User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 34

Picture of the day

Strabismus surgery Photo credit: Bticho Archive - More featured pictures...

*Please comment about the content of a specific article on the talk page of that article, not here.
*No personal attacks.

[edit] DRV

The above may be a template, but it's one that is highly inappropriate for use if the person whose talk page it is placed on has not "closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article". You have previously accused me of proposing a stub type for deletion, which I have not done, and of telling you to create a new category, which I have not done. And blanking your talk page doesn't hide that fact. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requirements for GAs

Since you are one that identified the value of other citation systems for me, I thought you might wnat to comment on the proposal to require inline citations for Good Article status. --Trödel 18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Query

Sure, but what about? User: Think outside the box asked me if there was any way I could develop a system for judging stories and I asked him about what guidelines should be imposed.

By the way, are you talking about my edit?  QuizQuick  18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Me? This is an open network (university) so I think IP addresses are shared; I have been editing using my own account.  QuizQuick  18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't send anything! Does someone keep sending stuff on this same IP address?  QuizQuick  18:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean Jay? Yeah, I did do it to him, to see what would happen, but I certainly didn't send hundreds of spam messages using google or other services.  QuizQuick  19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sent a password retrieval message.

Why would I want to spam you all anyway?  QuizQuick  19:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Email.

[edit] You should have been notified

Of this. I don't know if you were or not. Therefore I insure you have been notified. Terryeo 03:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I left videos alone specifically for the reason of 3RR. I don't agree with your position on the videos (or BUVA). But at least you defend your position. On the other hand, I requested repeatedly that you explain yourself for reverting the monkey photo. And for some reason, you are ignoring this request. This kind of revert in edit dispute is not polite to say the least. I can't see how one can defend the placing of the monkey photo, which is such an obvious attempt at soapboxing. Still you may have some novel interpretation of wikipedia policies. In such case, you should present it. Anyhow, the photo is sourced from SHAC so it's authencity cannot be verified. If the photo is somewhat not authentic even in some minor techincality, it is potentially lible, in which case 3RR does not apply. One reason for verification policy is to protect wikipedia from legal liablity. We should not present any information about HLS which is sourced from SHAC as a fact. It's not NPOV. it's not verified. It's an original research. It's a potential legal liability. It's not encycropedic. And your repeated revert of the photo is not civil. If you continue to restore the monkey photo from SHAC without giving any justification, you're likely to be reported and may be blocked from editing for disruption. V(^_^) Vapour

[edit] Nutshells

Hi Slim, I noticed that by reverting[1] an edit on WP:NPOV you seem to support the removal of nutshells. As you may have seen, there has been a lot of discussion about this issue lately (e.g. here but also in other policy Talk pages). I myself believe that nutshells are an extremely useful vehicle for new users. Having been a new user myself only recently, I found them invaluable to get me quickly up to speed, before I had the chance to properly and deeply scrutinize each policy. I know intros should have more or less the same info as nutshells, but for various reasons that we discussed at length, I think the nutshells are a significant advantage for newcomers. I also think, procedurally, that since this is a site wide meta-feature, affecting in principle all WP policies, it should be addressed by a wide forum and whatever the verdict, it should be reached by wide consensus. I don't think it makes sense to fight over this issue in each individual policy. I myself would not revert you, as I respect your judgment a lot, but I would appreciate if you could re-consider your position on this feature. Thanks, Crum375 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated, especially your kind comments. Crum375 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Nice story on your userpage, SV :) deeptrivia (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Information

I am not going to change the policy page without some concensus because people have taken issue (and not just you, ok?). However I point out a dictionary definition of "information" which states: "3. the act or fact of informing". When an editor places typed characters on the screen, the editor thereby informs other people. What has the editor informed other people of, what is the editor's subject? Well, the editor might be informing about "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments" or might be informing that "it's ten o'clock when it's three o'clock (a misinformation", but no matter what the editor types, the editor has fulfilled definition "3. the act of informing". Whether the editor's act of informing contains true, false, misleading or nonsensical information, the editor has done an act and has informed. Information need not be "facts" (only) and information might not be useful. When delivered, an information might be an outright lie but after it is communicated it becomes knowledge (in the mind of the receiver of the information). "1. knowledge received concerning a particular circumstance" can apply to one example you give, "If the cat sits on the mat, the mat is red." I read and understand your communication and know it has a very narrow application if it has any application at all. However, it is information and because I have it as knowledge when I understand it, the statement on the page becomes information according to that dictionary's definition 1. There is also a synonym study there. News is information, knowledge is information. My knowledge, "a stitch in time saves nine" is practically useless, but is information. My knowledge, "a person can have a harmful intent, unknown even to them" has little application, nor do I expect anyone to understand it as being valid, but is, nonetheless, information which I posses because it is knowledge I have accumulated by study. Any circumstance which is communicated to another person is information, according to definition 2. Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Terryeo 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my user discussion page. Now I understand that you know information to be fact, that there is no "false information". But certainly you recognize there are gradations of the validity of information? That some information may be utterly wholly, demonstrably valid and that other information might be valid only 2 percent of the time ? "People have red hair", for example? Terryeo 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that my example which attempted to indicate there is a spectrum of validity for any information did not communicate. Here is another which might better illustrate the spectrum of information available. "Scientology is helpful". That's my statement. Now, I can easily go through the discussion pages and find several statements which say something very very different. But I am not attempting to garner your agreement about that subject, nor your disagreement. I am attempting to communicate that some information is completely true, demonstrable, uncontestable fact while other information will not fulfill, "all information is fact". Terryeo 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to have my sentence rewritten to ""Scientology is helpful to Terryeo, in the sense that he's happier with it than without it" = true", but however it is written, it is information. It may be valid information for me and invalid information for (username of your choice here). But it is information. I am not attempting to convince you, but attempting to address the subject, "what is information". Terryeo 19:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary says that knoweldge is "awareness gained through experience" and that information is "communicated knowledge". Thus, when I tell you what I had for breakfast last week (which is undemonstrable, valid knowledge), I give you information. However, my wife agrees with your point of view. That is, "information can be communicated, demonstrable knowledge but can not be communicated undemonstrable knowledge. Well, pooh ! the dictionary says different ! heh !. Thanks for discussing. Terryeo 20:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the quality of a dictionary is important. But I find myself philosophically stanced differently than some other people. I'm pretty willing to accept an individual's knowledge, whether demonstrable or not based on their word which I consider to be good information. At least until proven otherwise. Whereas a dictionary doesn't exactly oppose my stance and leans more toward your stance, "demonstrable knowledge" as the cornerstone of information. In any event, there's too much weakness with my stance to support the re-wording I intended at WP:V. However, I still think that first paragraph of WP:V is not written as cleanly as it could be to prevent misunderstanding. Terryeo 22:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sockpuppet

