coupled with Agriculture demanding the article be "rehauled from a factual point of view stemming from recognized psychological studies of this "sub-culture" and the inherent problems with the claims they posit, if not deleted outright", and DreamGuy claiming that the only objections to his mention of Clinical Lycanthropy are from "pro-Otherkin POV-pushers [who] took it out because they didn't want any mention of medical problems whatsoever.", make me think that certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to either destroy the otherkin article or rewrite it from a critical POV, as otherwise it seems unlikely we would be seeing the same positions that had already been refuted come up again. Is there anything that can be done to address this?

Thank you for your quick reply. I wasn't sure if proper etiquette was to reply to you here, or in my own talk page, so I decided to reply to you there and put a quick note here in case you hadn't seen it. Jarandhel (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Six-Day War

Dear SlimVirgin, Could you express an opinion on whether you think User:Heptor's deletion of sourced content and re-organisation of the article is legitimate. I'm tired of trying to improve the article. --Ian Pitchford 16:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd

Hi Slim, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History move if new page

Hi Slim! I've got kind of an involved case. Basically, someone created a new page Phylum with new content, but with basically the same content as Phylum (disambiguation). Afterwards, this person simply redirected Phylum (disambiguation) to Phylum. Do I need to fix anything? I.E. Do I need to merge the history of the two together or just delete the pre-redirect version of Phylum (disambiguation)? Thanks! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of copyrighted images

I noticed that you've used this Image:Chimp.jpg and similar images without mentioning the rationale behind fair use. I'm afraid fair use cannot be stretched to all images, just because it is linked to an article. Moreover, the image suggests that the chimp is sad like a human being which is dubious. According to Jane Goodall and other researchers, it has been well documented that the chimp expression are not akin to humans. Some like the grinning of the teeth is less out of happiness as much as anxiety/fear. Infact many aspects of primate facial emotions are still under study and primates are known to imitate humans and probably among the few in the animal kingdom to do so. So putting up such images in the template is similar to the media hype created by some to gain more visibility/publicity.

I'm afraid I'll have to delete it like others since its also copyvio. Surely you can get images of animal sufferings without resorting to using copyrighted images. The images uploaded by you in this context are neither historical nor something of exceptional quality or rare. Idleguy 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

fyi, I've read the fair use laws and the entire article. I think you should first stop removing copyvio tags from images. This issue is a bit more complicated than it seems. Firstly you have never mentioned the rationale for each image except pasting the fair use laws. Secondly, if the mere use of self assumed rare images of reduced quality is used in the articles, then I've also got other obscure photos to use in articles under "fair use". I could just reduce the image clarity and use it across them all which defeats the point of fair use. What i'm saying is, one or two uses of an image is ok, but consistently using copyrighted info isn't.

The Jane Goodall issue is not about keeping animals in cages, but was added by me to explain that you are using images that portray a likely false image of the monkey's real emotion. Monkeys have different emotional expressions from humans and that "sad monkey" isn't really sad as you think just like a hollywood monkey smile isn't a chimp really smiling but made to smile. I feel that you've just decided to cut and paste just because it furthers your personal interest and not the interest of wikipedia. A monkey when really sad seldom uses " :( " expressions. However, you want to make it look a hollywood poster or tabloid cover and persist with the issue of a "grumpy monkey" just because it somehow seems more like a human sad face. Maybe you also think that a dolphin smiles forever just because it has a smiley face?

Two things, pl. provide the rationale for each image, NOT just the fair use law and don't overuse the fair use provision. Also don't retag images that have been listed under copyvio images. Idleguy 07:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"trying to undo my work"? Pardon me, but I don't believe those images were your work. You just uploaded them. And pl. don't accuse others of vandalism when u obviously yourself remove copyvio tags, especially one that's already listed as such. You have not explained the rationale for most of your images. I think we need to understand the difference between a) rationale and b) simply mentioning the law. You have just mentioned the fair use principle (when a simple link to it would do) and have seldom mentioned any specific rationale for each image. It's about specifics v generally quoting the rule.

