Misplaced Pages

User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:SlimVirgin Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:05, 1 September 2006 editNetscott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 editsm →Islamophobia← Previous edit Revision as of 03:06, 1 September 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm Reverted edits by Netscott (talk) to last version by SlimVirginNext edit →
Line 133: Line 133:


Hugely impressed by your work there, well done!--]\<sup>]</sup> 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Hugely impressed by your work there, well done!--]\<sup>]</sup> 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:SlimVirgin, I don't know if you've noticed but IPT's been blocked for 48 hours. You might want to review his case and discuss it with the blocking admin to confirm if he needs 48 hours or not (seems a little harsh to me but the block is justified per ArbCom). ''(]])'' 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


== Maybe? maybe not... == == Maybe? maybe not... ==

Revision as of 03:06, 1 September 2006

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.
— Robert Frost
_ Picture of the day Tocopilla railway Tocopilla railway Photograph credit: David Gubler


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

IronDuke

I absolutely cannot believe that you are defending IronDuke's behaviour on the Reed College page. The very notion that you are demanding that I ignore his reversion, against policy, and on a page where he has trolled before and where I've been a long-term editor, is beyond belief. On top of that, since when is a collection of diffs from Misplaced Pages constitute an "attack page". If so, then I would request that you delete your page attacking me. I will say this yet again: your analysis and accusation regarding sock puppetry and my account is incorrect. My edits and behaviour on Misplaced Pages are above reproach. Your and IronDuke's accusations and baiting of me are shameful. -- Gnetwerker 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott

This is extremely difficult issue to answer. I don't believe that I was so deeply involved in the debate not to see the block of Netscott objectively, but I could be wrong about that. I sincerely believe that blnguyen's block of one week was entirely too harsh, and brought upon by the weight of vocal editors against him. I believe that both you and JayJG need to treat people you disagree with considerably more respect, notably when there are already editors being derisive. Why do you need to jump into the mob?

Yes, it's hard for me to be too strident about that...sometimes I want to reach my hands into my computer screen and choke people who are acting in a non-sensical manner. I've been known to be short with people too. Since I've been an admin, however, I've tried considerably to temper my emotions when I respond to people...it's why it's taken my this long to reply to you.

I did have a long discussion with blnguyen after the fact. It probably should have originally been reduced to 48 hours rather than merely 24, but I think that increasing someone's block after it's been shortened is in extremely bad form, and only should be done when new evidence is uncovered. Looking at Netscott's blocks in the past, it seems that he is not a bad editor, just impulsive and has a habit of stumbling into hornets' nests. It still doesn't merit a punitive block.

Ultimately, next time I'm remotely involved in a discussion, you can be sure I'll ask an uninvolved admin to perform the task. Thanks for the advice. Bastique▼ voir 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon conflict 2006

Please be more careful before deleting referenced content of an article. In case you assume a part is superfluous or does not belong within a particular article,

  1. Carefully read the article's talk page so as to ensure yourself, that deleting is not part of edit-warring.
  2. If as in the article Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict's talk page, a header states the content is disputed: be double careful and certainly discuss an intended deletion before comitting such.
  3. If then still, deleting content is appropriate, in case the content is properly referenced: go to the talk page of the major contributer of that content (to be found by the article's history) and discuss the matter there (for instance suggest moving the content that must have cost a lot of time, to another article).

Deliberately not respecting other contributors' hard work by simply deleting it, can and will be regarded as vandalism. — SomeHuman 27 Aug2006 11:14 (UTC)

Netscott and Islamophobia

So not as to distract from the dispute in progress, I'm interested in clarification about Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks:

Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.

. Granted that talk page content is perhaps different than main namespace content, it would seem that "X lied" isn't a personal attack if it can be documented via Misplaced Pages history logs, or? It's not a statement about a person, but about what the person said - see the dictinction elsewhere in NPA about "X is a troll" vs "X is acting like a troll", which similarly delineates between externally observable behaviour and internal mindset. I don't know the details in what you and Netscott are arguing over, so this is a general, not specific question.

To motivate the previous paragraph, consider the difference between "This text is a lie." versus "This user, in this text, tells a lie.": I would argue that given Misplaced Pages's approximately immutable history, those two statements are equivalent, and thus the surface form of a statement doesn't necessarily indicate its status as a "personal attack". Nysin 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"X is a liar" is a different statement from "X lied in this particular instance", though, in that claims a general habit of or predisposition to lying (more akin to "idiot" in verifiability) whereas the latter can be checked without reference to internal mental state or general habit. I asked about the latter, and you shifted in your response to the former. Nysin 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Um. Okay. No comment on "wikilaywering" for now. Instead, would you see a substantive difference between "This statement is false", "This statement is a lie", "That user made this false statement", and "that user made this lying statement" except in tone? Nysin 13:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Was the revert for the summary change, the categorization of the huge link-list, or both? 68.39.174.238 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave the summary-heading alone untill the dust settles. 68.39.174.238 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
:D! 68.39.174.238 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your opinion

