Misplaced Pages

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

My contributions are systematically deleted by Muslims

Dear Slim, I have started editing the pages Islamophobia and Useful Idiots. However my contributions are systematically reverted by Muslims who work in group and seem to be more motivated by their ideology and protecting the immage of their faith than by love knowledge. Despite the fact that I kept modifying, adding and removing different citations, the result is immediate revert. I urge you please to intervene and see to this matter. If necessary please protect (but please this time protect my version) until the dispute is resoved. Thanks! (21:33 23 October 2005 OceanSplash)

WikiSort Project

Hey, the WikiSort Project has begun! Come on over and check it out!the1physicist 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding protecting the Tajiks page

Thanks Slim for protecting the Tajiks page. I'm sorry it had to be done in the first place, but the guy who kept editing it is off his rocker. Thanks again and adios. Tombseye 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA

What I did was actually to restore a lot of comments, including BYT's vote, but some other stuff was apparently lost in that process. I apologize if I have contributed to the confusion there, but fact is that I was actually also a bit confused myself about what was actually going on, and at the same time the servers are terribly slow today... However, when I now take a closer look at the diffs there, it all seems to have been solved (due to your efforts!). I apologize again if my edits somehow made a mess there, but it was never my intention. -- Karl Meier 19:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Islamist?

I didn't realise you converted. Congratulations. Does that mean you have to resign from the Zionist Cabal, or will they make an exception for you? I suppose if both sides accuse you of bias, that probably suggests you're getting it right (or have Dissociative Identity Disorder). Guettarda 17:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough about OS, but the conversation you linked to on Will's page looks like some sock + puppeteer conversations I've seen, but I doubt Rangerdude is that vicious (or dumb enough to conclude you are a Muslim for your actions). Guettarda 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Me, I'm holding out for full membership in Unitarian Jihad. BrandonYusufToropov 18:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll sign up just so I can be Sister Flaming Sword of Moderation. SlimVirgin 18:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol! --a.n.o.n.y.m 18:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please move all the comments from the voting section to the talk section. That's why it is there. I can see how you'd be reluctant to move the comments to another page. Maybe one solution would be to add a copy of the current voting page to the talk page including both the comments and votes. Then, on the voting page, delete all comments except for the person's vote and the person's userid. --JuanMuslim 19:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the comments to the talk page, and I copied some of the votes because without them the comments made no sense. The page should be easier to edit now. Cheers, SlimVirgin 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I don't want the thanks from a Islamist like you. gren グレン 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks a bunch for all of your help, and I hope those silly things go away :) gren グレン 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

Gimmiet

Incidentally, when you blocked User:69.195.126.149 for being User:Gimmiet, and then extended Gimmiet's block for block-avoidance...

that's not him. That's not his IP. It resolves to Missisauga. I know him from pre-Misplaced Pages, I know where he lives, and he lives several thousand miles from there. DS 00:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely him, Dragonfly. I'll leave more details on your talk page later. SlimVirgin 01:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin-ness questions

I've been reading the admin material again and I just had two questions. Firstly, there was a page ARRY bONDS with the concent "Misspelling of Barry Bonds" or the like. I'm pretty sure there is no need to have it... it's just a bad redirect... should I put something that obvious on redirects for deletion or should I just delete it under CSD? Secondly, there was Category:Richard Thompson and Linda Thompson albums I deleted it because the proper is Category:Richard and Linda Thompson albums. I just transferred everything and deleted it arbitrarily (my true reasoning is that it was created by User:Rydia whom personally told me to delete it so there was no need for him to blank it and put up a CSD template since we're 5 feet away from eachother). For things like that should I be dealing with it through requested moves (had it not been my roommate and just some anon)?. Thanks. gren グレン 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandal?

Excuse me, but why did you revert me like a vandal for removing section headings that RfAs never have? -Splash 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

An edit summary to that effect would have been better. But I see why the headers are there now. -Splash 01:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikilante

Hello, SlimVirgin, love your handle and the story of it. I created this article as a result of what is going on over at Dominion of Melchizedek. Do you think it is a good idea? From what I read on your user page, I'm impressed with how fair and the patience you are said to possess. I believe DOM needs someone like yourself, to help with this article. I've reached out to a few others tonight asking for help too. Sincerely, Johnski 08:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Watching, always watching...

