User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2
snow-coat.jpg) Blocking policy changesQuite frankly, it isn't fair for someone to be blocked under dubious grounds and then have to wait out the block for hours or days while the issue has to be hashed out with the blocking admin, no matter how wrong or emotionally involved they may be. The current draft retains the strong guidance against block wars - but crucially, it does not give the blocking admin what amounts to a right of veto against any later unblocking of the user. This fits in with the role of dispute resolution as an operation based on consensus, and getting a second opinion, rather than concentrating power in the hands of a single admin. I see no such consensus on the talk page at the moment - all I see is a policy change that you proposed along these lines that was accepted by a margin of about 3-2. This is not enough to bind the entire project on a fairly fundamental issue. Rebecca 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey thereBack again. Hope all is well with you and yours. BYT 10:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Welcome to the Project!Was wondering when we'd see you here :-) I first encountered your work on the Joel Brand article, and have been looking forward to future collaborations (after I make more progress on the mad rush over yonder..., though I'm writing my articles in English first!) -- Cheers, Deborahjay 15:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC) your opinionI'd appreciate your opinion in the Discussion of the article "Dissident Voice". Thank you. Ste4k 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Hey Slim, I was kinda wondering why you removed the paragraph about the stupid "Jew and Me" article. I figure there probably shouldn't be an article at all about Dissident Voice, but if there is going to be one then we should at least provide some indication of just how strange the newsletter's publications really are.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I guess it does actually look kinda strange in the article, I won't restore it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC) HelpHi Slim, you're the only admin I've really had any dealings with and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. I've been watching the African Jew page for some time and an anonymous user keeps changing almost every mention of the word Jew to "Hebrew Israelite" (there are a few exceptions where he changes it to "foreign Jew" etc). Trying to remove the word Jew from an article about Jews seems like pretty obvious vandalism to me. I posted something at requests for investigation but looking at that page it can take days to hear anything and then it's usually a one sentence reply. At the moment I'm reverting occassionally and trying to leave other users to do some reverting too and I'm steering clear of breaking the three reverts rule but I'm worried I'm engaging in an editing war and that the editing might not be a clear enough case of vandalism for me to continue. Do you think it's acceptable for me to keep reverting or should I leave it? Any advice would be really good. Thank you.--Lo2u 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk archives
Hi Slim. In case you are inclined to help out, that article (which you assisted on the past) is in serious edit war mode again, this time between a 'stable' version (the one that survived the recent AfD), and 2 wildly varying ones. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) For what it's worth: There are on the evidence a grand total of three parties, including Crum375, who have eyes on this entry, and who have been discussing it at enormous, if not preposterous, length. There had earlier been an agreement, suggested by Crum375, that any substantive changes be agreed on in talk rather than anyone laying hands on the entry directly. Over time, however, that consensus wore thin. At this point only Crum375 maintains the position that any substantive change be discussed and agreed first in discussion rather than anyone, in fact, be allowed to edit the entry. I do not doubt your intention, your judgement, or your good will, but I find it problematic that, when Crum375 fails to have the only two other participants agree with his preferred method he asks in an admin to revert to his preferred form. Ought one to take it that Crum375 is the effective sole guardian of this entry and is to prescribe his preferred procedures to all other participants, and, if they fail to agree to bring in an admin who will then simply revert to his preferred form? Frankly, I fail to see how this reflects well upon WP process. Perhaps in my simplemindedness some subtle wisdom of the process eludes me. Best. Arcsincostan 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Hello SV, Re Crum375's first comments here above, they are not completely accurate. First, the edit war mode is in fact now between one version that is now roughly agreed on by me and Arcsincostan (who were, though, previously at odds - the "two wildly varying ones"), and the one Crum375 alone wants to remain up instead. Second the stable version referred to was made by some unilateral changes readily admitted by Crum375 (no critisicm intended). The fact that it is contended by both Arcsincostan and me demonstrates that it is anything but stable. So I do not understand your reversions. Last, please note that the version roughly agreed on by Arcsincostan and me, is strictly WP OK - crum375 does not challenge it on (substantiated) WP grounds; he was concerned about liability issues but I think they are OK, and I have in the meanwhile asked Xoloz to comment as well - so it is being checked not ignored. Returning to the agreed article by the previously warring parties, all I have done is quote word for word from the reliable neutral source that we ALL agree on: this led to quick rough agreement between Arcsincostan and me after long discussion and debate. I dont see what the problem is. The conflict seems to be resolved. Now the situation is that the previous volunteer mediator is arguing with the two parties that formerly disagreed. If the mediator would now step out, so to speak, there would be no conflict. The entry again, I stress is WP OK, BUT I am very happy for Crum375 et al to improve it as we go along - as I have stated many times, not just keep reverting it. Of course, I also welcome Crum375 to stay involved and keep improving; but again all these reversions are unnecessary. We also seem to have reached a trusting friendly discussion generally otherwise. Your comments please.--Richardmalter 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Hello. Just to let you know we are still waiting for your comments re the above. Thanks.--Richardmalter 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC) A new userbox you might likeHi Slim, I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = ) Cheers, Netsnipe (Talk) 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
