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.
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost
And in the event that you're here with a personal attack:
"Any time something is written against me, I not only share the sentiment but feel I could do the job far better myself. Perhaps I should advise would-be enemies to send me their grievances beforehand, with full assurance that they will receive my every aid and support."
Thank you! But it's okay, I'm hanging on. I've been a bit down because of a long-term stalker, but I think I'll live to see another day. ;-) SlimVirgin05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
(Breathes a sigh of relief) Once again, thank you for your supporton my RfA. I must have barely squeaked by, by sometimes a squeak is all you need! Don't let the opinions of the very few discourage you, you have more support than even you might realize! Peace! Hamster Sandwich05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
(ec) Just wanted to add my voice to the list of people who don't want to see you getting run off. I haven't known you to be anything but reasonable and helpful, and the project needs more like you, not less. Friday(talk)05:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
File:Appleturnover.JPGOne of Ann's apple turnovers for SlimVirgin, in appreciation for all the good she brings here.Good to know that you're staying. We can't afford to lose one of our very, very nicest admins. Even before I came directly in contact with you, I was struck by your fairness and courtesy when I used to eavesdrop in places like WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:AN/3RR — the way you explained rules calmly without jumping down people's throats, or unblocked people early as a sign of good will, etc. Perhaps one of my apple turnovers (made and uploaded last night) will cheer you up? And, of course, I'm sure you know that you can count on any help that I can give you. Always let me know if there's anything I can do. Cheers. AnnH07:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And a cup of coffee Yusuf brewed for SlimVirgin, in grateful thanks for her patience when he is premenstrual or stressed from dealing with bigots or some #$%^& thing. Giving one to Ta bu, too. Please accept my apologies. BrandonYusufToropov12:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! The thought of SlimVirgin leaving Misplaced Pages is truly a shocker and a downer! Slim, don't go!! Babajobu13:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The proposed new rule means that if I can get myself involved with you, from that point on you lose all right to stop me from breaking any rules
I can't agree with this statement. Speaking for myself, I'm not an admin and I have no direct power to stop anybody doing anything. But I can appeal to the person involved, I can appeal to people who are admins, I can appeal through formal channels. So long as I have the right to do those things, I'm far from powerless.
Yes. If a person obviously needs blocking, I don't see why a post to the Administrator's Noticeboard or hopping onto IRC wouldn't accomplish the same effect as implementing the block oneself. Blocking policy needs to balanced such that a problem user can't engineer a "conflict" with an admin to avoid a block, yet equally we need to make sure that blocks are always seen to be entirely above board, and that there's not even a hint of a personal agenda. — Matt Crypto23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Because the fact is, Matt, that often admins don't want to get involved when they see someone else come under sustained personal attack or harassment, perhaps for fear they'll get dragged into it too. We've had several cases of harassment recently where no one stepped forward to help until the editor was practically forced to leave. This is why admins are allowed, and should be allowed, to block people who attack them so long as they're not involved in a content dispute with them. SlimVirgin03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but I think we can have our cake and eat it too. I believe we can both protect editors who are being attacked, and yet we can do it in a such way that admins avoid falling under suspicion of using blocking powers to settle personal grievances. If an admin is obviously being impartial, even with users who attack them, then, by all means, they should block without hesitation; but if it could reasonably be seen as a "grudge" block, then it'd be much better to get another admin to do it (and I don't see that as being impractical). — Matt Crypto20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Spum
That was my plan, SlimVirgin. Yeah I agree. The thing that's most troublesome to me is this idea that telling him that he isn't following a particular policy is a personal attack. If that's the case, then what's the point of having policies? And now he's basically not allowing anyone to talk to him. So I'd agree with ya. --Woohookitty05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would look through the postings on the Chindits Talk page and the edits in the last 24 hours to the Article. I may be wrong but it looks to me that "Anon" is quoting original sources and drawing conclusions from them which I think is against the NOR. As you have more expertises in this area I would appreciate you input. --Philip Baird Shearer09:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest. I had hoped that people who had already participated in the discussion would simply record their approval of their preferred options, so that there would be a clear record of where consensus stands. I hoped that folks would not feel the need to repeat what's already been said before; and that people's endorsements (not "votes") would speak for themselves.
I apologize if you felt that my moving your comment out of the poll section was "altering your vote", but that was not my intent. The poll is to collect a record of which options people find tolerable, not to re-collect the same opinions and concerns which have already been expressed in the discussion. Please consider moving your comment back to the comments area, leaving your signature in the poll. --FOo10:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Verified
I am glad to hear you liked the addition of the rubber stamp on the page about making sure facts are verifiable. I thought it added just the right touch. The only regret I have is I had to move it on the left, it keeps having the words be overwritten by the image every time I put it on the right side of the article (In Netscape, anyway.)
-- Paul Robinson14:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
A propos of which -- major article on WP's fact-checking processes appears in today's New York Times, first page of the Week in Review section. You may have already seen it, but just in case... BYT15:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Again?