Well, thanks to this I've found several new sets of contributions to observe! - brenneman 08:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI

I got a mass email today. See User_talk:Muwaffaq#email Guettarda 13:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

DOM

SV thanks for protecting the DOM page. I think there is more then reasonable suspicion about the sockpuppets that are trashing that article and others. The DOM page have been reverted by Johnski/KAJ/SamuelSpade as well has his IP addresses over 60 times in two months. If you need any specific proof, let me know. Thanks... Davidpdx 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• After that round of fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts, you did the right thing to protect. All I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is illegal, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here? Sincerely, Johnski 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

AE

SV, I already thought about writing you yesterday, but didn't then. I'm sure that you understand at least some of my issues that I've listed in these discussions. I wanted to write you yesterday that you could maybe (because you were the nominator of AE and regardless of how the vote turns out) from time to time take a look at AE's contributions, and if there are edit conflicts he's involved him kind of mediate and point out to the involved parties ways to solve the issues. You were also once proposed for a Request for Comment regarding Anon. Anyway, I'd be glad if some of the issues that I listed could be dealt with in good faith by Anon and in view of positive changes that are acceptable for everybody. User:Kefalonia

Massive clusterf*ck

Even, I myself am surprised by all the opposition that Anonyme raised up. I was expecting this to break (30-40) vs (10-15) and die gracefully as no concensus. The best thing is for someone to suggest that he withdraw, because at this point it's not going to pass, and the longer this drags on the more animosity and frustration for everyone. I feel bad for Anonyme, because I bet he is really surprised by how many don't trust him to be an admin.

I guess his fighting over at the India/Pakistan dispute got him a fresh batch of friends. Compared to the Arab-Israeli conflict that sort of thing is very very very bitter (Israeli's as a class no longer care about the fate of the palestinians and so don't take the conflict very seriously anymore.)

Some folks it seems think that there exists a giant anti-muslim cabal on wikipedia, but that isn't true. The number of editors who are strictly working off of an anti islamic bias are faily few,fairly obvious and merit no further discussion. I don't think that there is any mass network of sockpuppets.

There are however alot of people who are annoyed at the extra tolerance that muslim editors seem to get. The Yuber arbcom case being a classic example. Most westerners have this great fear of being labled intolerant, while many people on WP take pride in being very tolerant, they take especial pride in being very tolerant of the intolerant.

How ever a certian fraction, beleive in the existance of moral standards and universal human dignity, and find that special privliges are abhorrent. And if being called "islamophobic" is the price of expecting that people not to kill each other and condemning them for doing so. Then so be it, for Satyameva Jayate. Klonimus 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean you are surprised by all the support? You're the one with the "opposition." --JuanMuslim 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You would think that Klonimus would bequiet now that its all over.:) --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, what kind of language is that to use in a heading? If you're not very careful, you'll leave fast-scrolling newcomers with the impression you have a bias on some of these issues ... or even that you have occasional problems sustaining civility. BrandonYusufToropov 21:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You already think that I am biased, so I can hardly hope to convince you of anything. I'm not surprised that Anonyme got as much support as he did, but the level of opposes votes was almost as great as in your RfA BYT. Unlike lots of people, I'm not running for Admin, so I feel free to say things as I feel them, on the talk page. I personally felt that Anonyme's RfA was unsalvageable and that it was preferable that it be ended early rather than drag on, and end up like BYT's RfA which died with more oppose votes than support votes. Anyways this message was in reply to to comment of SV's on the talk page of the RfA. The amount of bitchiness on WP is truely astounding sometimes. Klonimus 21:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Why delete it? The old article looked good... Can you please restore it, or put it up for AfD? I don't understand what the POV issues are that made you decide to scrap the article. Note also that it is being recreated regularly... +sj + 09:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Boy, this is weird. My google alerts today included a line about Daniel Brandt. I thought I was seeing things... but no. +sj + 08:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought this stuff's been solved! -- Svest 03:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  

I heard your story on d news! -- Svest 03:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  

unprotect

I *think* the freaks have gone, so would like it if you could please unprtect my user Page.