If the animal protection groups are happy then they should release it to the Public Domain or under GFDL. it's your statement claiming that they have released it without proof that irks me. And not all your images are from animal rights groups. Some are taken from media reports and I don't think any publisher would be "happy for them to be used" as you please.

Your argument of "Reducing image quality" is very suspicious especially in your case. None of the images are really of reduced clarity or quality. A simple glance would reveal that and image properties clearly indicate that they are EXACTLY the same quality. It shows that you also have started to lie in order to back up your claims for fair use.

Believe me I've read Jimbo Wales statements on this, but your case is turning more like a clear copyvio. I'm going to start tagging your images properly (as imagevios) unless I find some exceptions. Tx. Don't blame me, blame the law. It's an ass. Idleguy 08:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost all images uploaded by you are either not tagged or tagged as fairuse. And nearly everyone of these "fair use" image is copyright as you yourself fully know and mentioned. Images are taken from BBC, Guardian and other copyright sites. Image:BassamAbuSharif.jpg is an example taken from BBC. As per Wikipedia policy "In general, copyright exists automatically, upon publication: an author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable". Simple.

I believe it is "unfair use" and it would be fair to the original creators that we didn't abuse this loophole to the hilt. If you're using them with permission, they are not fair use but {permission} tag which is likely to result in the same fate: deletion. Idleguy 08:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And pl. stop your retagging and follow the rules. I think if you don't want the copyvio images to go, then you'd be advised not to upload such images in the future. Reverting the tags also is a case of Avoidant vandalism as per wikipedia official policy. So pl. stop the reverts. Idleguy 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge Apostles

I'd like to dispute quite a lot of the information given in the Cambridge Apostles article -- primarily because it is based on Deacon's book which is, at best, out of date and, at worst, very inaccurate.

I appreciate that Verifiability is important, but I think that readers should, at the very least, be given a caveat about the trustworthiness of the information. Unsigned by User:131.111.8.98

[edit] That email id is defunct.

I appreciate your need to contact me but that email id is now defunct. you can resend ur email to idleguyATyahoo.com (replacing AT with @)Sorry for the inconvenience. Idleguy 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] content dispute on coercive monopoly

You were so helpful on the open gaming article. Do you know of anyone who could be of similar assistance on the coercive monopoly article?[30] -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am doing my best to be nice and foster a dialogue among the editors of this article, but some editors are making it needlessly difficult.[31] Personally, I'm considering just leaving this article to the wolves, but whether I do or not, I really think an admin needs to step into this. You restored sanity and civility to the open gaming article -- the coercive monopoly article needs the same kind of help. BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bensaccount rfc meddling

The bensaccount RfC has been quiet for 6 weeks without a single comment. History is shown here. An archive is perfectly acceptable given that the entire talk page is essentially dead. If anyone wants to start a new discussion they can.

As for your behaviour as an editor, you got yourself involved with the Bensaccount RfC a day after you posted on my talk page that you could no longer assume any good faith of me. The RfC against Bensaccount had been around for a week without comment from you, and you had not been involved in any of the articles mentioned in the dispute. Once I attempted to bring Bensaccount back to resolve the dispute, you came into the RfC in an attempt to nail me for "another bad faith RfC". That was clearly harrassment. Your continued presence on that RfC is nothing more than further harrassment. If you believe the RfC is not being managed properly, then you can request an admin look at it. And no, not one of your buddy admins who do your bidding, but an admin that you don't have a history with. This is the only acceptable action at this point. You have no justification for continuing your harrassment of me on this RfC. FuelWagon 20:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbReq against Jguk

I decided to bite the bullet. Please consider supporting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not a personal attack...

If you want to misconstrue the following as personal attack, then I'm not to blame.