Hi, Slim. I didn't want to file an official report, because this has only just recently happened. However the coincidence of these two users coming together at the same time seems too "convenient" for each other. The users are "Flow m" and "Pingbal1". They started editing on exactly the same day and have only worked on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 page. They have also been rving to the same edit made by Pingbal1.

Another possible candidate is Give source pls, who was recently created to respond to a retord towards Pingbal1. Given the name of the user, again this seems rather suspicious, as he actually did ask for a source.

Can you run an IP check or any such thing to see if there are any similarities? Thanks, John Smith's 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for your help. John Smith's 19:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hafele-Keating experiment

Late in August you semi-protected the Hafele-Keating experiment article because of repeated anonymous 3RR violations and possible vandalism. Since that time the same editing has recurred, over 30 times by a logged in user. There is an RFC on this matter, the user likely created the account to evade future semi-protection and the sole contribution of that account seems to be just to add POV pertaining to GPS on the H-K article as well as the GPS article. Multiple other users have reverted these POV edits and also attempted to approach the editor to resolve the dispute, but most attempts have resulted in personal attacks or simply ignoring the requests as detailed in the RFC. I was wondering if you would like to evaluate the RFC or Hafele-Keating experiment article history and advise on possible action to limit this slow speed edit war. Thank you for any assistance you might provide. --Dual Freq 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering

Hi, I was just wondering what happened to QuizQuick. He hasn't edited since the 28th september so I looked into it. I know its none of my bussiness really, but could you tell me if he's coming back or has been banned for good. Think outside the box 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter

I've been spamming everywhere I can think of regarding my latest bright idea. Perhaps you're interested. Marskell 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR board

I'm involved and can't make a block on the newest 3RR report. But the user has now reverted 14 times. It would be helpful if you would take a look. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyways. I think by softblock means an anon only block. I added a note asking such. JoshuaZ 04:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last thing before I go to bed

I'm not sure your decline comment is completely accurate. While he was adding the unnecessary and problematic "pro-choice" descriotion (and would have 3RR by that) he was in fact removing the phrase "sexually suggestive" so that was a removal rather than an addition. JoshuaZ 04:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redialed IP

Is now editing from another IP trying to make the same changes to a different article- User:67.72.98.91. A block would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And has now made the same edit to the Foley scandal article again. JoshuaZ 04:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I semi-protted a few seconds before you did, and I blocked the IP. Hopefully no one will see this as RfCable action. JoshuaZ 04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abuse by JoshuaZ. - brenneman ^{L} 05:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like you confused the two editors again. [2]. I don't know about you, but I need some sleep. Have a goodnight. JoshuaZ 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Our friend is back within a few minutes of semi-protection going off now as User:68.59.80.163. I would strongly urge to re-semiprotect (since one reason the semi-protection was removed was that I was involved when I semi-protected, so if you do it you are more likely to get it to stick). JoshuaZ 02:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justanother

You may or may not choose to let this go (frankly, I'd be disappointed if you did, since I think the violation is pretty flagrant) but Justanother has violated the conditions you set down for his unblocking. You instructed him not to edit the article for 24 hours and his next edit to it was less than three hours later. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He's also removed the "Warning:No Personal Attacks" template I left on his talk page after repeatedly questioning Antaeus Feldspar's mental abilities. wikipediatrix 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice to be back, SV.  :)

Thank you so much for the nice welcome. Seeing yuor signature at the end of a post always cheers me up. The malefactors are already eating me alive as it is.  :)) Anyway, you know where to find me if you need anything. Much wiki-love and smiles at ya.

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

PS: I kinda like these new templates! Fun!

[edit] Hardcore punk

I have become involved as an admin in a dispute over this article and associated articles. While it seems clear that one party (NYPUNK) is almost certainly self promoting (and not confroming to WP:Verify), and the other two are legitmate editors, excluding pre-final warning activity it seems to be simply a content dispute (though 3RR is probably being broken by both sides). I have warned the person who is being called a vandal (and welcomed him at the same time), I have also sportected the key page, as IP edits have been involved. One of the users thinks I should block NYPUNK and his IP addressen, I'm dubious at this stage. I would appreciate your looking at the situation, block if you think apporpriate. See User:Rich Farmbrough/NYPUNK for some of the IPs involved. Many thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 16:43 4 October 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Arisch

Thank you. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale and copyright holder

Hopefully this one won't erupt like that last one. The image has 2 issues: Copyright holder and fair use rationale. {{fairuse}} neccessitates a fair use rationale (as {{fairuse}} tags without fair use rationale are delayed speedy deletable), so this is mainly to remind you to at least provide a fair use rationale for Image:GershomScholem.jpg and that images such as these without a fair use rationale may be deleted within one week. (etc etc) As for the copyright holder, see the PUI page for ideas I had on it. --Kevin_b_er 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Positioning System & Hafele-Keating experiment

Just wondering what you think of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat? Cardamon 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lubavitch vs. Barry Gurary

Hi SlimVirgin: Please take a look at the Barry Gurary article and the talk at Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content in particular. Your views would be greatly appreciated in the discussion. IZAK 09:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gossiping ...

