|
'''''Digital imprimatur''''' is a term widely associated with [[John Walker (programmer)|John Walker]], due to his article of the same name. Traditionally in the [[Roman Catholic Church]], an [[imprimatur]] is a censor's official approval of publication. Thus a digital imprimatur is needed under a system of [[internet censorship]].
{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:#b2a4c5;"
|align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#80737C; background-color:<!--#99CC99--><!--#FFCCFF-->#9999CC; color:#000000;"|'''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.''' — Jimbo Wales [http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1351230]
|-
|valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#b2a4c5; background-color:<!--#CCFFCC-->#FFFFCC; color:#000000;"|__NOTOC__
{| align="center"}
|-
[[Image:Poodle(cropped)snow-coat.jpg|right]]
[[Image:Pikachu2.gif|left]]
'''Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.''' — Robert Frost
-------
<center>''And in the (highly unlikely) event that you're here with a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]]:''
John Walker argues in his article ''The Digital Imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle'', that there is increasingly a crackdown on the ability for internet users to voice their ideas, as well as an upcoming official state of internet censorship on the horizon. Walker claims that the most likely candidate to usher in the digital imprimatur is [[digital rights management]], or DRM.
"Any time something is written against me, I not only share the sentiment but feel I could do the job far better myself. Perhaps I should advise would-be enemies to send me their grievances beforehand, with full assurance that they will receive my every aid and support. I have even secretly longed to write, under a pen name, a merciless tirade against myself." </center>
<center>— ''Jorge Luis Borges''</center>
---------
<br>
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive5|Archive 5]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive10|Archive 10]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive15|Archive 15]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive18|Archive 18]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive19|Archive 19]]
[[User talk:SlimVirgin/archive20|Archive 20]]
__TOC__
Similar scenarios have been predicted by others, including [[Richard Stallman]], in his article and essay ''The Right to Read''.
== 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]]. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(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. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::I filed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ArmchairVexillologistDon_-_Reopening. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Other people predict the establishment of a [[dynamic equilibrium]] between repressive official and commercial and more free but in some cases illegal technologies, resulting in the emergence of [[darknet]]s and [[anonymous P2P]] systems, together with alternative networking systems (including but not limited to [[sneakernet]]s and both fixed and ad-hoc [[wireless mesh network]]s), and vivid [[underground culture]] and [[black market]] centered on them, in accordance with the [[iron law of prohibition]].
== E-mail ==
==See also==
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. --[[User:Dervish Tsaddik|saxet]] 19:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[Trusted computing]]
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. --[[User:DTemail|DTemail]] 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[Digital rights management]]
==External links==
== West Bank barrier ==
* [http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ The Digital Imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle]
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html The Right to Read] by [[Richard Stallman]].
[[Category:Digital rights management]]
Dear Slimvirgin. Thanks for your note.
[[Category:Censorship]]
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.
== 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.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"
--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
== Edit counts ==
:93. User:SlimVirgin (16784)
:94. User:Willmcw (16774)
Hey, I [[User:Dbenbenn/List of administrators by edit count|see]] you're just <s>ten</s> nine edits ahead of me! Watch out, I'm gaining on you! -[[User:Willmcw|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 [[User:Most_reverted_admin_award|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. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 10:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. [[User:Zeq|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! [[User:Ramallite|Ramallite]] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">[[User_talk:Ramallite|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
== Block revert ==
FYI, I've reverted the block on [[User:EKBK]] as there was no "justification" aside from an accusation of sockpuppetry. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk: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. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk: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. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#.22Meatpuppets.22|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. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk: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. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk: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? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk: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. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk: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? --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|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! [[User:devotchka|devotchka]]
== 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. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 05:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
== Username Großhauptsturmführer ==
You have banned my previous username, Großhauptsturmführer. Though I feel your ban may have been POV motivated, I am going to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|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. [[User:Banneduser96|Banneduser96]] 18:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[User:V. Molotov|V. Molotov]]'s page says ''Hello all, my name is D'Juan Bracey, 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. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk: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.--[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m''']] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Not as such. But see [[Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames]]. ''Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory or offensive user names''. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk: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. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m''']] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Gro%C3%9Fhauptsturmf%C3%BChrer&btnG=Search]), 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. [[User:Banneduser96|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. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 22:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
===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.