Why can't you be honest and open and tell me this "editor" you're in talks with? Is it because you want only your side of the story to be told? First In gets "fair" justice? :( Idleguy 18:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

Hi. Could you take a look at my proposed way forward on the egg controversy at the veggy page and let me know if you agree? Thanks SP-KP 18:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use and all that jazz

SlimVirgin,

I've been looking over the images and I've been talking with IdleGuy about all this drama. He's probably going to nominate some of the images you've uploaded on either WP:CP or WP:PUI. He did this before, and you removed the listings and left a note on the talk page explaining why - but the correct procedure would have been to leave the images on WP:CP and list your reasons why you think they qualify as fair use. (You obviously acted in good faith, since you left a message on the talk page about it, but this mix-up is why IdleGuy listed you on WP:VIP.)

So don't remove listings or copyvio tags in the future, and things should work out better. Just leave your reasoning on the pages where he lists the images, and the community will decide on consensus. (If there's not a consensus to delete, the images will be kept.)

Thanks for all your work here, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EKBK block

Wow, a Kafka quote- very interesting. Anyway, I'm just wondering how certain you are that EKBK is a sockpuppet. If I've done my research correctly, you think he's a sock of Zephram Stark. He's just complained at AN/I, and I was hoping I could give him a reason. Think you can help me out? I'm just worried about saying something and it turning out to be wrong.--Scimitar ^parley 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Could I chime in for a minute, as I've also been involved with the Zephram/EKBK affair? If you're wondering about the EKBK block, this thread is required reading. I'd also be happy to answer any further questions. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 19:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That clears things up wonderfully, and shows me a bit about Zephram too (my only experience with him is at Talk:George W. Bush). It's a good thing you showed me this, as I was leaning towards unblocking him if I couldn't justify the block.--Scimitar ^parley 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to contact me as well. Carbonite's link calls into question why I would care if SlimVirgin blocks EKBK under the guise of being my sockpuppet. My answer to that is threefold: 1) SlimVirgin has also blocked me because she claimed that I had a sockpuppet. I have never created a sockpuppet. 2) SlimVirgin and Jayjg are using tactics of blocking people and threatening to block people who disagree with them about the "terrorism" article. Together they have blocked over a dozen people. 3) It's just corrupt as hell to block someone who has done nothing wrong. --Zephram Stark 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veggy page

Hi - I'm referring to the proposal I made under the heading "A better way forward" - SP-KP 21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

SV urgent email for you. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just checking - sent you another email recently did you get it? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I haven't forgotten

I contacted Pacific Life Company where he worked to see if I can get hold of a notice or transcript of his testimony. The internet version of congressional records doesn't go back to '93. Lexus Nexus costs a fortune to use. If I get something, can I upload an image to Wikipedia? icut4u

[edit] No permission

SlimVirgin, I'm sorry you're sorry. I've enjoyed our e-mail exchange and I hope that we can continue it, but I will not give you permission to use/post/forward anything I've written (at least not for now). It's been quite a few e-mails and I'm afraid I don't really trust you to choose what paragraphs/sentences would accurately describe the reality of the situation. Maybe if all our e-mails are made available to the Wikipedia community in an unaltered state. I'll do this - I'll respond to your latest e-mail and maybe we can (via e-mail) come to some sort of agreement as to what material is relevant in this situation. I must say that I'm disappointed that you even referred to my e-mails on the talk page; I could easily 'retaliate' by 'quoting' from your e-mails, but I feel that's a line I'm not willing to cross. Best Regards, --saxet 06:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ali Sina

