User talk:SlimVirgin/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:24.30.67.158 2 Proposal to merge articles 3 Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein 4 Ward Churchill 5 Comic relief 6 Sorry 7 User:LevelCheck 8 Accusations 9 Blanking 10 Protection 11 Abuse of Authority as Administrator 12 Personal-attack headers 13 My adminship: thanks! 14 My RFadminship: thanks! 15 John Birch Society 16 Thank you 17 Jesus help? 18 SuperDude 19 Funkily yours 20 Thanks 21 Revert of Cambridge University 22 Wittgenstein 23 Conspiracy/Complicity 24 User:N-Man 25 help! 26 John Birch Society 27 D.C. wiki meet 28 Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory 29 FYI 30 The mysteries of blocking and AOL 31 You're Welcome 32 Page moves 33 Rachel Corrie 34 Need help with problem 35 Brandenn Bremmer 36 Brandenn Bremmer explained 37 POV pushing 38 Re: graduation 39 more Jesus help

[edit] User:24.30.67.158

Hi there! This is my second attempt at writing this - I wrote it all, then lost it by a careless hitting of the wrong key:-( Thank you for contacting me regarding my blocking of User:24.30.67.158 and his alias/accomplice User:69.219.53.58. What to do with such vandals is more of an art than a science and I don't claim to have all the answers, but factors to be taken into account include the nature and extent of the offence, the frequency of it, and the consequences of imposing a block as opposed to the consequences of not imposing one.

Indefinite and long-term blocks are considered an extreme step and are not to be taken lightly. Today's case was an example of a contributor who was not mistaken, but malicious, and whose sole identifiable purpose on Wikipedia was to make trouble. All of his edits were either vandalism or hate speech. Wikipedia needs to take a zero-tolerance policy towards such abusers, both because of the offence caused to decent contributors (Jewish and otherwise) and because of the potential damage to Wikipedia's reputation. (For both reasons, I am considering removing his comments from talk pages). I certainly wouldn't impose an indefinite block for an isolated outburst or for a one-off instance of unacceptable behaviour. This particular user's behaviour, however, fits a pattern that I've seen before, and it needs to be nipped in the bud before it develops into something more serious. Extreme abuse calls for extreme measures.

True, innocent users can be affected by blocks. This has happened to me on a couple of occasions, so I know what it's like. IP addresses might belong to a public library or an internet café, or might be shared by two or more individuals living in close proximity and using the same ISP. That shouldn't be a major problem, however. I have enabled my e-mail address, as have most administrators, so unintended victims of blocking can contact a sysop at any time. In such cases, we just have to cancel the block and HOPE that it has lasted long enough to cause the culprit to lose interest. It usually works.

I'm glad you're part of the team. It is users like you who help to keep Wikipedia a decent place. It's been a pleasure meeting you. David Cannon 12:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't know who 24.30.67.158 is. It is clearly not the same person as 69.219.53.58. David, you are wrong. Open input is not allowed by this little gang, and you would not appreciate harassment would you? If you agree with these people then you have not studied the situation fully. They are deletionists. (posted by anon IP)

• I'm just glad someone else took the action -- I was a little too involved, perhaps, and didn't consider well enough the ramifications of an indefinite ban on an IP address. However, David did consider them -- and then took the same action I had. It's so funny when Nazis whine about "freedom of speech." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge articles

Hi. I have seen some of your work on other pages, and you seem like a reasonable person. There is a proposal to merge the Teach the Controversy page into the Discovery Institute page. This seems to be driven at least in part by a dislike for the movement and policy, not based on neutral application of Wiki policy on merging (which is to avoid duplicate articles). I think both are legitimate separate topics according to Wiki policy, and to merge them would be to suppress a topic that some don't like. Could you take a look and perhaps bring a neutral perspective? Thanks. --VorpalBlade 14:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

I don't know if I helped, or muddied the waters further. Have you found anything about Habermas and my good friend Ludders? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope not to have to report someone for anything but it was not very clear how to do it I might say. What was I doing wrong? TonyMarvin 22:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi could you look at the 3RR complaint about Kelly_Martin? I think I got it right but would welcome your criticism. TonyMarvin 23:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