I think I have a right to know, exactly what "dangerous and absurd gossip" are you accusing me of? And who are you accusing me of gossiping about (besides yourself)? Unsubstantiated accusations like these pretty much also amount to gossip, personal attacks, and aggression — the very same thing you're accusing me of. --Cyde Weys 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you have a look at this?

See User:Friday/Sandbox. Dunno if this is a good idea or not. To me, Cyde's behavior (namely, incivility and improper blocks) is a problem, but then again it'd be easy for me to think so, given some of the things he's said to me. I don't believe that Cyde sees his behavior as a problem at all, so perhaps it'd help him see it, if he saw that sufficient numbers of other editors agreed (assuming they did agree.) Anyway, feel free to have a look, edit, tell me I'm crazy, or whatnot. Friday (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Newman page

Hi. The entry on Fred Newman is deteriorating into a mess, and could use an experienced admin to step in and offer some advice. A number of edits and talk postings from both sides seem to be way over the line.--Cberlet 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of protected pages

Currently at least, you do not need to manually add pages to this listing; there is a bot that does it automatically from the protection log. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerschom Scholem's photo

Regarding this edit,[3] there is a pattern emerging, and it isn't pleasant. Every time you get to deal with unpleasant arguments you don't engage those, you intimidate the person instead.

As far as my tagging Image:GershomScholem.jpg as unsourced, of course it is unsourced; a proper source would at least give the copyright holder. Since this is an encyclopedia it would be useful to have the year, too.

On occasion I do my share of mucking out the Augias stable that is Category:Fair use images. It's not so pleasant a maintainance task and one wishes you would be more conciliaroty to those that do the job. Regards, Dr Zak 22:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Steven Best:

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYCPUNK

Thanks, good to have another view. Rich Farmbrough, 07:25 6 October 2006 (GMT).

[edit] WP:V

Thank you for your kind note. I completely agree with your assessment. I understand the desire to keep this policy page stable, but I do wish you would articulate your reasons in reverting to a particular version on the talk page so misunderstandings can be quickly worked out. Even if there are a number of reverts in a few days, just one note about why [permanent link] is preferred version for all reverts would really be helpful.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know I really think you are doing great things with the new policy. I am sorry about losing my cool last week. I also want to apologize for not entirely believing your invitation on my talk page. It was silly of me to continue to mistrust you after you apologized. Anyways I just wanted to say sorry and that I appreciate your recent efforts a greal deal.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hey Slim, sorry about the reverts. I guess I'm getting a bit frustrated here. I'm not going to edit the article any more today. I am however intersted in improving the intro and I definitely feel like my suggestions are not being seriously considered. Kaldari 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin; I don't know you except by the dealings we have recently had but I must mention that I do not think that you have been treating me appropriately starting with you reneging on your unblock. My basic sense of fairness alarm is ringing pretty loudly and that is a good indicator to me that something is wrong. I find especially egregious your back-door page ban on me that has lasted quite a few hours. I would like you to respond to me directly on that issue. Thanks--Justanother 02:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 50,000

Thanks, my barn probably needed another star. (And I honestly had no idea I'd hit 50,000 edits. Kinda scary.) - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image sourcing

Dear Slimvirgin, please accept my apologies for the outburst here. Since yo asked how I came across Scholem's article, a couple of days ago I bought his biography of Sabbatai Zvi and got curious what Wikipedia had to say about either man.

However, comments such as this and this do nothing to defuse an emerging conflict. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia and I feel that images ought to be held up to the same verifiability standard as claims in articles, that is there should be a minimum standard of sourcing - at the very least the year and name of photographer and copyright holder (or archival collection) should be given. Listing a webpage as a source is certainly not adequate sourcing. You are certainly not singled out here - if you go though my list of contributions you'll see that I do root through image categories and list cases on WP:PUI or in clear-cut cases on WP:CP.

What I did notice is that some of your early image uploads are poorly sourced - Image:ErnestGellner3.gif has as source a now defunct wepgade at the Universidad de Chile. Those need fixing.

Regards, Dr Zak 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

When removing unfree images or images of doubtful origin I usually look for free replacements, [5] [6] there's more. Unfortunately for Gerschom Scholem there's many images floating around on the 'web, none of them properly attributed. The closest that exists is a photograph [7] of his brother Werner, the political activist.

Instead of turning this into a personal battle (it isn't, your uploads are not singled out, I have avoided listing more of yours on WP:PUI to keep the peace) one wishes you would engage in discussion what the sourcing requirements for images should be. Dr Zak 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you contact the Hebrew University, where Scholem taught since 1925. They must have a photograph of his in the archive and may well release one under a suitable license. After all he singlehandedly made Kabbalah mysticism into a subject of academic study. Regards, Dr Zak 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why revert?

Please explain why you tried to revert to a version that did not include my comments. --Ideogram 04:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Nice quote. --Ideogram 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of interest (Help?)

see [8] Comments regarding Sadi Carnot:

Ah, so you (User:Sadi Carnot) misused Admin tools, eh? (Yes, the protect tag is only for admins). This shall prove to be interesting, I think. (Name added for clarity)

From WP:PPOL

Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited, or images so that they cannot be overwritten, except by other administrators. Administrators can also protect pages from moves only. Administrators have the additional ability to protect pages from being edited by unregistered or very new users.

These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful.

Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.

