Misplaced Pages

Reagan

I know it was gushy. I am learnin' the youngster on how to properly edit and cite. Your edit was very good by the way. I was telling Happy about how to avoid the NPOV stuff, and aim for brevity. You can look at their talk page to see how I was going about it. Happy doesn't appear to be a vandal at all, just a Reagan-loving youngster (which is kinda terrifying). (S)He is learning pretty fast.Arcayne 06:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Scared

I am glad he doesnt scare you. He chased one editor off wikipedia by threatening to lose them their job and the editor left! So it wasnt a personal attack as much as concern. He doesnt scare me either but then he cant get me sacked, SqueakBox 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Use it for good?

The champagne or the shotgun that just appeared at the top of my edit interface? They're both terribly dangerous. Marskell 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

I would love your opinion on a dispute at Anjem Choudary over the use of terrorist. KazakhPol 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Message

I knew mentioning Netanyahu name and his involvement in Wiki would get some of you here quickly! How come you saw that post after 10 days but only 5 minutes after mentioning Netanyahu name? Kiumars 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kiumars"

SlimVirgin 08:07, 25 February 2007; Can you show me the more recent ones you are talking about please? BTW should you have not notices there is a war going on between the Muslims and Jews and Christians! Bush called it a crusade! Didn’t you see it? Don’t you live in this world? Don’t you read papers or watch TV? What is this “Political Correctness” about? Why it is not applied to other issues? Go to any Turkish/Armenian, Japanese/Chinese, etc article and see what is going on! But mentioning a word about Israel gets everybody’s attention here! Why? Wiki is supposed to reflect the realities but it is wrapping anything that has anything to do with Israel in dark paper and treats as taboo! Kiumars 15:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kiumars"

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA and BLP concerns

I've replied in the question/answer section of my RFA a bit more, but I wanted to follow up here to your comment in your oppose.

I think you're misinterpreting my position on BLP. BLP is not optional. Enforcing BLP is necessary. That said, that enforcement has to keep AGF and CIVIL and the like in mind. We can't let BLP become a shoot-on-sight order, with any dissenters stomped. If someone has a legitimate "but it's not a BLP violation" argument that needs to be listened to appropriately. If there's a claim that material is properly sourced somewhere else in WP, then that should be followed up on.

This particular case with Doc and Jay is unfortunate as an example to be using. In my opinion... Doc started the BLP stuff and I have issues with precisely how (but not that he did it). He didn't start the confrontationalism in the responses, Jay did. If Jay had AGF'ed it would have been fixed nonconfrontationally. If Doc had passed the baton someone else might have followed up Jay's comments about sources on linked pages and defused it that way, or convinced Jay to do that. It took the two of them to tango into the eventual mess. I can't blame Jay for being upset, but he then responded uncivilly and lost his assumption of Doc's good faith, and Doc responded. Two wrongs obviously don't make a right.

The user conduct stuff doesn't trump BLP. But we can't ignore it. Georgewilliamherbert 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Joseph Carlebach article.

Hi SlimVirgin: Please see User talk:IZAK#Joseph Carlebach about the Rabbi Dr. Joseph Carlebach article where I have been contacted by a researcher from the German Wiki with lots of genuine and historical material about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Carlebach, the last Chief Rabbi of Hamburg Altona who was killed by the Nazis with his flock during the Holocaust. Rabbi Joseph Carlebach was probably one of the top rabbis in Germany prior to the Holocaust and was held in high regard by famous rabbinical peers in Europe. Developing this article would be a great thing. Please help. Thank you. IZAK 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to message on User talk:ArglebargleIV

Okay, I understand, and I won't be leaving a impersonal template to a established editor calling the page move vandalism again.

I think, however, my edit summaries -- like this (describing addition of necrophilia charge to AFA article as vandalism) or this (describing oddball page move as vandalism) -- were acceptable, was there a problem with that?

I'm curious, though -- what would you consider an appropriate note to leave for this odd renaming that User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg did, or should it just be reverted and left uncommented upon? I'm not trying to be snotty, just learning and genuinely curious about proper procedure. Thank you. -- ArglebargleIV 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

SLIMVIRGIN, Can you adopt me or help me Please!

