User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2: Difference between revisions

< User talk:SlimVirgin Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:16, 2 August 2007 editGnossie (talk \| contribs)382 edits →Questioning your Judgment: burying the hatchet← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:59, 2 August 2007 edit undoBrimba (talk \| contribs)3,565 edits Proposed addition to Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcesNext edit →
Line 64:		Line 64:

	Hi, you remove the link to the article of Rose in the Al-Durrah article. The article itself is very biased but the photograph is very important since shows the reality of the incident and how it is possible that the bullets came from IDF as it is possible that came from Palestinians. ¿There is no way this photo can be linked? I am not a fanatic of the issue but I stumbled upon, got curious and check all the angles. The photo shows how imposible is to say anything for sure. Bes regards. --] 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Ok. What about publishing the photo alone? would this be good?. --] 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) If you follow the link, after the photos taken from the video, there is an aerial photo of the place with some diagram lines on it. It shows the real thing as it happened. It does not demonstrate nothing to either side but for the independent reader is gold since he can see the place with his/her eyes.--] 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)		Hi, you remove the link to the article of Rose in the Al-Durrah article. The article itself is very biased but the photograph is very important since shows the reality of the incident and how it is possible that the bullets came from IDF as it is possible that came from Palestinians. ¿There is no way this photo can be linked? I am not a fanatic of the issue but I stumbled upon, got curious and check all the angles. The photo shows how imposible is to say anything for sure. Bes regards. --] 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Ok. What about publishing the photo alone? would this be good?. --] 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) If you follow the link, after the photos taken from the video, there is an aerial photo of the place with some diagram lines on it. It shows the real thing as it happened. It does not demonstrate nothing to either side but for the independent reader is gold since he can see the place with his/her eyes.--] 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

			== Proposed addition to Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ==

			Hi, I am thinking proposing an addition to ]. I figured that before I did that I would run it pass yourself, Crum375, and Until(1 == 2). Its pretty self explanatory, and from my standpoint it seems a change for the better, even if RS appears somewhat diminished nowadays. The three of you could possibly suggest some improvements in the language, and more importantly, if I have gone off in the wrong direction, please feel free to say so. Thanks much ] 07:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

			'''Exceptional claims require exceptional sources'''

			:Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in ].

			Changed to:

			:Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in ]. Often controversial claims are not ]; an editor wishing to challenge a claim may not be able to find sufficient information to assign reliability. Thus it is upon those wishing to add or maintain controversial material to justify its inclusion; it is specifically not the responsibility of those challenging the material to disprove it.

Revision as of 07:59, 2 August 2007

File:Animalibrí.gif

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cherryicecream.jpg

Hi. Please see the subject discussion. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I believe permissions is going to contact you to confirm the image was released. Cheers, SlimVirgin 14:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the licensing on Commons:Image:Cherryicecream.jpg and Image:Cherryicecream.jpg is fine now, sorry if I offended you, I wish I had checked the English Misplaced Pages image description page for permission sooner. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Purple Star

The Purple Star

Condolences for the publicity. Virgin, Slim Virgin, eh? :-) This too shall pass. --AnonEMouse 15:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it - this is on your user talk page, so feel free to just zap it if you don't like it, this is meant to be a condolence, not a bad thing in itself. --AnonEMouse 15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very kind of you, AEM, and I'm going to put it on my user page. Thank you! SlimVirgin 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust dispute diff

I have finished scanning the disputed diff and placed the significant edits on the Sandbox page. – Dreadstar † 01:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up

Since WP:ANI instructs that posters should inform other wikipedians when they are mentioned in a posting, I feel obliged to let you know that there have been lots of revert-warring concerning an objectionable thread involving yourself and containing links to the inflammatory blog full of "nonbovine ruminations". Frankly, I don't see why these guys continue their campaign to dramatise and sensationalize the delicate situation. Another relevant discussion is here. You have my full support. --Ghirla 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I too wish to express my support for you; I'll try to take a look at Factory farming later today, as I have had some thoughts. Hang in there, --John 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep doing your good work. The absurd claim is clearly not sustainable. Philip Cross 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Slim, now that your talk page is unprotected I would like to say that I share your frustration with the feeding frenzy of a community which would rather attack, on a personal level, the credibility of users in otherwise good standing than collaborate for the greater good of the project. I know how it feels to be the subject of baseless accusations, so you have my support too, whether you want it or not. — CharlotteWebb 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Per above. If I knew where you were I'd bring you a treat. My double-chocolate cookie recipe is the stuff legends are made from. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A treat? Now why didn't *I* think of that? Never mind, I have thought of it now. Hope you enjoy it. And isn't there some famous Latin quotation about not letting the bastards grind you down? ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. It's faux Latin, but why nitpick. Raymond Arritt 01:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rose

Hi, you remove the link to the article of Rose in the Al-Durrah article. The article itself is very biased but the photograph is very important since shows the reality of the incident and how it is possible that the bullets came from IDF as it is possible that came from Palestinians. ¿There is no way this photo can be linked? I am not a fanatic of the issue but I stumbled upon, got curious and check all the angles. The photo shows how imposible is to say anything for sure. Bes regards. --Igor21 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Ok. What about publishing the photo alone? would this be good?. --Igor21 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) If you follow the link, after the photos taken from the video, there is an aerial photo of the place with some diagram lines on it. It shows the real thing as it happened. It does not demonstrate nothing to either side but for the independent reader is gold since he can see the place with his/her eyes.--Igor21 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Hi, I am thinking proposing an addition to WP:RS. I figured that before I did that I would run it pass yourself, Crum375, and Until(1 == 2). Its pretty self explanatory, and from my standpoint it seems a change for the better, even if RS appears somewhat diminished nowadays. The three of you could possibly suggest some improvements in the language, and more importantly, if I have gone off in the wrong direction, please feel free to say so. Thanks much Brimba 07:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Changed to:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. Often controversial claims are not falsifiable; an editor wishing to challenge a claim may not be able to find sufficient information to assign reliability. Thus it is upon those wishing to add or maintain controversial material to justify its inclusion; it is specifically not the responsibility of those challenging the material to disprove it.