Clearly an RfC is in order here, if not an RfA. I've contacted several Admins to get their opinion on how best to deal with your behaviour. BTW: KillerChihuahua, the person you reverted, is an admin. As I said, this shall prtove interesting, I think. •Jim62sch• 18:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I have just filed a Request for Arbitration agianst you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#SlimVirgin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, and is not designed to be use "against" a fellow editor, as you stated it above, but to evaluate both sides of a disupute. That includes you as well. Glad to hear that no arbitrators have agreed to hear the case. (BTW, a request for Arbitration is an WP:RfArb, and an WP:RfA is a request for adminship) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Lewis, BLP, and original research

An editor keeps trying to insert material into the Bernard Lewis page that suggest he was responsible for the Iran-Iraq war, the partition of Iraq, and who knows what else. From my point of view this violates WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and the "undue weight" section of NPOV. As you were involved in previous discussions on the topic, would you mind taking a look? Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk)

[edit] My RfA: Malber

I just wanted a post to thank you for the kind words in my recent nomination for adminship. Even though it was unsuccessful, it was illuminating. Thank you for your support. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb

I am glad that the arbitrators are rejecting that request. Abusing that process to get even, is not a good thing. Hang-on in there and know that there are many of us that appreciate your efforts in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCom

Thakns for your note. User:Guanaco seems to be taking on some of the chair's responsibilities. If nothing happens soon I'll poke somemore. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

Just because it is labelled as a proposal, does not mean that the page has to read as if it has been accepted as policy. Take a break for a minute and think what it actually reads like. It is like this thing is a foregone conclusion. Having the word proposed does nothing to the quality of the page, it just alerts readers to the lack of current consensus about the page. Ansell 07:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

It's an improvement, though it still has some big flaws. I'll post on this tomorrow, though - today is packed for me. Phil Sandifer 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a very good idea to reduce confusion, verbosity and divergence in policy space. I've made a few preliminary comments, I'll have to do some more detailed reading of this and its predecessors. >Radiant< 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Attribution

I don't follow any of the IRC, so I won't have seen it, but where have you raised the idea of merging V and NOR previously? Your idea to make the page appear now exactly as it would if live is sensible, but you also don't want to waste your own time. You should post or e-mail Jimbo, or have someone else do so, if you haven't already; there's a critical mass of people commenting now, so bringing it up with the powers that be would make sense, if you want to. I can't imagine a strawpoll will decide on whether we should scrap five years of policy description, so this will have to be implemented by diktat, if it occurs. Marskell 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you and I have a conversation on the difference b/w attribution and verification somewhere? I remember it but can't find it. Anyhow, it won't come down to a strawpoll if it comes down to anything. It shouldn't, at least. I'd like to be told our content policies are changing (i.e., by a diktat from Jimbo) if they are, rather than having a bad-taste-in-your-mouth poll or (worse) vested users gently informing everybody of Foundation opinion. (add: shit—last clause sounds like an accusation; a general observation)

Anyhow, your attempt at rationalizing deserves credit, but I just wonder... I like the idea of (if not all the specifics re) our WP:NOR page. I think we need that page. We need it to emphasize, in the title and in the first sentences, what OR is and why it bloody well shouldn't be added. Yes, this is encompassed by WP:V (and will be by the attribution page you are recommending) but I honestly think it needs its own place. The primary intent of WP:V is pretty easily grasped—a newbie can understand it, and then you just have to debate whether this or that website qualifies as reliable. NOR is much more subtle. Good editors commit OR. I commit OR (certainly in terms of my edits in sum—I've improved). I often agonize over clauses that might be OR. I like being able to post a specific reminder to talk pages: "Jack you're making a deduction: please see WP:NOR." You know? Marskell 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bed (I'm assuming the page will be debated for a while). But to leave: relating what other people have verifiably said is only one part (the easy part) of avoiding OR. It's that shitty, much-talked-about, but still important, "synthesis" bit that deserves seperate treatment. You can take two reliable sources ("hey, look, there's two cites! What's the problem?"), synthesize those and create OR; again, good editors do it all the time. One example, that WP:NPOV suggests, is creating an intermediate stance ("to be safe") by juxtaposing two quotes and suggesting a conclusion. That's OR, and WP:V (or your proposed page) covers it but doesn't address directly. We need a WP:NOR for that. Marskell 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You posted again. Point taken. I'll reply later. Marskell 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To sum up: because you can attribute every word and still commit OR synthesis, it does not make sense to have NOR as a component of Attribution. Perhaps it should retain the NOR title. Marskell 10:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited some of the sections on synthesis (adding deduction and induction, which seems a good way into it) but I expect editing this page at all will be a pain in the ass.

My above point remains regardless: b/c attribution need not be related to OR (you can attribute and still create OR) the page as it stands should not be the merge target. Marskell 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations on your Great Idea to combine several similar policies into one policy. This is a long over-due step. I hope it succeeds and then maybe you can move onto others! I appreciate your hard work and boldness in proposing this. Johntex\talk 00:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Barnstar seconded! - Jmabel | Talk 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Thirded! Crum375 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

I saw this silly AFD. I think for fun you should put the cabal of one image on your userpage. Probably best to add the text "This user is a cabal of one" or something. I saw it set up really well on some userpages. Anomo 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is the right format, I'd say to use this: User:Freakofnurture/Cabal. Anomo 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is not original research

Re: Attribution. The material I had added about "What is not original research" was quietly removed by someone who has had no other involvement in the process. Since you are the person driving this, I'd very much appreciate if you would weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#What is not original research. I'm a lot more interested in your view on this than that of a random contributor with whom I've never crossed paths. - Jmabel | Talk 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of Hafele-Keating experiment and Global Positioning System

Hi Slim Virgin. The situation is this: Nobody agrees with user:Uknewthat about anything. Uknewthat continues to refer to everyone who disagrees with him or her (upwards of 10 people) as trolls or "troll puppets". None of Unknewthat's responses seem to make much sense. Recently, a couple of newcomers to the discussion have flamed Unknewthat. If the pages are unprotected, I suspect that the situation will go back to what it was before they were protected; Unknewthat will resume an edit war against the consensus that the H-K experiment and the frequency shifts observed in GPS agree with the predictions of the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Cardamon 21:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has sided with Uknewthat or his ideas, but he doesn't appear to be interested in any sort of productive exchange. He is convinced that relativity is "just a theory" and that Einstein was a fraud who "will remain a patent clerk no matter what the media and the rich tell you". His writing is disjoint and rambling and he hasn't quoted a verifiable source yet which backs him up. Anybody who presents evidence against his ideas is dismissed as an "Einstein groupie" or something along those lines. I suspect that, if protection were removed from these articles, Uknewthat would continue to try to insert his beliefs. Justin 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a note to ask how he intends to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture

Sorry to use your talk again to debate these issues, but it's so fast and furious there it just gets lost.