Hey, sorry... but could you check this out. Not sure would you could do but you will notice that User:OceanSplash's comments are completely uncalled for, referring to my Jihadi brothers :), haha, but more importantly it's just the endemic FFI problem resurging. See http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12838 for a new thread about it all. I'm not sure what you can do about this but... if you at least talk to people higher up let them know that good editors are put under undo stress because of this crap. gren グレン 07:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let us not forget http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11216 I know offsite problems really aren't your issue, but could you at least let me know if Jimbo and those highly involved see this kind of thing. I know Raul mentioned advertising campaigns hitting wikipedia. Thanks again. gren グレン 07:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12815&highlight=wikipedia. In fact search and there are more. :( gren グレン 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SV. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not an insult. According to the Prophet of Islam: “All Muslims are brothers”. The jihadis are Muslims so they are the brothers of all other Muslims. No Muslim can dispute that unless he wants to say something against the saying of his prophet. If the Muslim editors of Wikipedia do not consider the jihadis as true Muslims, then they must denounce them. If some jihadi issues a death threat they should be the first to denounce him. What the Muslim editors of Wikipedia do instead? They try to cover up with a myriad of lame excuses. See this: This makes them accomplices of the jihadis not their enemies. All Muslims are brothers. This is what Muhammad said and no Muslim can dispute with that. The fact that Muslims disagree with each other is another issue. No two Muslims can agree on anything and that is why Shiits and Sunnis kill each other. Our problem in Wikipedia is Islamic militantism. Muslim members in this site have virtually hijacked it and try to push their twisted version of facts with force of numbers. If Wikipedia wants to keep its reputation as an unbiased source of information, religious Zealotry must end and no group should be allowed to impose its deceptive version of the facts to look good. Keep religious Zealotry out of Wikipedia and stick to facts. If facts are ugly, they must be told nonetheless. (OceanSplash 24:00 19 Oct. 2005)

[edit] Here's what you requested

It took some doing, but I got a PDF file of the testimony Berumen gave with a covering letter from the SIIA written in 93, a trade association of insurance interests. It's authenticity can be verified in their WDC office, a Mr. Geroge Pantos. [32]. Don't know if I did that right. The average college professor has not addressed a City Council, let alone Congress! Additionally, I found he gave an address at Beckman Center (very large auditorium) at UCI to several hundred people (most professors could not fill that auditorium, I can assure you,I have been there) as recently as 6-2of this year, and he has been there before; the California Club, home of business, academic, and government titans in Los Angeles "On the Triumph of Liberalism" 5-27; St Margaret's Academy on "Property Rights and Economics" on 4-26; and many, more venues, academic and otherwise, that I can provide evidence on. Most professors are lucky to fill their classrooms with people that have to be there. I have had to provide more evidence than most people, here, who simply make uncorrorborated statements accepted on good faith. Then people come up with even more requests, for example, they say he isn't in any reference material that they find acceptable (heck, I've shown a law school uses his text along side of Scalia and O'Conner's work) and expect me to prove he is, when they cannot prove that he isn't. Gosh, I simply wrote an article based on what I knew to be true. It is very tiresome and this is the very last bit I'll do on this, and only because you, Slim, asked for it. I hope you can support me. Best. icut4u

Yes, there is some indication of a server problem now. In any case, it took place before the Congressional Committee on Education and Labor Management on Nov 9, 1993 House of Representatives. Several dense pages of testimony delivered both orally and in writing. icut4u

Please note that I've already read it, linked to it in the AfD discussion, and changed my vote to Keep. My thanks to icut4u for providing the reference; it's good enough for me. :) --Ashenai (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hi , Is there any evidence that [33] is an "ambitions of contemporary Islamists to re-establish an expansionist Islamic empire." Or is no such evidence required .F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 00:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Age, etc

Of course, I think I'm very interesting; I just do not expect that view to be shared by the average 16-year-old who thinks that literature is something you have to do at school. And I don't blame them for one minute. Glad I gave you a laugh, anyway. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issue on images still unresolved

Slim, I'm copying this message and my reply to your page for your notice.

I appreciate your inputs in Image talk:Monkey3.jpg and I agree once in a while I might sound rude (purely unintentional, since I put facts blantly). But SlimVirgin is abusing his admin power to overrule anyone.

Slim is not a "he". Given that she named herself after a Javanese princess, perhaps you could take the hint and note that she's a woman. Also, I don't think you were simply blunt. I think you were rude to Slim. I recognise it's a fine line but given that I've mentioned it to you, perhaps you'll take more care to stay on the right side of it?