Apology accepted. I will do my best not to mention it, because the situation has been too unpleasant for too long. It is up to you whether to take part in the arbitration. As you noticed, I was trying to use him as an example of a disruptive editor ranting about the past. I will try to remember not to mention the two names in parallel. Robert McClenon17:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, can you review WP:RFPP about Giselle and Talk:Bat Ye'or because Kelly Martin verified through mindspillage the name given in the NYT. So, I don't want to unprotect it right now but since I was about to censure Dhimmi over the issue that he had reverted CltFn again and saw you had protected it I figure now with the new evidence it probably shouldn't be. grenグレン18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
List of British people of Jewish descent
Sorry - I'm rather new here. Are you the person responsible for this list? Can you do anything about Antidote deleting names of foreign born people? Next he'll be deleting Michael Marks. - Newport19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
3RR
SlimVirgin, I clearly didn't violate the 3rvt rule...you might want to check, for if you did you would see I reverted it to Dwain's version not mine. So it is the first time I reverted that article to that version. Cheers, Chooserr
Lol, your good but wrong. You might be an admin, but you don't get it. I'm not vandalising the page. I didn't revert it to my version. And it isn't even partially reverted (I say that because I can't for the life of me understand what you mean by it). Also when you come to reply on my page you'll see another other posts they clearly out line the what Shanes told me about the policy or guidlines of wikipedia. Chooserr
Your not making much sense but I was just going over the guidlines to find out exactly what it says about this whole BC/BCE thing. Anyway how would I "revert myself"? Chooserr
Thanks. Your were right by the way, that I have been repeating myself somewhat. Sorry to make you deal with that, it's something I've encountered before on other talk pages and found quite unpleasant. I don't think arguments should be won by the last person to get tired of them, and clearly you have taken a large adiminstrative role at WP with lots of postive impact, and I feel kind of bad distracting you from this with arguments, however justified I think I might be. I still feel after reading and rereading the policies and your arguments that I have a valid point, but I will think about it and try to put everything into a more coherent form before arguing on and on.
Aside from this I should add that I respect you as an editor, and have noticed that you have taken a mature and impartial stance in many unrelated debates as an admin. The piece of advice on your user page not to be a one-issue editor is a good one, and I have at times been conscious of being a one-issue editor on eXile-related stuff. Of course I have other interests and contributions as well, but the controversy over there has been sucking me in from time to time. It's true I have a positive personal POV bias about the eXile, which I try my best to supress in writing about it, and in accepting the edits and reversions of others. Please do believe, though, I have nothing to do with the paper. I find suggestions to the contrary, which were initiated by 69.253.195.228, really frustrating.
I want to continue to edit the relevantpolicy pages, because I do care about the policy beyond its impact on the eXile. I may run some suggestions and changes there by you beforehand if you don't mind, as you seem to be more experienced here. Dsol18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Mindmatrix scam adminship
I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Seemingly this was due to a redirect to the policy template to the guideline one, which must have also added the other category. This was very recently reverted, which really confused me when I looked back then just now. Alai07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Spum
Is about to leave the building. He put "If Viriditas was a woman, i would have more children than i have" on his talk page just now after several more personal attacks the last couple of days. I gave him last warning. One more attack and he's gone. Just letting you know... --Woohookitty11:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Why wait? Users like that are disrupting this encyclopedia. I am sure the majority of contributions are mainly personal attacks. Worse indeed, it is a waste of time for good and valuable editors as Viriditas (i.e. compromising, reverting userpages vandalism, arbitration, etc...) The only solution is for those kind of users to leave this building. Any user who doesn't think before shouting loud F**k/wan*er/your ma**a, etc repeatedly merits to stay outside the doors of wikipedia. That should set an example for the many who are walking around here. Cheers -- Svest11:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Terrorism
Please excuse me if I'm not doing the right thing here, but I'm just learning Misplaced Pages: The euphamisms for "terrorism" and "terrorist" are extremely painful to survivors (like me) and to the families of the dead.
Could I get you to keep an eye on the Jeremy Clarkson article? User:Pigsonthewing, and potentially a sockpuppet (although I'm not positive of this) is intent on manufacturing a dispute where none actually exists. His goal seems to be to keep the NPOV tag on a certain section of the article, but not actually constructively suggest any ways of rewriting the article to remove the alleged (but nonexistent) POV violations. Nandesuka13:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to let you use your judgment about whether admin action is appropriate; I am too close to the issue to tell whether this rises to the level of disruption. If we simply end up getting your opinion on the issue as an editor, that's fine too -- more eyes is always good, and who knows, maybe I'm actually wrong. Nandesuka15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Marsden, your comments about Jay are not acceptable and constitute a personal attack. Rather than deleting them, I'd prefer to give you the opportunity to rewrite them so that they represent fair comment. Given that Jay is running for election or nomination, criticism is obviously acceptable, but it can't cross the line into abuse, and yours does. SlimVirgin16:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't delete my comments from your talk page. I was referring to the ones above, particularly the first paragraph, but really the whole tone of the thing is disrespectful. But the first paragraph is certainly a violation of WP:NPA. SlimVirgin16:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Calling a good editor and admin with a large number of contributions a "troll of the highest order" is clearly quite false and definitely a personal attack. And the rest of the post is disrespectful. It's possible to criticize people, even quite harshly, and maintain a respectful tone. As another admin has told you, this is a nomination or election process regarding what's essentially a thankless task and a lot of hard work, so the least we can do is be respectful of the candidates, even if we strongly disagree with them. Anyway, I don't want to argue about it anymore. I'm going to give you some time to rewrite it yourself, and if you don't, I'll remove it. SlimVirgin16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you restore my original question to Jayjg on his candidacy page, the one that Viriditas removed, as a show of good faith? Marsden17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I recommended it be sent to deletion review.... but, deletion review is not for articles that were voted to be redirected? Hmm, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamonazism never seems to be closed... but at this point I'm not sure why the page has been protected and CltFn hasn't been allowed to challenge a year old consensus for redirect. FCYTravis' actions of protecting it and saying that it would be figured out at Deletion Review and the fact that most people on Deletion Review say it doesn't belong there has me a bit miffed. I agree with travis because the vote seemed to be for deletion. However, since people don't want it on deletion review what is the proper course of action to be taken? I see no problem with ClfFn challenging the status quo after a year... but it now appears he has no avenue to do that. grenグレン02:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
snow-coat.jpg)