The reverts I was involved in on Ward Churchill were supported by consensus. I've already discussed the situation with several editors including admins, and you will note that several of the people who reverted to the same version I reverted to were themselves admins. The page was eventually protected, partially at my request, and User:TonyMarvin's sockpuppet collection banned indefinitely for edit warring. I do not believe my conduct was inappropriate or even close to a violation of 3RR, especially given that 3RR specifically does not apply to reverting "bad faith" edits, which User:TonyMarvin's (and his sockpuppets') clearly are. Kelly Martin 00:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that I reverted "more than three times"; by my count I reverted twice.

I think Tony's edits are made in good faith and obviously so. He's pushing a POV but he's not vandalising the page. It doesn't matter who an editor reverts to -- this notion that if you are reverting to an admin then that doesn't count should be fiercely opposed. The 3RR does not allow a user to judge that someone else's edits are in bad faith and then revert as they feel like it. The bad faith gets punished in other ways and then the article is fixed. That's how it's supposed to work.

This page absolutely should not be protected any more. It's a simple matter to end the revert war. Block the next of the pair of them to revert and it's over. Grace Note 01:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not so sure; the whole thing is gone now. Please restore, as faulty as it is, bad remains better than nothing in the info world. Meanwhile I have started to fill a 3rd file of Ward Churchill link collections [[1]] -- 19.19 in Holland, april 28

[edit] Comic relief

The rise and fall of a sockpuppet (in this game forum; I never played it myself, but no need, just read the first three posts). [2] El_C 03:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry, I didn't revert back far enough on the Ward Churchill article, I should have reverted to your version and not the one after it. Sjakkalle 06:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:LevelCheck

I hope you'll take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LevelCheck and hopefully consider certifying the dispute. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 21:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. Yours, Meelar (talk) 21:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

thank you I don't agree I looked on GOogle and found much controversy about it and no dispute about the torture, perhaps some sources would be good if the language is to remain so definite that they did it. UDoN't!wAn* 23:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look at this as it is to do with you. Most definitely someone's sockpupet. They have listed you as "Zion" just hover over the word to see, the link goes to your user contributions. User:UDoN't!wAn* --Chammy Koala 01:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guess who's back — User:Chunkyhoyo --Chammy Koala 13:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations

Wikipedia:Vandalism has a specific definition, and it isn't "any edits SlimVirgin doesn't like". LevelCheck 02:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

You have NO RIGHT to summarily delete articles or categories because you personally disagree with them. You are obligated to go through the lawful processes like everyone else. Being an administrator doesn't give you the authority to delete anything you want. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia. You deserve to be stripped not only of your administrative privileges but of your right to edit Wikipedia at all. LevelCheck 03:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not for you to judge. The bottom line is that we have established deletion procedures for a reason. What's the point of even having pages like WP:VFD, WP:RFD, and WP:CFD if loose cannons like you can just delete anything it strikes your fancy to? LevelCheck 03:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Why? Do you understand protect policy? -SV|t|add 03:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism - why did you unprotect? Sv

If that was a sock - please explain that in comment, with an id of some kind for him. User_talk:LevelCheck has substantial history, and they seem to be at least communicative. I dont know how you conclude that the 'vandal' is done, and I dont see a point in unprotecting it yet. SV|t|add 03:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars are made worse IMHO by the active participation of admins - I've always advocated that protections are better than reverts, because they force discussion. By all appearances it looked like discussion was being avoided. SV|t|add 04:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand there was no ill intent. My only interest was to properly intervene and offer assistance. The only thing I might fault you for is overriding the protection without comment/talk page, after I went through the trouble. Process and order - the assume GF goes both ways. Warm regards SV|t|add 04:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 :)17:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Authority as Administrator

Your stated reasons for blocking me were a concoction of lies. You say I broke a 3RR rule, when that is not so and you pointed to nothing specifically. You say I engaged in edit warring when in fact I proposed a number of entirely reasonable changes to Ward Churchill itself a war-zone fought on by my many users who all seem to enjoy pushing their opinion. I disclosed my opinion which was that I disagreed with him although defended his right to have provocative views as an academic. I didn't promote that opinion, what my edits show is that I instead wanted to emphasize facts that explained why he was well-known. Editors on one side (with your support) wanted anything about Churchill that reflected on him adversely removed. Editors on another side insisted on making crazy claims about him, which added nothing.