Hi SLIMVIRGIN, my name is KALMANI & I need your help. Since I'm fairly new to wikipedia, & since you know the rules & proper way to do things - Would you be willing to help me please & mentor me if you can? I would be very grateful. For instance, there's this one wiki about Chaldeans & it's biased & everytime I try to correct it the user who put the bias info reverts it to his edits & trys to ban me for telling the truth & lies about me. He reports me to his mod friends & tries to get me banned which he did on one occasion here (talk) besides your ban only which was understandable. Thanx by the way. You can see the battle here on the bottom headline Chaldeans are not Assyrians. But the point I'm trying to get across is what is the proper way of doing it & what can I do, Can you help me please? Let me know & I would be in debt to you. Thank you for your time! Many Thanx.--KALMANI (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Stated reason for banning me is my bogus WP:COI

This should be reflect in the policies and guidelines. Two arbcom members have stated this as a reason

• User_talk:Andries#Re:_Banning_policy
• User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_arbcom_case_2:_banning_of_Andries_for_one_year

Andries 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Stated reasons for proposed ban, is at findings of fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, and findings of fact include the statement that I edited the article, Sathya Sai Baba, the article that I was banned from "generally responsible", so of course I started asking why I was banned. Kirill and James wrote that this was to a great extent for my bogus COI. Andries 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not been banned yet, Andries. But I would argue that disruption at WP:BAN and WP:COI is not going to help you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not repeatedly revert there. I deny that I engage in disruption. I only think that readers of the polices and guidelines should be aware of the the decisions of the arbcom in such cases. There should be no discrepancy between the arbcom decisions and the policies and guidelines, though I understand that the polcies and guidelines cannot reflect each exception and decision. Andries 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Homeontherange

Chick, please don't wheel war over this issue. It's being discussed elsewhere. SlimVirgin 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly did not wheel war. It was a redirect to a deleted page; whatever is done with the page, it certainly shouldn't be that, nor would I consider my deletion of it to be a reversal of earlier admin actions. Chick Bowen 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

An admin recently undeleted it after discussion with Jimbo. You deleted it again without discussing it with the admin. Or am I missing something? SlimVirgin 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Having examined the logs, I realize that I made a mistake, although once again it was never my intention to wheel-war. I thought that the underlying revisions had been moved to User:Formeruser-82 and deleted there, and that I was merely deleting a redirect. It was not my intention to delete the underlying revisions, and I've restored them. I still don't like it as it is, but I don't really care--I came upon this by going through broken redirects, not because I have any involvement or interest in this particular case. Chick Bowen 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A fucking "J"

Hi. I noticed your requests to User:Kiumars about Jews and I cannot help but wonder if this is somehow related. Please tell me what you think and what you recommend. There is quite a conflict going on there and he has been very uncivil & has threatened me. Now I am accused of being a fucking "J". I don't know if it is useful to ask him to be civil again. The Behnam 01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Holford

I was concerned that the page had been protected with a slightly bizzare reference to sockpuppets and that no response was forthcoming when a rationale for protection was asked for. I appluad the intervention as the content had gotten biased against Holford but I didn't see any conflict of interest in my unprotection; there were a number of suggstions for constructive edits on the talk page.

The policy contradicts itself on this one, so I've always felt that unless there's an obvious conflict of interest it's fine to unprotect/protect a page your involved in (and it's somethign I've done many times, with no complaints from others involved on the pages); please instruct me if I've understood this incorrectly. --Robdurbar 09:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramadan riots

You may want to take a look at Ramadan riots - violates a lot of policies on word usage. Notice it refers to "Islamic jihad terrorism." KazakhPol 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandt

When the current mess settles out, you might reconsider whether we still need User:SlimVirgin/Brandt. (At this timestamp, current mess = 1 DRV + 1 ArbComm case.) GRBerry 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Stillwater Area High School

RfC doesn't seem to work any more (and anyway, thre's no category into which schools obviously fit); I've tried to attract other eyes to this article by posting both at RfC and at the relevant WikiProject, but so far without success, so I'm reduced to pestering individual editors. Could you have a look at this, and say what you think? An editor is insisting on adding large quantities of school-yearbook-style coverage of the school's sports teams. A third pair of eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