I assumed that Slim was probably like a take from "Fatboy Slim" without reading up on her profile so that's why I used "he" initially instead of "she". Minor error I accept but the net is full of such examples of confusing usernames (the oriental and occidental names can confuse).

She has suggested in an email to me, that she is in talks with another editor. Now, I don't know who this other editor and i certainly don't like this secrecy. Instead of having a discussion on this, she wants to finish the matter begind closed doors. She could've atleast told me who this reputed editor was to let me have a word with him/her.

Perhaps she is seeking guidance on how she should approach you and wants that to be untainted by your input. I think that would be reasonable. I have a high regard for Slim and I don't think she would have a nefarious purpose in speaking to a third party.

Inso far as the images are concerned, I had stated to her a couple of images on one issue (animal rights) is ok, but she insists she needs to showcase the entire album provided by PETA and its assocites.

So you have a dispute. You need to recognise that you are not necessarily right! You disagree about how many images are necessary. I feel that you have to allow that your disagreement might be fuelled by your political differences as much as how you interpret the image policy.

This should could easily achieve by providing an external link to the images provided by a controversial organization.

The BUAV is not a "controversial organisation". It is a highly respected body, whose voice is listened to in all circles of British society. A viewpoint doesn't become "controversial" just because you don't share it.

Not BUAV, PETA. A look at other articles on various encyclopedias or neutral articles seem less interested in portraying what looks like "101 outrageous animal torture" photos. Actually IMAO it's more funny than sympathetic because of its overuse. If that's the effect Slim wants to have, then fine by me.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not have extreme viewpoints -

But you expect it to reflect your viewpoint.

No. The views of the majority who don't necessarily reside in the developed world.

thus I requested her to limit her fair use policy in this regard to 2-3 images which can be used across similar articles. this she refuses.

I don't see how it is any fairer to use one, two or ten images in this instance. While I agree that Slim could have taken more care to provide a rationale for using the images, I simply don't feel that your argument about how many she should have used has much weight. One factor in deciding fair use is how much of a thing you use, that's true, but it's only one factor, and obviously, each picture is a separate case to be considered as well as part of a whole.

As far as the other images, some are on personalities she claims have "agreed" to use their photos here. Unless she gets a written consent and a permission how can I believe.

First of all, you can believe Slim because you assume good faith. Perhaps you're not aware of that policy. Yes, you can ask Slim to provide evidence of that, but your assumption should be that she has in fact acquired that agreement. Harassing another editor to provide evidence to your satisfaction and insisting you won't believe them until they have do not show an assumption of good faith.

Once I pointed out that {permission} photos would be deleted anyway, she backed off and argued that it be kept on the grounds of fair use asking me to trust her.

Yes, okay. Trust her AND ask for proof.

Both of us are editing in good faith, but one of us has power and a circle of friends to back her while the other (me) relies on the hope that ppl. like you will help me out in this.

I'd urge you to rely on the issues rather than the personalities. Yes, Slim does have powerful friends, who will back her regardless, but you should still do your best to make it about the issue in question and not about her.

If she gets away with this and sets a precedence then I'm afraid there are hordes of copyviolaters straining at the leashes to bomb Wikipedia with copyrighted information.

I think that's a bit dramatic but I agree that she has to obey the rules, which exist for good reason, and shouldn't be given a pass just because she is friends with the arbcom. However, she is not a "copyviolater" trying to destroy Wikipedia. Partly, I think she simply didn't understand your problem, and that was in part a failure of your communication, and partly she has become too used to having her views echoed by her friends and doesn't handle disagreement well. So perhaps you could recognise that and be more helpful than combative? I know it's hard. I find the establishment hard to deal with sometimes. They tend to say "Wikipedia thinks this..." when they mean "My friends think this..." They forget the diversity and multiplicity of opinion that exists here and live in an echo chamber because they know they are empowered and do not need to pay any attention to that diversity to get what they want.

fyi, 70% of her images are tagged as fair use without providing a single rationale (few of them fall under the subcategories like stamp, logo etc. where it's easy to understand).