Accordingly, once I'm done complaining officially about your self-interested abuse of your administrator powers, I won't be editing the Ward Churchill or any other article again. I fear the opinion pushers you protect will persist leaving that article and many others with a legacy of lies, spin and conflict that detract from Wikipedia. That's your legacy. You are unfit to administer anything. Perhaps not for the first time, you have cost Wikipedia an editor committed to leaving it better than he found it. Goodbye. TonyMarvin 11:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the short time I've been here this much became clear to me quickly: Tony Marvin is a schizo after the likes of DV Hanson (features at my least favorite link on the WChurchill page); good riddance. Hope you stick to your resolve. .. .- and thanks to whoever keeps restoring the WC page (must be an uphill battle knowing the likes of 'true' aimers; they racked up the indymain feature to hundreds of K worth of 'bloodbickerment'. Have a pure evening. - piet in Holland at 20.49 on the 28th of april

[edit] Personal-attack headers

Don't mention it. I've noticed a few of these lately; I hope that they're not coming into fashion. Thanks for the Habermas references, by the way; I'll not read them, but at least I know that they're there... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship: thanks!

Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFadminship: thanks!

I know I'm supposed to wait till I win/lose, but I am very impatient by nature. Thank you for your vote and for your kind words in my rfa. I appreciate your support very much. El_C 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Birch Society

Maybe its time to unprotect this page and see what happens. Do I ask you here or is there a proper way to ask for protection and unprotection. I still clueless.--Cberlet 23:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello, Slim. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support, particularly from those like yourself who I regard as Wikipedia's finest. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus help?

If you have time can you check out [3]? I am trying to figure out what to do about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

We happen to be arguing over a one sentence passage that seems by itself to be trivial. The reason I have invested so much energy into this is because Rev of Bru is a POV warrior who is just making a mess of many Jesus-related articles, putting in argumentative little additions that have nothing to do with scholarly debates, and cloud the issues. My problem is not with the content of his views, but that, like so many others' contributions to articles, they reflect some segment of popular prejudice rather than any real research. You can get to the gist of this by reading just two — lengthy, though – statements: halfway down this section I start a lengthy remark "Rev of Bru, I seriously ..." [4] and here [5] about halfway down the page you will see "Sv writes 'SR appears to be ..." I think you are one of a handful of people here who are really dedicated to high encyclopedic standards, which is why I thought you would be interested in this/have something to say, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Love the puppy.

[edit] SuperDude

Thank you SO much for the kind words on my talk page. It seems that SuperDude really is getting the hang of editing here! Best, Lucky 6.9 23:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funkily yours

Dear Slim, where do I... how can I even begin to thank you? I probably would have been gone long ago had it not been for you. And now, somehow, with your pivotal support, here I am, an administrator! Who would have thunk it? Happy May Day, and all the very best to you, El_C 00:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey Slim, thanks for reverting my user page. I'm amused that we often end up chasing the same vandal—and reverting each others user pages as we go! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of Cambridge University

Hi, I think that the section about assorted alumni should not contain more than 15 to 20 world-famous alumni. This means that it cannot list that many contemporary actors, comedians and writers. This is why I removed them. WHat do you think? — Richie 16:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wittgenstein

Hi, I did include the beetle in the box reference from the text directly. I don´t have it with me right now, so I can´t cite it accurately. I apologize for the trouble, I´m new at this wikipedia business. What´s the procedure like, for future reference?. Hope things get resolved. Jorge