Re "formulat[ing] policies is try[ing] to capture the spirit and letter of what the best editors already do". Would the "best editors" source things to fan websites? Honestly, would they? I would say that your comments are intermediate in terms of description and prescription. Previously I've thought you fastidious in terms of the latter and I was actually sort of shocked that User:Slim Virgin of all people added that section in the first place. If anything like it goes and through and becomes concrete I think we'll lose a lot more editors than we'll save. You can't source your pop culture page? Then maybe you should be working on something else or somewhere else. That sounds bad, but really, what the hell are we doing here?—a real encyclopedia for lions and tigers and bears, and myspace entries for pop culture? No thank you. I have a lot I could say about this which you probably don't need to hear, but think of all you've already added to the main space and how you've defended it. Do you want this massive block of pop culture (probably a plurality of all articles) following lesser rules? Marskell 22:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tim, if you don't mind, I'll answer here so that the posts are kept together (or we can move it to your page if you prefer).

Personally, I wouldn't source things to fan websites, but then I don't work in areas where that might be necessary. I was once asked to comment as an informal mediator on Otherkin, which is about people who believe they're animals. Reliable sources as you or I would understand the term were thin on the ground, except of course for the psychiatric papers. ;-D They had to rely on bulletin boards and websites set up by Otherkin themselves; either that, or the article couldn't have existed. So really it depends on your view of what Wikipedia should be. If we want to have articles about issues like Otherkin, then we have to allow less-than-wonderful sources in those areas.

The fact is that people have voted with their fingers. They do as a whole want Wikipedia to contain articles about pop culture and weird things, things that the Encyclopaedia Britannica wouldn't touch, which is in part why they're in decline and we're on the rise.

I remain more prescriptivist than descriptivist. But if you take the example of Spoo, how did it get to FA status if it relied on sources the policies don't allow? This is the problem: we end up with two sets of editors, two ideologies. Is it not better to legislate for that, than to have it happen randomly anyway? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have e-mailed. Marskell 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution reorg/trim proposal

On on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution, I complained about bloat and poor organization, and you're the closest anyone came to disagreeing with me about starting from "scratch". However, I've had no luck pushing through all but the most trivial of changes in the past, and am always being told my interpretations of WP:V are completely wrong, so I'm scared to death to make any specific, concrete proposals. Nevertheless, I want to be constructive, so I'd like to get feedback from you and maybe one or two others on whether I should proceed with a proposal to rewrite the proposed Attribution policy. Is moving in this direction something you'd support, or should I just drop it? Do you see any major obvious problems with it? Feel free to comment here or there. Thanks —mjb 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jar.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jar.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken image at Ahmed Jibril

The image you added back in January seems to have gone bye bye. -- Kendrick7 20:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

Sorry, I missed your question at WP:ATT - I thought I'd watchlisted it, but clearly I didn't. Andrew Levine already said everything I might have, only better. On first look it seems like an improvement on WP:V, but I'm not sure that will stop the usual suspects trying to chip away at it, just like they do there. Best of luck, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] professional expert

It was me that pulled professional out of Wikipedia:Attribution. There was discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Old popular culture section. I've pulled it out again, because I think it was a good change, but I'm commenting here too to let you know and generate discussion, although it's probably best to have the discussion there rather than here. If you want to put it in again, fair enough, as long as we do discuss it. My feelings are that professional is a hard one to quantify, and I think recognised works. The idea is that where fan research is recognised within the field, I don't see that it should be excluded. The internet has challenged many ideas, and the self published idea is one of them. Fanzines and fan published magazines have long been used as sources, The Comics Journal, for example, is one such reliable source which is also, basically, a fan published magazine. The internet has moved such publications, and potential contributors online, for example the newsarama website, would, years ago, have seen publication. I think we have to work out some issue here, and professional is a hard to define term. I think I said on the talk page, what constitutes professional? Does the blogger with adsense on his blog constitute professional? Anyway, there's a starter. Steve block Talk 10:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics

I've long noticed, after several prior policy proposals--some of them successful (WP:DE) and some not (WP:EXPERT)--that most policies don't die in an up-or-down vote (and yes, many of the processes we use to obtain consensus around here are essentially voting, no matter how much Wikipedians like to pretend otherwise).

They die when they fail to converge.

In some cases, divergence may be introduced by opponents in an attempt to kill a policy. I don't know if that is happening here--most of the editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution are respsectable Wikipedians, not the disruptive sort. In other cases, as more people take interest, more people attempt to include different ideas; it becomes more and more difficult to keep a policy coherent and convergent. Often times, the initial sponsors withdraw support when the policy draft morphs to far away.

The interesting thing is; I'm not sure the details are insurmountable. Most of the substantial debate seems to be over one paragraph; with a lot of rehashing of what is currently in WP:V and WP:NOR.

So, a suggestion: I've made this before, so my apologies if this sounds like beating a dead horse. My goal is a good sourcing policy, not a bad one, and I'm not particular as to how it's structured. But it may be that trying to replace three longstanding Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, even though the last isn't really policy; many treat it as such) is too big of a piece to bite off and chew.