High-Handed EditingHere's what you wrote to me:
It's my right to have an opinion, or to suggest someone else's opinion on a discussion page. I'm posting it on discussion pages to invite response, not deletion. You seem a very imperious and unbending kind of administrator. Do you endorse censorship as a WP policy? You must, because you are censoring my discussion entries. Doremifasolatido 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for responding a second time, found it on my talk page. Perhaps you are not so imperious after all ;-) I'll watch it with the name calling against other editors from now on, though mainly I was getting a little tired of people deleting my stuff from the discussion pages without comment. Sorry if my addition to the discussion is offensive to you -- well, that's free speech after all. It isn't hate speech. Doremifasolatido 18:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC) I've added a section dealing with his virulent (even for the day) anti-Semitism. If you have any additional info, please feel free to add. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done about all I can on this. Rjensen continues to whitewash. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) I'm just interested as to why such a heavy-handed (IMHO) editing job was done on this article. Much relevant info was removed (and in some cases restored by me). Why? Stolen talk pageHi, Slim. I hope you don't mind that I shamelessly stole the coding from your talk page. Not being a huge fan of dogs, I used a frog instead. At the Cordon Bleu School a few years ago, we had just put our cakes in the oven one day, when one of the chefs told us in a very mysterious way that we were all to come upstairs and to bring our cameras. Another Chef (the one with the most prestigious qualifications in the entire school) was making some animals (a frog and a rabbit) out of marzipan. I'd love to be able to say that I made this myself, but it wasn't even part of the course. Str1977 hasn't been over enthusiastic — he thinks it's too human for his liking! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Luther and AntisemitismHi Slim, please consider please consider coming back [here] to summarize Luther and Antisemitism in the Martin Luther article. --Doright 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) My mistakeI apologize, I did not see that the PETA criticisms were hidden in among the rewritten text. While I have not edited the page before, I do follow it closely and was dismayed to see all the criticisms gone. Nrets 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC) JewsHeya... how would you feel if "the new anti-semitism" was nominated for F.A.? I notice you are a major contributor to the article. I, on the other hand, have contributed nothing, I just stumbled upon it and it looked good. - Abscissa 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
DershowitzYou don't seriously think that an section about Dershowitz vs. Finkelstein should mostly be devoted to discussing Chomsky, do you? I'm also amused that, given your views on OR, you think it's legit to say Dershowitz is "making the sentence appear to advance a line of reasoning that it in fact holds up for ridicule." You're obviously too bright to honestly think the Chomsky stuff is a good edit, so I can only conclude that you're WikiStalking me again. Ragout 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Animal TestingHi again, SlimVirgin. I just wanted to leave you a personal note to apologise for the palavar on the animal testing talkpage. I made the mistake of just assuming an editor knew how to source material correctly and, worse, waded in to back them up without checking first that they were actually providing what they said they were. What makes it more galling is that it was obviously my own bias to blame (assuming from their job that they knew what was acceptable). I most certainly wouldn't have afforded an anti-POV editor the same assumption. Anyway, its a lesson learned for me and something i'll be extra careful of repeating in future. Rockpocket 07:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Name droppingHope you don't mind, but when discussing a rather contentious issue with an admin who was involved in writing the NPOV policy years ago I was reminded of your earlier instruction on NOR and took the liberty of mentioning it (sorry about the capitalisation). The incivility and lack of assuming good faith has concerned me to the point of raising an alert, but thought you might be interested in the NPOV undue weight issues and in the creative approach to research which still continues. Thanks again for those earlier lessons! ..dave souza, talk 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Joel BrandCongratulations on getting FA status! Why no star on the article page? (It doesn't show up on my browser, anyway.) Peirigill 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Verifiability comments by User:Francis SchonkenWhat is the reason you are reverting the comments added by User:Francis Schonken? —Centrx→talk • 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Lyndon LaroucheA Larouche sympathizer has been adding dubious information to the page. I've already used up my three reverts (in retrospect, I probably should have waited a bit longer before the last one). You may wish to intervene. CJCurrie 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) More on the arbitration workshopYou might want to check the latest on our ongoing arbitration workshop - Fred Bauder appears to want to make an example of all four of the parties with lengthy bans for all of us (without any precedent, as I've pointed out). I'm sure you'll agree this is inappropriate. I've added a fair amount of comments and some new proposals; in particular, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop#Good faith, bad methods. It does appear that we all broke the rules but only in the process of attempting to uphold other rules. I'd be interested to know what you think. -- ChrisO 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