[edit] Conspiracy/Complicity

Hi, I just posted a message here: Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory where I point out that a tiny handful of folks are bouncing from page to page renaming pages and asking for votes on titles as a way to circumvent an ongoing discussion that has been going on for months. Is there a way to facilitate a discussion on one special page to try to resolve the title question that will affect many pages? The details are on the linked page. Thanks for all your hard work. --Cberlet 19:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to try to frame the debate on the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory". Hopefully something useful will come out of it. Kelly Martin 21:13, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

How about "theories of conspiracies?" No, I'm not kidding. Really. Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:N-Man

Hi Slim, could you please help me as I want to move 3 pages that've just been moved by a vandal it seems. Fuck Scooterboy from Scooterby, Fuck Linda Dano from Linda Dano and Fuck Collect call from Collect Call. I tried but it won't let me, and I think it should be done ASAP. Thanks.--Silversmith 10:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, mostly cleaned up now. --Silversmith 10:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] help!

Please look at this [6] and comment. To get the full background, you will need to look at this too [7] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Birch Society

The page is once again being targeted by someone who just keeps reverting back to a version that is POV and not factual. Usually from IP 63.134.129.xxx but there have been others. This is an attempt to promote the JBS view--and the page has made great progress toward NPOV. Still room for improvement, but the anon reverter won't go to the talk page. Any suggestions? --Cberlet 15:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D.C. wiki meet

Hey, Slim. :) No, I had no idea. Thanks for the info, but this weekend is probably the worst time in recent memory, schedule-wise, for me. How do I find out about such events in the future (hopefully, with a little more lead time)? deeceevoice 23:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This weekend's a busy one for me, fuh true. Work and activism don't leave me much free time. As a result, I've learned to be pretty particular about how I spend my down time. More to the point, however, I prefer drawing a distinction between my virtual and real life. Cyber-turned-real-world encounters are something I tend to avoid just on general principle. Shared online interests -- even when they exist -- don't necessarily translate into real-world conviviality. And, frankly, based on those who so far have expressed an interest in this event (purely a passing impression), I seriously doubt this would be worth going out of my way for. Think I'll pass on this one all together. But thanks. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 09:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory

I am careful about 3RR, I come near it often because I don't use sock puppets. Can I ask you a related question on WP policy? I created a separate section containing Cberlet's original post on the "conspiracy theory" title issue on that discussion page. He is trying to remove both the section he subsequently edited and his original section that I had recreated in a separate section, is that kosher? In a discussion elsewhere on the page I attempt to refute items in his original post that aren't in the post he subsequently modified. So I believe the bottom most section of what he was trying to remove should be kept because it is relevant to the discussion and I believe I have properly described that section as being "cberlet's original post on the issue". I'd prefer a neutral person to just resolve this minor side dispute that is indeed a detriment to making progress towards consensus on the larger "conspiracy theory" title neutrality issue. What do you think? zen master T 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim, I think the keep the conspiracy theory titled articles as is section you came up with is woefully POV and misframes the debate. I respectfully note that in my humble opinion you can no longer claim to be a neutral third party on this issue. Is anyone really still claiming that 4,000 jews were warned not to show up to the WTC on 9/11 (people initially did so but were corrected)? A provably false allegation/claim/rumor/theory should not be labeled as a conspiracy theory it should be labeled as a "provably false allegation", what do you think? Even if you are trying to discredit a subject you still shouldn't use the ambiguous phrase "conspiracy theory" because you can just state it simply that it is a "provably false theory". But no other article would be allowed to state conclusions in the title, would it? To be neutral a WP article would have to present any cited allegations then present any and all facts that debunk those allegations, right? The determination of the neutrality of a phrase for use in a title should be etymologically based, but you've injected politics into the issue which should be outside the scope of any determination of neutrality, word usage wise? In fact, injecting politics into the debate over the appropriateness of a term proves the term isn't neutral? I am just trying to apply the "simply stated" title policy to every article. Given your apparent support for keeping the titles as is I am interested in learning your full opinion on this issue if you have the time? When is a dubious but citable theory not a "conspiracy theory"? Do you acknowledge the existence of the multiple definition ambiguity confusion? zen master T 17:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy. End of discussion. It's what theories about conspiracies are called. Etymologically, there's nothing more to be said. Grace Note 01:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to vote. It's a nonissue that seems to be a black hole for editors' time and energy. I would entirely disregard any vote or any discussion that wasn't in keeping with my statement above anyway.Grace Note 01:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to clear up Grace Note's confusion, the phrase "conspiracy theory" does have more that one definition, please see Conspiracy theory. zen master T 06:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://www.smbtech.com/ -- have fun. --iMb~Meow 20:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not you, is it? Grace Note 01:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Me as in me, or me as in IMeowbot? ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Who, Steve Burnett? I don't think he's any of us. --iMb~Meow 02:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant the guy featured. Just curious. I've been trying to figure out who you were. No big deal.Grace Note 03:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. © 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com