So don't. Recast this as a replacement of WP:RS only; one which will be streamlines sufficiently so it actually can be policy, not guideline, essay, or polite suggestion. That would short-circuit the attribution-vs-verifiability debate, as well as the attempts to tweak the original research clauses. It would reduce the avenues for objection. It would make this policy shorter. Of course, we would have the WP:V and WP:NOR we currently have, but those aren't so bad. It's WP:RS that needs to be dealt with; what we have (or had, anyway) is a big improvement. If the only disputed area is the "pop culture" exception, I think we can bring that to convergence.

I know it isn't what you had in mind, but it may be the most expedient option.

What do you think? --EngineerScotty 04:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but I think we still have a chance. Let's address the concerns of these few editors. I think that is doable. If that does not work. Scotty's tactic is good alternative. Another possibility would be to ask Jimbo to take a look and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that by merging WP:V and WP:NOR into this; we've essentially opened them for modification and debate. If we only are changeing/replacing WP:RS, then whatever we come up with has to conform to the existing policies. That's the idea; to confine and focus the debate. I don't think that any of us want to change the substance of WP:V and WP:RS. --EngineerScotty 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think anyone should give up the ghost on the page. I fully support the idea of merging the three. Steve block Talk 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't give up

I detect a note of frustration in your recent posts. Since everyone is trying their good-faith best on the talk pages, I fear that some depressing things must have been said to you by e-mail. All I can say is that e-mails are outside the discussion process, which should be transparent (I never e-mail anyone here or go on IRC); we can only take into account what is said openly in the discussions. The proposed policy looked neat and succinct a couple of days ago and is certainly getting soggy again now; but I see no reason why it can't be sharpened back up before long. There are only two or three substantial issues to solve, I think (I agree with you that basic principles musn't be subverted in what is only a merging exercise; but it's just a matter of fighting those distortions off, surely.)

My thing is writing, but I haven't yet tried to edit the proposed policy because we are still at the talking stage, in my opinion; I will move in to try and help sharpen things up if and when we have a stable page.

But you've already achieved an enormous amount, so don't be downhearted. (I thought I knew policy inside out, but some of your analyses have been brilliant and made me see things more clearly.) And if the attribution page doesn't make it to policy (and lets face it, trying to control Wikipedia is as futile as trying to train cats to dance), we have enough new consensus to go hew the existing policies into better shape, so not all this effort will be wasted. Fist of respect. qp10qp 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] animal liberation movement category

Hi Slim, I've just noticed that there has been another cfd of the category and it has now been deleted and moved. Should we go back and get it undeleted as the people who voted on it do not understand that there is a difference between animal liberation movement and animal rights movement?-Localzuk^(talk) 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we will be stuck in a infinite battle over it between those who think it is POV regardless of what it is actually supposed to be. I say give up for now, but when things are looking like they need better categorisation re-look at it then.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA GPS

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GPS_does_NOT_prove_Einstein.27s_relativity. Your name is specifically mentioned, but you don't appear to have been informed. I'm sure if there was any arbitration in the future they would want to see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat. Just wanted to pass the info on in case you hadn't been informed. --Dual Freq 22:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been mentioned again, and called a liar, by Uknewthat in the GPS talk page. - Justin 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like the case was not accepted.[9] --Dual Freq 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it anyway. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA's lead

I've engaged in an edit war over a PETA which didn't achieve anything, about a sentence in the intro which is causing me grief. I've changed this:

• It also takes in animals, including strays and those given to PETA by their owners, finding homes for some but euthanizing most of those.^[1]

Into this:

• It's staff and volunteers provide care to animals in the Virginia and North Carolina regions via it's Community Animal Project, which among others offer free and low-cost spaying and neutering for companions and euthanize sick and feral animals who are otherwise unlikely to be adopted. ^[2][3][1]

... which I find fair. But another editor saw fit to add a rehash of the same "PETA kill animals" routine again. [10].

I'm sort of at a loss here, a third editor agree with me that we should include both the complete picture and no redundancy in the intro, but he's mostly being ignored and I've been warned for reaching 3rr, so I fear any attempt at rewriting the sentence will be meet by a report on the 3rr noticeboard. Jean-Philippe 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The prohibition on "original research"

Have a look at Talk:Henry Kissinger#A paragraph based off of nothing. It clearly starts out reasonable. Someone had (serious, reasonably founded) doubts about a poorly written paragraph; I answered, clarifying; there was some further exchange; then Cripipper jumped in with a claim that we cannot use government documents from the National Security Archives because they are primary sources. With a different weird twist on this all, we have people like Psychohistorian (funny how these guys never have a user page, or have one sentence to turn the link blue) at Affirmative action in the United States arguing that "Wiki policy specifically prohibits you from making determinations as to the validity of claims made by referenced sources" so (he concludes) we cannot prevent him from quoting a thinner-than-thin claim in National Review, in an opinion column that apparently misrepresents its sources, because National Review is generally counted as a reliable source.

Roy Rosenzweig's June 2006 criticism of Wikipedia seems to me to be entirely on the mark; I read it as something we could learn from, but if these sorts of interpretations of policy win out, his words are going to look very prophetic. This worries me: I'd like to see us succeed at building an encyclopedia here, but it is certainly not going to happen if wikilawyers and wikisophists turn this into a formal game, where arcane interpretations of rules win out over any semblance of scholarship.