A Medcab caseHi, there. It seems Francis Schonken has filed an informal mediation request at the Mediation cabal concerning your reversion of his addition to Wikipedia talk:verifiability. I'm not sure of the circumstances myself, but it may be helpful to clear things up to the user to explain why you reverted the edits on the case page, if possible. On a side note, I think a source of the confusion might be your use of the default reversion edit summary, making him think you were accusing him of vandalism, perhaps. Thanks. :) Cowman109Talk 04:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
ZeqYou are conflating two different agreements. See [1], the agreement I am referring to preceded the one about the RFA and was agreed to as an alternative to banning Zeq for the article he opened about me. Homey 12:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) In any case, in the agreement you referred to, Zeq agreed not to be a party to the RFA in exchange for my agreeing to mediation - the fact that mediation did not occur does not free Zeq of his obligations. But again, that agreement is not the one I referred to. Homey 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) He's been free to participate as a third party, as you recall he had previously tried to make himself an involved party. In any case, if he has any specific allegations against me as per our prior agreement he can take them to JDoorjam.Homey 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Then what was the point of my agreeing to mediation in exchange for Zeq withdrawing from the Arbitration since, if mediation had proceeded there would have been no arbitration? There was only ever going to be one process, we didn't know which one. The only point to my agreeing to the deal you brokered was that if there was no mediation Zeq would not be part of the RFA. By your argument there was nothing to be gained by my agreeing to your deal.12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Your interpretation lets Zeq have it both ways since it nullifies his obligations. If there was a mediation he'd participate (and the chances of mediation increased with my agreeing to it) whilst if there was arbitration he'd still be able to participate despite his agreement. The only way he'd not have to participate is if both processes occured simultaneously but clearly that was never an option since the ArbComm would have bowed out had mediation proceeded. Homey 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ThanksJust wanted to tnank you for reverting my talk page :) --aishel 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) "Had there been mediation, Zeq would not have taken part in the arbcom case, but there was no mediation," Zeq and wikilawyering=Had there been mediation there would have been no arbcomm case. That was the whole point! Forget wikilawyering, tell me straight up are you honestly saying now that you were thinking there would be both mediation and an ArbComm case? Come on, you were quite feverishly working to have the RFA shelved in favour of mediation and you asked Arbitrators to delay taking on the case in hopes there would be mediation. Now you're giving me this doubletalk that Zeq's agreement to not participate in the RFA was only in effect if there was no RFA (because the only way to prevent the RFA was through mediation). You're trying to have it both ways. And no, that's not "wikilawyering", if anything is it's your double argument. Homey 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Your last email to me consisted of one sentence "Thank you!" after I signed on to mediation. Sorry but if you're trying to blame me for there being no mediation you're barking up the wrong tree. I lived up to my end of the bargain only after Zeq agreed to withdraw from the RFA and , as you said, after he agreed "to stop posting about you", he's gone back on his word. Homey 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC) "Yes, exactly. I wanted mediation instead of arbitration." Exactly, so Zeq withdrawing from the RFA only if there was mediation instead of arbitration is a null position. There would have been no reason for me to agree to that if that was all there was since it would have been pointless to have Zeq agree not to participate in an RFA only if there wasn't going to be one. The only point of that agreement was to have Zeq agree to withdraw regardless of whether or not the ArbComm picked up the case, not conditional on them not hearing the case as you are now arguing. Homey 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Vandal helpGidday. I'm Ace. I notice you're an administrator. That's hot. Ahem. Thing is...I have a problem. Well, rather, Wikipedia has a problem. [[User:|70.33.248.120]] ( talk | contribs ). I know I probably should have come to...someone...with this sooner, but here's the short vaersion: Guy's gone vandal. I think there was a respect, albeit GIPU Wikipedian working with that name at some point, but...well, as his talk page will clearly show, he's making more harmful edits than productive. I was wondering if maybe you could block him, if you deem it necessary, I mean. ACS (Wikipedian) 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) WP:BLP in practiseHi, I saw your work in WP:BLP and I was hoping you could help me with something. An editor has added in Mel Gibson that Gibson also worked with allegedly lesbian actress Jodie Foster. After I removed it, he added it again, this time with a source (albeit not a great one IMO) concerning the 'allegedly lesbian' part. see Talk:Mel Gibson#Jodie_Foster. Even if it's sourced good, would that be fitting on the Mel Gibson article or only on the Jodie Foster article. Since it is 'allegedly' my guess only on the Jodie Foster article. (when sourced) Note that almost nothing is sourced on the Jodie Foster article and I am not a regular editor or expert on either articles. Garion96 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC) THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE HOLOCAUST IS THAT SOME JEWS SURVIVEDOther than that it was awesome!!!! |