[edit] The mysteries of blocking and AOL

You've got me there. This is the second time it has happened. The AOL system randomly assigns numbers, and changes them even while you are in the middle of something. Both times it prevented me from editing articles, but I was able to access my work pages and post on admin's talk pages. So, I suppose, being logged into Wiki at the time the block is placed probably has something to do with it. Thanks for your help. WBardwin 04:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're Welcome

Even though it appears that Mr Wollmann is making a persuasive argument against his own best interest. Usenet is a valuable resource for information, but unforutnately it always needs to be verified & researched first before we can admit it onto Wikipedia. If someone has done that -- say, reprinted a post in a book or periodical, or on a web site -- then I have no problem with using it on WP; otherwise, to validate it would require original research. -- llywrch 16:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

I am not vandalising. You are moving the page against consensus. That is vandalising. The relevant vote lies on the talk page of the article, and it has been stable for a long time. Also you micharacterize when you say "again". You are not allowed to use your adminstration powers on the page, because you are involved in the dispute. You are obliged to recuse yourself. I would appreciate it if someone protected the page form your page move vandalism. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:08, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28various_options.29 is a simple majority. And it is the main vote as concerns that article. The page cberlet created is not effective policy, and even if it were, would not supercede resolutions on specific pages. The main vote as concerns the article in question is on the article's talk page. The vote has been dormant for some time. A move from majority support to minority support is controversial, at best, and it is for this reason that i take issue with your move from complicity to conspiracy. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:24, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

The belief that a simple majority demonstrates a "consensus" is one only held by editors who know that they cannot reach a consensus on a pet issue. Grace Note 08:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I was saying that a simple majority is more closer to consensus than a minority. When i said "against consensus", i was refering to a direction, in contrast to "towards", not a state of having or not having consensus. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:44, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Corrie

Yeah, that was confusing for me too. I looked at the history for the vandalized image, and clicked on the date of the old version. "Sorry, not found". Then I tried again. Hey, now it's there! Then, suddenly the image is completely deleted. Oh well, I thought, I've got the image so I'll just re-upload it. Mirror Vax 02:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with problem

Hi, User:Sam Spade seems to have decided to pick fights with me on two pages where his edits have introduced right-wing POV, and where he bashes liberals and the left. The pages are Christian right and Political correctness. His new edits on Christian right are just sloppy and POV. His lead on Political correctness is drawn (without proper attribution) to an essay by far right ideologue William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation who gave a speech at Accuracy in Academia, another far right group [8]. Repeated attempt to get him to cite sources and engage in actual dialogue have failed. What type of mediation/comment/request etc. is a proper next step? It does seem like he is starting to follow me around just to pick fights.--Cberlet 03:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

See also: User:Spleeman/Sam_Spade. El_C 04:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandenn Bremmer

Slim, you have the misfortune to be the third (sorry!) of three admins I'm choosing more or less at random in the hope that one is more or less "online" and would be kind enough to take a look at recent bizarre behavior -- well, bizarre to my mind, at least -- at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brandenn Bremmer. If everything seems normal, it could be that a recent deletion is the cause; take a look in the history. In short, however, somebody deleted the content of a VfD page, then moved it when I restored it, then moved it, then moved it again when I moved it back. I understand his (her?) logic, and he (she?) has a case; but given a choice between what he (yeah, somehow I guess he) is doing and what I'm doing, I really think that I'm on the side of transparency and straightforwardness here. However, do judge for yourself. Thanks! -- Hoary 05:25, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Slim, I don't blame you for the confusion. I'll try to summarize.