Cheers --Irishpunktom\ 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :-D --Irishpunktom\ 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

zionist terrorism

Fair comment about the point making. However read the entry I modified by jayg and I'm sure you'll agree that it was also very much a WP:POINT. I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically someone insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then inssit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. Unbehagen 22:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

help

The well written article about the plight of "Snowball" as been renominated for deletion...
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Snowball (Hurricane Katrina dog) (2nd nomination)
Please vote to keep this article! Many thanks!

Anonymous Editor - Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with Anonymous Editor regarding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community/Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam? Anonymous Editor doesn't want to use their official name, or any name that refers to them being Muslim/part of Islam, because he does not consider them to be truly Muslim. He insists that they agree to the removal of any reference to Islam from themselves, and that we should do so for the purposes of "NPOV". The discussion is at the bottom of his talk page and mine. Thanks. Jayjg 03:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry SV. I have solved the problem. Jayjg and I have reached an agreement. Btw, it wasn't that I didn't think they were "truly Muslim" but that I suggested a possible choice that both mainstream Muslims and Ahmadis could agree to rather than making it one-sided. The discussion was huge though; I think that's the largest one sentenced discussion I've had! :) Regards --a.n.o.n.y.m 03:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg 07:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you (yes, you Slim) consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

My admin

Thank you - I followed the instructions on the relevant page and posted the page (with my answers) to WP:RFA. Thank you so much once again! Ramallite 15:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Straining times

I'm feeling strained from and drained by an attempt to reiterate what long ago I argued should be clear. A discussion of these issues is currently ongoing on my talk page. Please offer your thoughts on these matters, and perhaps on my conduct throughout the affair, specifically. Thank you. El_C 15:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. Guettarda has just now entered the discussion and I want to avoid any appearence of numeric superiority (i.e. 3 versus 2) and underhandedness therein. Though, of course, numerically, only a tiny minority seems to have supported/supports my opponents position. El_C 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the conversation seems to have reached its end rapidally and unpleasently enough. El_C 16:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

Will you say the same sort of thing to User:FeloniousMonk? Will it make a difference? He does not assume good faith of anyone. He talks about conspiracy theories with bloggers on the discussion board, so I do not see why I cannot discuss my conspiracy theory of administrator cronyism in relation to why FeloniousMonk ignores me and simply reverts anything I change in the article. I have argued my case, probably said at least 1500 words arguing my case to introduce two sentences into the disambiguation part of the article.

The first is to, in my view, properly, characterize the article content as unrelated to the literal phrase except culturally (i.e. idiomatically, though I'm not sure if that word is entirely the correct one to use). This is because the phrase "intelligent design" is vague and amorphous.

I also wanted to add "If you want to see an article about the concept of an intelligent being who designed the universe, see Theism." I'm sorry but for the life of me I cannot figure out why FeloniousMonk says this is factually inaccurate and POV. I don't even know if it is possible for that statement to be those things.

When I explained to FeloniousMonk my reasons as well as I could, he ignored and/or misinterpreted and/or misrepresented all my arguments. This, in my opinion, is common when someone has an axe to grind and are unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinions. User:Guettarda understood my argument, and I used it to show what I was talking about. I received no comment from him or, as far as I remember right now, anyone else after that. It seems every time I broach the subject, I am met with absurd commentary unrelated to my points, and anytime I make a good point, it is just ignored. Attempting to even add a "clean-up" tag did not even work, as FeloniousMonk reverted it no less than half an hour after I added it. I also attempted to have a discussion regarding the relationship between Deism and the article, and was met with absurd, unrelated, and suspicious comments.

I am extremely frustrated and I have no idea what to do other than filing an RFC against FeloniousMonk. Something which I do not want to do as it would take up a lot of my time considering how bulletproof it would have to be as FeloniousMonk is an administrator. The contentious nature of the article also suggests that in an RFC people will think with their personal opinions about Intelligent Design, and side with administrator FeloniousMonk given the movement's infamous nature, not their opinions on whether or not I have a valid point and FeloniousMonk is intentionally ignoring it.