More User:Kiumars

Kiumars is back. See User talk:Kiumars#Your posts. You may need to add block to ban or something like that. The Behnam 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it was already taken care of. The Behnam 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted the latest edits and protected the Talk page. Crum375 23:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilena subpage

Although it makes Ilena look bad, a scratch-pad for gathering information toward an editor violating WP:COI seems to be allowable. I really don't think you should have deleted it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are several issues here, one where Ilena may feel rushed by events stressing her editing and an apparent unstated COI overflowing from real life has actually been involved now for several months, criticizing her editing here at Misplaced Pages. I am the party responsible for developing the evidence and the analysis of the COI situation, I had related emails to a senior admin and a AN volunteer before the weekend and got my first reply today. Dealing with the combined real life and wiki parts of the COI are more complicated than anything I've seen in 15+ months, and I have had some hot subjects to deal with. I will respectfully request that you temporarily unblock Ilena and/or email me.--I'clast 03:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer here rather than spreading things out. I don't know the background or who all the other editors are. All I can see is that Ilena edits very aggressively about issues she's involved in in real life; she tries to out other editors; she constantly assumes bad faith; she violates BLP, one of our most important and most strictly enforced policies, and to make things worse, violates it in relation to people she's been involved in real-life litigation with; she edits poorly in general; she seems not to understand the content policies; and she's rude to other editors. As if to add icing to the cake, she today created an attack page in an effort to out another editor even as the ArbCom was voting to ban her. That's it, I'm afraid, regardless of any other issue. SlimVirgin 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena doesn't always assume many things, she's experienced a lot of it here including BLP problems. WP should want to see the RfArb part wrapped up without prejudical distractions, I have a specific proposal written to address these concerns. I have been looking at the mechanics of the situation awhile, and I can see some remaining problems. I would appreciate your careful consideration, things are not exactly what they seem especially around the COI, and I plan to address *her* basic problem directly. Temporarily is just that, I think the RfArb should go to conclusion without prejudical action because it also affects other editors as well. We have tremendous polarization problems right now, and I am sure the RfArb can help, but this incident may stymie, limit or cloud some part of that forum & rebuilding desparately needed trust & AGF, which is important to resolve and to come to an unfettered, less unblemished consensus. I am sure Ilena is going to "hang", please don't jump the gun, other long term system issues may be more important. Even at funerals, style seems important to the community.--I'clast 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget COI for a moment. She tried to out another editor. That's harassment, and it's blockworthy. Given she was already warned, it's indefblockworthy. You seem to be arguing that, because there may have been bad behavior elsewhere, her bad behavior is okay, but it isn't. People are very tired of her, including several good editors whose work I respect and whose opinions I trust. You asked me to e-mail you, by the way, and I have. SlimVirgin 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Just popping in to fully support this indefblock. "Outing" is indefblockable, regardless of whatever else was going on - and face it, there was a lot else going on. Ilena has shown no interest in learning about Wikipeida at all - her whole attitude has been "I am here on a mission and anyone who tries to get me to be polite or follow policy is the ENEMY and I will insult and be nasty to them!!!" IMO there has always been almost zero chance she would become a positive contributor, and now she has simplified things for us by yet again ignoring a rule she was warned about - basically pissing in our faces. I'm all done with trying to help her. She doesn't want to be helped. She wants to crusade. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re: Daniel J. Barrett

Thanks for removing that from Talk. I'm really tired of cleaning up after her, and the attacks that result when I try to do so. --Ronz 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

Hi! I was wondering if you could explain your revert of my edit to the Misplaced Pages article. Thanks! Alsandair 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

The intelligent design opening discussion has moved to the talk page, so it's probably safe to unprotect. Adam Cuerden 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at this and I really feel full protection was unnecessary - especially given the edit war seems to be one user vs. others. Surely that user would be close to a 3RR violation, in which case a short(ish) block is fair more preferable than preventing all users from editing the page? I'm not going to unprotect but would appreciate your review of this. Thanks SV :) Glen 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Experience has taught that this page generally needs to be kept in semi-protect. It's a subject that draws a lot of quick angry shots without being able to make effectively the arguments for most of the changes on the talk page. ... Kenosis 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)