• Somebody posted a fairly well written article on this fellow. It stank of copyvio, but I couldn't locate the source. I put a VfD tag on it. Cue for a long series of arguments, mostly toward "non-notable, delete", but with a significant number of dissenters.
• The article was found to be a copyvio, listed as a copyvio, not rewritten, and deleted as a copyvio. End of story (I thought). I'd even forgotten that the now non-existent article was on my watchlist.
• The article popped up on my watchlist. Yes, somebody had created a new, shorter article. It didn't stink of copyvio and I didn't bother to check, but I thought it still merited deletion. I stuck a VfD on it, which of course linked to the old project page. I didn't think the article should be speedied (because the voting process hadn't been completed the first time around), and to be honest wasn't entirely sure of what I should do. My compromise was to provide a red box to surround all the old discussion and thereby to label it clearly, but otherwise to leave it just as it was, and to reiterate my delete vote below it and invite further votes there.
• This article too was found to be a copyvio. If I remember right, it wasn't deleted: it was waiting for a rewrite, etc., today when:
• User:Mirror Vax wrote a new article (as was his right). He deleted the entire content of the VfD discussion.
• I reverted the deletion, and provided a blue box for all the discussion of the second article. I stuck a VfD notice on the new article, in the belief (to which of course you may not subscribe) that BB doesn't merit an article, however scrupulously it may be written.
• MV moved the VfD to a subpage, with no link to it.
• I moved it back.
• He moved it again.
• Not wanting to get into a move-revert war, I wrote to Grutness, JRM, and you.

A large percentage of the earlier discussion is as valid now as it ever was. Broadly, it's unfavorable. R. friend is just one person who has expressed irritation at any demand that he should proffer his opinion a second time, let alone a third time. It's hard for me not to conclude that MV was not deleting old votes (and when that didn't work shunting them out of sight) so that they would not influence further votes or affect the final tally.

People -- or anyway those who aren't somehow fanatical about BB -- have a limited appetite for reexpressing themselves. I think the old votes should count. However, perhaps they should not; I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that MV has been very high-handed in what he's doing: if you want to zap an old VfD or shunt it out of sight, the least you do is demonstrate that you've thought carefully about this and have discussed it. -- Hoary 06:00, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

PS Grut has just listed this teapot tempest at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, one of those tremendously useful pages of whose existence I completely forget whenever they'd be of use. (Sorryyyy!) -- Hoary 06:08, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Call me Grutness or James, please, not Grut! :) I'm linking this info to Wikiquette alerts, too. Grutness|^hello? 06:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, James! (I always think of you as a grut guy, that's all.) In response to Slim:

Slim, I'm in favor of (in effect) reverting, but if I did this it would seem as if I were just prolonging a revert war between MV and myself. He'd probably revert it back. If a moderator more or less agreed with my PoV on this (and of course she might not agree), she might then:

• copy what's now Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Brandenn_Bremmer to a text file and delete it

• move back to it what is now Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Brandenn_Bremmer_(copyvio)

• append what's in the text file to the new page

• add comments at the foot of the resulting page to tell at least one of the perps (yes, maybe including myself) to stop dicking around

Ugh, what a waste of time. And I'd been going to upgrade Francis Barlow (artist) instead. -- Hoary 06:22, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Slim, if my boxes are confusing then my efforts at clarification have failed. I suspect however, that this is partly because I created the red box with no expectation that I'd ever need a second (blue) box, and also because when I did create the blue box I didn't reword what was at the top of the red one.

I think the content of the red box should stay. Nobody objected to it when the second page was created and I stuck it in the red box, and a lot of the content is just as relevant to the latest article as it was to the first one. Zapping it would mean ignoring a lot of votes. Should they be ignored? MV says yes (with some justification); I say no (with more, I think).