Anyway, I think these are both instructive examples of what we shouldn't encourage. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

May I ask you why did you remove the tag? --Aminz 07:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. :| --Aminz 07:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Newman aricle

Hi, just to let you know, the informal mediation hasn't been successful. Accordingly, your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Addhoc 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR and disruptive edits by Uknewthat

A user, (Uknewthat), whom you recently blocked for disruptive edits to the Global Positioning System and Hafele-Keating experiment has been making the same changes to both articles again. He made 4 edits to the GPS article today. I reported his violation of 3RR here. This is his third violation of 3RR and is exactly the same behavior for which you blocked him nearly a week ago. I would like to bring this to your attention in the hope that a more stringent action could be taken against him this time.

Thanks for your help. - Justin 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Your suggestions to User:Uknewthat are exactly what he needs to hear. We have been trying to explain the problems with his edits for weeks now, but he doesn't seem to want to address those issues.

However, judging from his past behavior, he will likely request to have the block lifted soon, then he'll make disparaging comments about you and the various "Einstein trolls" who attempt to thwart him, and he'll be right back to his old activities as soon as the block is lifted. We'll see. Thanks. - Justin 05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding SProtect on English Civil War

Hi SlimVirgin. I notice that you have proceeded to sprotect the article on the English Civil War, as requested by Phillip Baird Shearer. I have just been over to the Requests for Page Protection area, and have noted that the article is still listed as waiting for a decision. Since you have already completed this step, could you possibly remove it from the list so that anyone else going to work on the RFPP's doesn't get confuzzled, please? Thank you very much. Thor Malmjursson 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Thor's multilingual talk page

[edit] Martin Luther Page

Dear Slim:

I think you have reverted four times on the Martin Luther page today. Let's decide this one on the talk page, please. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Thanks for your comments. I know that as per the policy Hard Copies are verifiable. But many editors (from American and European countries) immediately say "delete" in AFD discussion when they cannot find something in Internet. Most editors immediately dismiss Offline (as well as Non-English) sources as if they don't exist. Recently I encountered the following words few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified at [11] I pointed out that to him and he immediately agreed. When a lot of people have this opinion, I think it is time to highlight that there exists books and articles other than Internet that can be regarded as valid sources for Wikipedia. Another problem I face is the lack of ISBN numbers for most (not all) of the books published in India. You will find it hard to believe that 95 % of Indian Books don't have ISBN. Indian Books have ISBN, but 95 % of English Books published in India and 99% of Non-English Books published in India do not have ISBN. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariano_Anto_Bruno_Mascarenhas#ISBN for comments from other users as well. That was an old discussion I have brought to the talk page for you to see Please note that I am not arguing for one particular article or regarding one particular instance. Where ever I go (in Wikipedia) I encounter a lot of people who cannot believe that a newspaper here does not have an online edition or that 95% of books in India do not have ISBN.  Doctor Bruno  09:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was not for one particular article or against one particular user. It is a general observation that there is a feeling among few editors - if something is not online, it does not exist. I just wanted to point it out. Of course, if some one bases an entire article based on a book that is not available widely, then it creates problems. Thanks for the explanation. That makes things clear  Doctor Bruno  13:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I told that the problem is not one article. It is the attitude. See this [12]for example. I wanted to point out the attitude (I am the only person who is correct) of few users that needs to be addressed  Doctor Bruno  02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions about WP:RFP

Hello, SlimVirgin! I noticed that you have semi-protected Wikipedia as per my request for protection. You appear to be one of Wikipedia's most experienced admins, despite having your fair share of controversy. Therefore, I'd like to ask you two questions about RFP.

1. When you responded to my request, you removed my request from the page. As I have posted several requests there in the past, I have observed that after responding to a request, admins will usually indicate their response in a template, and after a day, move it to the fulfilled/denied requests section. Therefore, was your removal of my request a mistake on your part, or was there some reason why you removed the request from the page, instead of following the standard practice, and using a template to indicate that you have semi-protected the article?

2. I am not an admin (and I know the day I become one will be the day Microsoft goes bankrupt). However, I am thinking about getting more involved in RFP. Besides posting requests, I'm considering commenting on other requests, and helping admins judge whether there is sufficient activity to warrant semi-protection on an article. Do you think I should do so? Currently, I help revert vandalism, and I consider semi-protection as a method of stopping anonymous vandalism, while saving our time, so we can contribute constructively. In the very unlikely event that I run an RFA, my participation in RFP would boost my chances.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] smile

Dakota has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] Your input would be appreciated

Hi Slim, I am currently involved in a debate about the use of the term 'terrorist' over at the Al-Qaeda article. As you have a good knowledge of our policies please could you come and give us another opinion on the matter? It would be much appreciated. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V

Reverting an attempt to achieve some compromise, especially without waiting for the promised rationale to appear on the talk page, let alone addressing it, is not helpful in coming to a suitable, and swift, resolution. My explanation on the talk page does provide a diff to my suggestion, so I shall not revert you for now, but I would ask for an approach more constructive than seeking to revert my edits, regardless of what they are attempting to do, within seconds of my making them. Yours, somewhat cheesed off, jguk 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information of possible interest

here. Terryeo 09:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS

WP:V has around 920 words, NOR has 2,220 and RS 4,490 (the precise number depends on how you choose to count words). Most of what can usefully be said on the matters covered by these pages is on WP:V. Indeed, it would be relatively straightforward, with a bit of give and take, to expand WP:V to around 1,000 words to cover all the points. Your discursive WP:ATTRIBUTE proposal takes the thrust away from verifiability entirely, and lapses into the "try to cover every scenario" problems besetting the other two pages. It is already over 2,000 words long (and probably set to expand further).

I agree with you totally that we only need one policy to cover these related content issues.