Yes. But as I noted, plain common sense would direct you to understand that fair use is being made of the photos. They are the product of a not-for-profit organisation whose goal is to educate people about animal torture. Having their material illustrate an encyclopaedia article about animal torture would clearly suit their purpose, as Slim pointed out to you, I believe. Ignoring that makes your approach seem malicious. I think Slim is in part bewildered by your making such a huge, urgent issue out of it, when the chances of legal dispute are so very small. So perhaps we could agree that Slim should provide rationales in due course, and preferably have the photos released under a suitable licence, but in the meantime there's no particular urgency to re-tag them or to insist on rapid action? Surely a commitment to act would be sufficient.

She also keeps reverting to her tags, violating all admin rules.

That's another issue. I think Slim is one of many admins who would be better off not having the powers, because they lead her into disputes of this nature, where the issue all too rapidly becomes her and not her edits, which is unfortunate.

As it stands I'm erring on the side of caution, while Slim wants to stretch the boundry of "fair use". Tx 4 ur interest in this. Idleguy 08:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you're being very cautious, and I think caution is right, as I noted. However, I think in the case of the BUAV images in particular that they are clearly "fairly used". You have to ignore their provenance to think otherwise. I can see from your discussion with her that Slim was not very successful in communicating her point of view, because she interpreted legitimate concern over copyright for a personal attack, largely because, I think, you didn't take into account the source of the photos and their likely reaction to their being in WP. Still, I do agree that she should ask for confirmation from BUAV that they are cool with our using the photos; but I think you should lay off them (and her) so long as she has made the commitment to acquire that confirmation. (this message copied to Slim's talkpage for her notice. Grace Note 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to pester further. The first line of Wikipedia:Fair use says "You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal." Idleguy 04:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't block indiscriminately

Slim: Recently you blocked a series of IP addresses to deal with the "Disruptive Apartheid editor". I'm not him, but I got blocked when you did that. I've dealt with this issue before (with another administrator), and it seems that the Apartheid editor uses SBC as his Internet provider ... along with 5 million other people. So I would appreciate it if you would avoid blocking large numbers of IP addresses to deal with a single individual -- if you do that, you are going to catch legitimate editors too. --Metropolitan90 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still waiting

By now you should've been able to verify the quotation on the talk page and see that I was not using LaRouche material in the physical economics article. I'd like to be able to check up on your progress. Cognition 03:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhul-Qarnayn

I think a bit of mediation will be helpful here . I am not saying that the version written by me or Zora is perfect , but the version that is being pushed by Zeno has been copy pasted from anti Islam site , & is full of baseless assumptions & lies (compare tafsir Ibn Kathir to the claim about him from Muslimhope site) . Secondly he is not willing to accept that DQ might be somebody other than Alex . He is also pushing "flat earth theory" base on the very same assumptions . He is not willing to give importance to Muslim scholars , rather he keeps on reverting the article to Orientalist claims . I am not saying that Orientalist claims shouldnt be stated , but the whole article shouldnt be based on their claims . I mean there are countless theories about Jesus made by athiests ( his being born of Virgin Mary ) , do we write the whole JESUS article from their POV .F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 04:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey SV

Can you voice your opinion here and here (I added a VfD tag to see if it is even encyclopedic). I really need help because the two article that I am proud of are in dire need, thanks. I am really starting to hate WIkipedia. Molotov (talk)
04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In cogs neato

Hi, Sorry, am of the NYC to do two lectures at the CUNY Graduate Center public forum series. WIll be back Monday. Will read LaRouche stuff then. Yum.--Cberlet 12:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCE 2

Sarah

This is a dispute which has been discussed many times, and we already have the community view on the arguments that have recently been put forward. Regardless of that point, I have, by a very small number of WPians been subject to extremely offensive abuse, as well as being deliberately harrassed by an anonymous by prolific WPian who is most probably already an admin who has chosen to approach this with a sockpuppet account. Additionally, Fred has far from helped the situation by arguing that the ArbCom effectively were endorsing Slrubenstein's proposal (which was somewhat ironic since within the hour Slrubenstein, clearly not having read Fred's comment, noted that no-one would say that WP should follow his original proposal (presumably because it has been rejected by the community beforehand)). I fully appreciate that you have not been involved in the nastiness directed at me, and others who have disagreed with the most forceful proponents of what you agree with, but that does not diminish that it has happened.