If you could talk to FeloniousMonk I would appreciate it, but will he do anything? I told him numerous times he was misinterpreting my comments and my arguments, but he did not listen. --Ben 07:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

That was my only real edit. The other edits were a short revert war on the same sentence with FeloniousMonk who was saying nothing about why he was reverting, and a few others of putting templates on the page. Those templates were a factually inaccurate template, which FM reverted, a clean-up template and a expert attention template, and FM reverted both of those within 30 minutes. I realize that it does not make a lot of sense, but that's the best way I thought of of describing it to make sure people knew what the article was about. I am not trying to define what "intelligent design" is, I was trying to define what the article was about--how it has been written, what it deals with, etc. A lot of people get confused about what intelligent design means and have pre-conceived notions. I thought it would help to explain it so they don't get angry like I did the first time I read the article, expecting a discussion about theism.

If you would like to read and see that FM is not paying attention to what I am saying, you can start here (my first comment I made is about a page-length down]. After I apologized for saying the article was violating Misplaced Pages policies, I don't say anything more in that section and noone responds to me anymore.

The next section would be a section I talk to FM in is a section I started after I tried to add the change again since FM had just stopped talking to me. I think this was the 3 revert war. Anyway, I ask him why in this section. That's about it.

My other comments are 2 or 3 scattered comments, including chastising admin User:RoyBoy for responding to trolls by saying "Misplaced Pages is not a chatroom." I also tried to have a discussion about ID and Deism, which I mentioned earlier. That one is here. The last discussion is when I wrote to tell everyone that FM, amongst others, are admins because I thought it would be good for people to know that. I could not understand why FM and others were ignoring and insulting me, and why almost everyone I talked to on the page did the same thing, including another admin whom I told that it was FM who was revert warring because he was the one not discussing his changes and ignoring me. He just told me to file a RfM. When I found out that FM was an admin, as was a bunch of other people who had been misinterpreting and ignoring me I figured it was a case of cronyism. Not that I can prove it, but I thought it would be good for potential contributors to know in the interests of disclosure the number of admins editing the article and discussing on the talk page. An admin User:Duncharris even showed up literally out of nowhere to call me a "lowly troll" which of course further reinforced this belief. Then everyone attacked me for posting this information and I defended myself.--Ben 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"A Very Unpleasant Experience"

• "Marsden, you're way out of line here. I didn't withdraw from editing because of losing any argument over the name. I withdrew because of your (and saxet's) personal attacks and I made that clear at the time. If your attitude to editing is that the way to make "progress" is to "beat" your opponents "into submission," then you'll end up winning all your battles, because all decent editors will withdraw from you at some point, until someone takes you to the arbcom and they ban you. You make editing a very unpleasant experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)"

Slim, it is only my attitude toward editing when Jay is involved that the way to make progress is to beat him into submission, and I like my chances if I'm taken to the arbcom over a dispute with him, regardless of the fact that he's on the committee. And, given how you tend to edit -- threatening new users, joining your friends in edit warring without even looking at what is being disputed, belittling people for not having many edits, accusing administrators of abusing their power for unblocking people whom you managed to get blocked unjustly -- maybe it's best for Misplaced Pages that you find it a very unpleasant experience.

By the way, have you really made a prediction about how long the word "occupied" would remain in the title of the Israeli-occupied territories article? Given the long and contentious debate that finally reached a consensus for that title, don't you feel some incling of responsibility to warn the people who have toiled on that article if you think some POV plot is waiting in the wings for the opportunity to thwart the collective will on what the article should be called? Do you feel any sense at all that, in order to make Misplaced Pages as good as it can possibly be, editing should be done in the open, and subject to the scrutiny of people of differing opinions? Do you see Misplaced Pages in the least as a worthy end in itself, or is it just a means for you to accomplish something more important to you? I don't expect you to answer, but if these comments make you uncomfortable and make editing Misplaced Pages a very unpleasant experience for you, I would consider that a good thing.

Have you ever read F.A.Hayek's essay, "The Use of Information in Society," which makes clear why centralized control isn't a very effective way to manage information?

Marsden 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)