Why wasn't the second VfD closed properly? For the same reason that the first wasn't: the article was identified as a copyvio before the VfD term was up. I'll freely admit that I don't know what's supposed to be done in such an event. Not knowing the rules (if any), I chose to preserve as much info as possible in as clear a form as possible. But it seems that I failed to be clear.

I'll concede that the new VfW page is a lot easier to digest (or was, the last time I looked at it); no wonder, as it is (was) very much shorter. -- Hoary 07:01, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

[edit] Brandenn Bremmer explained

Here's the story. There was an article deleted for copyvio, and then it got re-created and the re-creation was also a copyvio, and it was deleted. I've never seen either of the two copyvio articles, but it seemed like a notable subject to me.

So, I created a completely new, non-copyvio article. Two hours after creation, User:Hoary put a VfD notice on it, which pointed to the old discussion (dated May 5). This created some potential for confusion, since it wasn't clear that the article that was being voted on had already been deleted, and replaced with a new one. My solution was to create a fresh VfD entry dated May 7, with a link to the previous discussions. Mirror Vax 06:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I really don't feel that I'm "forcing editors to vote three times to delete a very short, arguably non-notable article." I had nothing to do with the copyvio versions - I've never even seen them. Second, I had nothing to do with the current VfD, and had no expectation that it would be VfD'ed two hours after creation. Lastly, the article is short because it's only two hours old. Compared with most other two hour old wikipedia articles, it's not bad. Mirror Vax 07:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of the first summary. Note however that both copyvio deletions followed VfDs that garnered a lot of votes. Also, a lot of these votes pertain to the notability of BB and are not specific to the articles. Moreover, MV first deleted all the votes, only later moving them elsewhere. Also, I maintain that some work on the design of the VfD page would have made clear just what was being debated on and when: if my red and blue boxes were poor attempts at this, MV could have improved on them. MV is of course entirely free to claim that BB is a notable subject; a number of people had already said so before today, and a number had said the reverse. Should these opinions be discounted? MV seems to think so; I think not. -- Hoary 07:18, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Rather than go back and forth between your pages, I'll leave this response here. Having looked at a couple of articles about Brandenn, I'd say this person is notable enough for a WP entry, and in fact it sounds like an incredibly sad and interesting story, but it needs to be written properly and referenced well. MV says he only created it a couple of hours ago, so he hasn't had time to do the writing; maybe if he was given time, he'd create something more people would agree was worth keeping. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

His death made the London Daily Telegraph [9] and he was apparently interviewed on Oprah. [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, he may have made the Hellograph but an archive search in the Guardian doesn't mention him. However, people could argue to and fro on such things for quite some time. Indeed, they have already done so. What do you think should be done about the previous votes? Should they be discounted (as irrelevant to this particular article), or counted (as relevant to BB), or something else? -- Hoary 09:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Clearly, adding the second set of votes but not the first would be some kind of compromise between the two positions, but it doesn't seem principled at all and instead seems purely arbitrary. Also, there was little or no objection to the presence of the votes on the first version during voting on the second; why remove the former now? Anyway, I'm not going to restore any old material (either the latter half of it or the whole lot) to the new VfD page as such restoration by me would likely be reverted; you or others may wish to do so.

Meanwhile, you seem more keen to persuade me that BB deserves an article. I think I can argue against the points you make in his favour, but the VfD page seems the place for that. A small clarification: I meant that the Guardian doesn't mention him at all (not his death, not his life, nothing). -- Hoary 22:42, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Yes, it does. [11] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it does. That's odd, as I looked in the search box for "brandenn" just yesterday, and there were no hits. Indeed, I tried it just now, and there were still no hits. And no, the (AP) article doesn't misspell "Brandenn" either. -- Hoary 02:14, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Hope my note helps. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

You might want to look at similar POV pushing at Jizyah. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there's a talk page? ;) El_C 08:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: graduation

Thanks! Sure, you can just call "Dr. KS" from now if you like =) — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] more Jesus help

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)