:# Apes (or maybe just chimps--disputed) appear to have self-recognition, passing the "mirror test."
:# 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! [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 02:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
===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 [http://personhood.org/main/org.html#mission]. 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. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 10:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 19:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
== [[Open gaming]] and [[User:68.10.113.7]] again ==
Hi SV,
Once again, {{User|68.10.113.7}} 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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.10.113.7&oldid=14920121][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Open_gaming&diff=22767991&oldid=22748207]. He is also mismarking legitimate edits as vandalism and resorting to personal attacks in his edit summaries[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&diff=24934891&oldid=24901185][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&diff=24817169&oldid=24667843]
I would also note that this IP address was involved in an attempt to game and meat-puppet this page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=10516547][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=10537082] for which the user was previously blocked[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=10550118]. 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. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|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. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|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. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|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. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&curid=426700&diff=25062904&oldid=24960226] 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. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|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).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&diff=21886447&oldid=21840927] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&diff=24667843&oldid=24665660] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&diff=22765304&oldid=22707094] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&diff=24901185&oldid=24827543] 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 [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|citations]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms|avoiding weasel terms]]. See [[Talk:Open_gaming]] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&oldid=8363038 this edit] by [[User:Liftarn]], from 2004-12-02. -- [[User:Bblackmoor|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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_gaming&diff=prev&oldid=24900986]. I would also note that BB has at times reverted construtive edits unrelated to the dispute when reverting himself. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|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. -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small></sup> 18:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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?[[User:Gimmiet|Gimmiet]] 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
== [[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. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|(?)]] 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
== Uhm... excuse me? ==
Quit messing with my talk page. You spend enough time deleting criticisms from your own talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=24848669&oldid=24848595], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=23363458&oldid=23363030])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. --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 00:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:I was going to delete your [[wikipedia:no personal attack|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 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=24848669&oldid=24848595], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=23363458&oldid=23363030]) 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, --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] Cheers, --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] --[[User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVizcarra&diff=25019082&oldid=25018345]--[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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! [[User:Ramallite|Ramallite]] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">[[User_talk:Ramallite|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 10:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
== [[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? [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/IndoPak relations|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 ;-) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::Fantastic mediation ;-) If interested, you can file a nom at [[WP:MC]]. :-P [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 04:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for your hard work SV! :) --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m''']] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 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, [[User:Jguk|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, [[User:Jguk|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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 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, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::SlimVirgin, I have with what probably amounts to appalling naivety left a comment on jguk's [[User_talk:Jguk|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. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 12:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
==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), [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 09:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 11:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
== Arbitration case involving Yuber ==
The [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber|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 <nowiki>{{Yuber banned}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{Guy Montag banned}}</nowiki> 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,
[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 11:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:Please check [[Zionist terrorism]]… user Guy Montag is active there, as of 11. Oct. [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] 07:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 20:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
==[[:Image:Monkey3.jpg]] has been listed for deletion==
<!-- Please note that if it says "Editing Template:Idw (section)" at the top then you are editing the master copy of this template. You might want to cancel this edit and use the "edit this page" tab on you user talk page instead. -->
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="background-color: #E1F1DE"
|-
| 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.
|}--[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] 23:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] 00:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|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. <font color="green">[[User:Android79|android]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font> 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. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 18:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:Its disappointing, but it happens. Ho hum. -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 20:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
== A, B, C ==
===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 :).
===Two===
Check: [[User:Marskell/Legal Status of Animals]]. A lot of work needed but a start.
===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. [[User:Marskell|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? [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 18:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
== zoo ==
== 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.
[[User:Michelle1|Michelle1]] 21:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
== 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.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] 02:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
== apples vs. vegetables ==
| 