Bearing the style and length comments above, would it not be best to leave WP:ATTRIBUTE and concentrate on adding those few words to WP:V that are required to merge the other concepts in their entirety? This would have the benefit of brevity, as well as making it a much easier read - and make it more read, jguk 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splash RFAr

Slim, I know you have had problems with Splash in the past regarding unprotection of articles under current vandalism. I felt that as you had tried and failed to resolve this issue that you might wish to make your voice be heard on his RFAr.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with vandal

Hi SV, User:Kuspyder has vandalized 8 different articles in one day (basically all of his/her edits). Is there a way to use your admin powers to block him? thanks, Nrets 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Davidaaronovitch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Davidaaronovitch.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] League of the South

Hi, SlimVirgin. An editor is citing something you wrote to prove a point he is attempting to make at Talk:League of the South. I don't know if you've ever even edited the article, and I haven't the faintest idea where the editor is getting the quote. What I do think is that the quote is being misused. Here is the editor's comment and use of your quote. Here is my response. I'd love to hear your comments there, if you have any. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I, Black Flag, am the editor in question. I had found a prior quote you made in an unrelated matter quite erudite, and applicable to the League of the South/SPLC matter:

"When dealing with published sources not regarded as reputable enough to be used as sources of information on other people, we may nevertheless use them as sources of information on themselves if they have a Wikipedia page, but even then we proceed with caution. So for example, Stormfront may be used as a source if we want to know what Stormfront says about itself in the article about that group, but we don't use Stormfront as a source of information on Jews. We also don't repeat its views about Jews in the Stormfront article unless we're carefully selecting certain passages to illustrate what kind of organization it is. But we don't allow the Stormfront article to become a platform for Stormfront propaganda. Wikipedia is not an extension of other people's websites."

The subject-matter dispute in our case involves SPLC allegations being the sole and exclusive source of accusations against the League of the South (an organization in which I am not, nor have I ever been, a member). Thus, I found your quote to be of assistence in how the article should be approached... that "multiple credible and verifiable sources" should be used to support LoS criticism.--Black Flag 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to turn your talk page into a forum to discuss this issue. Feel free to remove my comment if you like. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Your report

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. Kla'quot 05:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homey

How about a motion on Requests for arbitration that he use one account and be on probation? Fred Bauder 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A motion and I'll make it. Any suggestions as to the form it would take other than the above? Fred Bauder 11:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_user_known_as_Homey Fred Bauder 12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your point about deleting pages

SlimVirgin, you made a good point about deletion of user/user talk pages of sockpuppets - I agree with you there. SunStarNet; 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salam

Just wanted to say Assalamu Alaykum. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Banned user talk pages

SlimVirgin wrote:

Fon, are you Gurch? I was wondering about the wisdom of deleting talk pages of banned users. It can be quite helpful to read talk page posts of sockpuppets if they turn up again in another guise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 wrote:

I just came here to point out the same thing. Please desist from deleting users whom I tag as sockpuppets. Raul654 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this has caused any problems; you are of course free to reverse any deletions you think were inappropriate. My intention is not to delete all banned user talkpages, or all sockpuppet pages. I'll try to explain my rationale. The bulk of these userpages are simply being removed from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages; a category that was set up about a month ago and into which all new pages with {{indefblockeduser}} or similar templates are placed. The idea is that once these pages have gone a month without being edited, they are to be removed. The month-long delay gives the blocked user plenty of time to make an unblock request, or otherwise contest the block before the pages are removed. Usually, the userpage will consist only of {{indefblockeduser}}, and the talkpage will have something like a username block message or a series of vandalism warnings. Since the category is relatively new, there are a large number of similar pages that are not in the category because {{indefblockeduser}} has been substituted on to them; I have also been deleting these (if they have not been edited in over a month). I'm sure you'll agree that there is little point in having pages like these; I should clarify that the original idea was not mine (the category is the end result of a series of CfDs and other changes none of which I participated in) – it has just fallen to me to do the actual deletions.

I do, however, understand the problems caused by deleting certain banned user and sockpuppet accounts, and I appreciate the need for these to stay. The pages of banned users (as opposed to merely blocked users) shouldn't be in the temporary userpages category, nor should sockpuppet accounts blocked for being sockpuppets (as opposed to username or vandalism blocks). I have taken extra care not to delete any banned users' pages, so if one or two have slipped through, I apologize. I have ignored sockpuppet pages in most cases – again, it is certainly not my intention to delete them all. However, I have deleted these in some cases – when the page's title is not only inappropriate but extremely offensive; this includes violent personal attacks against specific contributors, anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi sentiments, and other excessive uses of profanity. Most of these are blocked for inappropriate username but some are tagged as sockpuppets. I refuse to believe that there is any valid reason for retaining pages titled, for example, "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what they have done or what the admininstrative need may be. These usernames, sockpuppet or not, were created purely for the purposes of getting attention.

If I have deleted talk pages of banned users (those prohibited from editing under any account by an ArbCom ruling or Jimbo) then this was a mistake; it was certainly not my intention, and feel free to reverse it immediately. If I have deleted sockpuppet pages which contain useful information and do not have an offensive page title as described above, then once again I apologize; these must have slipped through the net. The material on most of these pages seemed to be limited to witty {{unblock}} requests or simply a block message, however if there is more than just that, it negates my argument that the page is pointless – Gurch 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do?

Hi, Slim. We've been having trouble with a POV troll on the Tiananmen Square protests page. He isn't vandalising as such, but the edits he's making are completely unreasonable. We've tried talking to him, but he refuses to listen.[13] To be fair it isn't a content dispute - it's essentially vandalism. It would be like someone writing on the Holocaust page that it never happened, or the victims were all criminals.

Even if he isn't breaking 3RR, it is disrupting the page. Is there anything you can do about it? Seriously I doubt any kind of mediation or non-punitive admin action would make him change. If you look at the talk page and his contributions, it's obvious he only has one agenda. Plus he's the guy I was talking about making the sockpuppets - you can find them on the talk page. Please reply on my talk page - thanks. John Smith's 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

Wrong place and out of sync - I tried to change it as it wasn't in context and looked rediculous. It was comletely in the wrong place and was doing 50 things at the same time I apologise. FK0071a 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)