It's really time all this "against"ness and "contra"ness disappeared. I would far rather a clear direction as to what approach we should take was made - unfortunately Fred's contribution has made this impossible. Last time I disappeared, without presenting evidence of some pretty offensive and vile comments a couple of WPians directed at me. This time I will stay and present full evidence in my corner. Yourself, and other WPians who have acted purely civilly and in good faith (regardless of whether they agree with me or not) will only slightly be caught up in this. Others who have not will find myself not so meek this time. I'm sure you will agree with me that it is wholly unacceptable to accuse other WPians of engaging in "holy wars" or of downright lying, and of using sockpuppets to make edits purely to avoid responsibility for their actions. It is for this reason that suggesting this case is against me and not against Humus and Sortan (and I will include Fred soon for making a perverse and knowingly disruptive commentg) is wrong.

It's a shame that we couldn't just have a straightforward clarification - that was what I was suggesting to everyone. Unfortunately others prefer a war. I wish it wasn't the case. The WPians preferring war come to it with dirty hands - I was defending the ArbCom's decision (and I have many edits that show this). If I was wrong in my interpretation, and I do not believe at all that I was, then a mere clarification was enough. Others chose war - I tried to avoid it, but unfortunately it seems I have failed.

As far as the direct point goes, I have tried all along to get an amicable agreement - let's stop this anti-this and anti-that and get back to harmonious editing. Kind regards, jguk 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your comment

SV, I have already offered many an olive branch to HS et al. Indeed, you will recall that I suggested that they approach ArbCom members for a clarification of what WP policy is, and have made it quite clear that I have every intention of abiding by WP policy. Unfortunately, and I wish they had not, they chose to go to war rather than look for an amicable conclusion when such an option was made available to them. Fred's comment (which was essentially to state that Steven Rubenstein's proposal was WP policy) was both inopportune and took away a last chance of this whole thing getting very nasty.

Humus sapiens in particular has made numerous hurtful personal attacks on me and has shown no sign of flexibility whatsoever. Last time I went away and did not defend myself against SouthernComfort. This time I will stay and fight my corner. For my part I will try to minimise the involvement of those who want to keep a wide berth - but I will mention them when necessary (for example, I have not been alone in trying to get HS to see sense, and I don't intend to leave the impression that it is just one user (me) against many - especially when one is a sockpuppet).

It's all very regrettable, I'd like the whole thing to be over - but that does not mean that I will not defend myself and go away. All the best, jguk 12:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Haha, thanks. Well, I doubt you read freestylefrappe's talk page but when he first approached me I had doubts because I figured my work on the Islam-related pages would get me some opposes and I don't really need admin to do good work. His response was, "I dont entirely understand your reluctance...at the very least, it would generate discussion". So, I figured it would generate discussion and it couldn't be all bad. So, I was really surprised when not many of the regular editors on the Islam-related pages had voted, especially the ones I tend to disagree with more. It just kind of seemed unfair. I'm more worried about someone voting oppose becuase I put that on the talk page thinking it's me advertising :D --gren グレン 12:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

Hi ... I just thought I'd ask whether you'd been able to give some thought to my proposal at the talk page, and whether you are willing to sign up to it? SP-KP 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pikachu2.gif

I've deleted the above picture, since it's fair use, and was only being used on your user pages and various Requests for Adminship. Ral315 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The "party hard" image on your page is also marked for deletion... just so you know. ~~ N (t/c) 19:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)