SV, you mentioned on the Kibbutz FAR that you were part of the Judaism WikiProject. Knowing the depth of your experience across Wiki, I was hoping you would have a look at the controversy on Israel-Venezuela relations, in particular, the BLP issues and the merge proposal. The main author of the article, User talk:Republitarian, was bitten and apparently gave up on Wiki only two weeks after joining, and since I helped him with the article, I'm left with the cleanup. I'm wondering if you think the article is defensible. Thanks for having a look, if you have time, Sandy 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Hi SlimVirgin,

My block is now over. Would you "please" have a look at RfC comment on the discussion page of Robert Spencer here. User: Dy-no-miite is removing sourced material. I have tried my best to make everything well-sourced. --Reza1 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I made those changes you asked for. He continues to be a problem in the article. I'd appreciate your quickest response. Thanks -Psychohistorian 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'm back from Italy. So much has been going on here that I have lost the plot. Do drop by some time! Best Dbuckner 06:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance

Hi SlimVirgin,

I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on the Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

my email

Slim, Before moving ahead, I want to be certain you received my email this morning. WordBomb

Horsefeathers, Grampa! Fred Bauder 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiLawyering

I have unprotected this, feedback is probably more important then the article, which is not in any way policy. Fred Bauder 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I like your immediate characterisation of my edits as "reverting" (which, I suppose, they are) and "edit warring" (there's no edit war, at least yet, at the moment about the edits I just did). I'll leave it alone for now, yes, though I would appreciate your ceasing simultaneously feigning diplomacy and using (again, so far) an unwarranted description of my activities. Nysin 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Runaway comment

"We're not here to do history, Zero, but to repeat what historians have said." You left this on Talk:Joel Brand but you must have been thinking of a different Zero so I'm returning it to you. --Zero 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody around here has a better record at citing sources, and I never insert OR into articles, your comment was not well received. However, I'll assume you just misunderstood me. We can't quote all historians so we have to choose some. Historians who have investigated an issue and written at length on it tend to be better choices than those who merely repeat previous claims in passing. That's why you quite correctly cited "Jews for Sale?" a lot in Joel Brand rather than the countless popular accounts that repeat the standard popular stories.--Zero 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Blood for goods" proposal

can you add Lord Moyne to the template ? thank you ! Amoruso 04:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An article to watch

SV, would you mind watching Boot of beer? I hesitate to even nominate for deletion because I seem to recall it being an actual phrase. But the article is basically being compromised by the creator, who is continually inserting personal pictures of himself and his friends drinking beer from a boot, after they'd been commented out due to copyright status, and reinserting a link to his "boot of beer" myspace. The removals had been reverted once before I got there, and then my removal was reverted again. I've removed them a second time. Mind keeping an eye open? ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ann_Coulter#Redundancy_with_Criticisms_of_Ann_Coulter

Hi Slim, I quoted from you (and your Jimbo's quote) regarding the issue of weaving controversy into an article, vs. separating it out into a section, or even an article as is the case here. Your review or input would be greatly appreciated, as I think this is a very generic issue. Thanks, Crum375 11:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

User:Arturo 7

If you get a minute, would you mind heading over to User talk:Arturo 7 and maybe give an opinion as an uninvolved admin about this edit and the edits Arturo made that it concerns? Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

If you continue with this disruption, I will request administrative action against you. SlimVirgin 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kindly cease from labeling my actions as "disruption". Also do make efforts to work with fellow editors and discuss reverts prior to undoing their work. Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Hugely impressed by your work there, well done!--Irishpunktom\ 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe? maybe not...

Howdy.. you maybe remember me from our brief discussion about "the new anti-semitism"...

Anyway I ask your advice because there is a huge edit war over at Jews for Jesus, of which I am a part. There are two or three people who claim that J4J is a Jewish orginisation, nice Jews who "happen" to believe that Jesus is G-d, son of G-d, or the Messiah, etc. and that the article should reflect this. There are others including me (two of whom are admins) who believe that J4J is a Christian-based org which aims for the conversion of Jews (well sourced), and that the belief in multiple deities is fundamentally incompatible with Judaism (therefore there cannot be Jews who accept Jesus as G-d). We are being accused of POV because the article reflects a Christian group.

Suffice to say I have asked for your advice specifically because as a Jew, I am sure you are fermilliar with this group. Of course I am not asking you to get involved in this war but maybe you can bring some coolheadedness to it somehow, maybe not... I (as well as others) are baffled by comments which insist over and over again that this group of "Jews" could follow a polytheistic religion. - Abscissa 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Quite a bit of activity in Martin Luther, and in a new article Theology of Martin Luther. You may want to peruse as chunks of the former are being copied, or hopefully moved, to the latter.--Mantanmoreland 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)