Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

From the depths of the abyss

I want to thank you again for your very kind, generous words you've written on Wally's talk page. I greatly appreciate all your support! Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Prussian_Holocaust

You might be interested in the above VfD: the term is used by German right-extremists in a very similar manner to Bombing of Dresden in World War II, that is, it is used to imply a moral equivalence between what Germany suffered at the hands of the Allies and what the Nazi state did to the Jews. --- Charles Stewart 10:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Original research in Israeli West Bank barrier

I'm having difficulty getting the notion of original research across to an editor in the Israeli West Bank barrier article; would you be able to help out? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My nomination

Thank you for the kind words! That means a lot coming from you, about whom I would say much the same thing, only more so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And it seems the community agrees with you; I leave myself scratching my head wondering where I've poked my head in that's attracted such notice! Thank you for your kind words of support; I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Overthrowing the American government

oooh, seeing your link on El_C's page was so tingly weird! I was just doing some genealogy research earlier today and noted a couple of interesting questions on the immigration ship manifest for each passenger: 22. Whether a polygamist. 23. Whether an anarchist. 24. Whether a person who believes in or advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or all forms of law, etc. How serendipitous! --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 02:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Getting around the admins and users

Hi, Slim. I'm just getting out a bit more; smelling the roses; seeing the leaves fall; taking the temperature; meeting the passers-by... and their dogs. I guess that I should also leave a trail a bit more, as you suggested. :-) Peter Ellis 06:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) And, yes, I need to engage the brain, too.

I hate to be involved in meta-issues, truly, but I feel sufficiently moved to ask you to reconsider your vote for Peter. Why is it a virtue to be involved on others' talk pages? For me, the ideal editor is one who edits, who creates, who makes a great encyclopaedia! Adminship is just a couple of extra buttons. Why deny them to a guy who is pursuing the goal faithfully?Grace Note 13:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gender

Hiya Slim, well, you had good reason not to realize it before, I've only just come out! :-) I like my wikianonymity, so without really thinking about it I shielded it as much as possible, to the point of picking a username that suggests a 15-year-old male anime fan, just about the last thing I am. But it began to feel a little odd to be referred to as "he" all the time, and the people on IRC were asking questions, and, well, recently, it just struck me: "What was I doing that for, again?" Nice meeting you, too, I didn't know about you either (because why wouldn't other people have kook usernames like me?) until I saw a message from you on the mailing list a few days ago! What a high-profile user you've become since we first met: I see traces of the good work you do all over the place, not to mention the ticker-tape parade of your admin vote...! :-) --Bish|Bosh 08:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon

No apology needed, but accepted anyway. You were (justifiably) upset by him, and can hardly be blamed for that. His response to my question didn't really get us anywhere (just re-emphasising what we already agreed upon), but it might have done. In any case, I've been so distracted by SS's shenanigans over at Golliwogg, among other things, that I'd pretty well forgotten about Chamaeleon. I'll have to check how his Admin request is going. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Same problem, new chapter

I thought that all was quiet, but no, the same User that I brought to your attention is now becoming a problem once again for the same reasons as before. Please take a look at my last note on Talk:Miranda v. Arizona for details. Thanks. MPLX/MH 05:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. That is the problem. The problem editor has expressed that certain articles which had been previously edited under the orginal account are in so many words the property of this person who is the immediate and final decision maker upon what is allowed in the article and what is not. This in turn means that the problem user can gut chunks of text that the user does not like. If it looks like the user will not get away with it then the user makes spoilt child sort of comments about Wikipedia. I don't like reverts (except in the case of one-off obvious vandals who hit and run), because they quickly become revert wars which is a waste of time. So what's to do? Just accept the takeover and move on somewhere else because the "bully" claims the schoolyard? MPLX/MH 12:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

revert

i don't quite understand what my attempted revert did to your user page.?? Xtra 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: Thanks

Yeah n/p. Sorry but i didn't take note of what they did. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, how intresting. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alasdair MacIntyre

Thanks for your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust. Wrt. your application of your patent nonsense removal technique to Alasdair Macintyre, it's had the side effect of changing a true claim into a false one: what was:

He is a key figure in the modern resurgence of interest in virtue ethics,...

became:

He is a key figure in the recent surge of interest in moral philosophy,...

Do be careful with substituting less known terms for more known terms; it's not always truth-preserving! I will correct the above sentence. --- Charles Stewart 18:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

D'oh: in a fit of thougtlessness I moved this article -- I'd be grateful if you could use your super-powers to reverse this mistaken change of spelling --- Charles Stewart 19:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. My impression is that, while virtue ethics has been on the rise, and MacIntyre is one of a small handful of ethicists influential outside philosophy, overall the subject, at least in its analytic form, is not doing well, which was not the case 30 years ago, when there was real excitement about sociological foundations for ethics (think of reception then of the work then of Rawls & Nozick). Perhaps MacIntyre, together with Williams, is better seens as one of the agents of doom of the subject as a whole... --- Charles Stewart 07:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm baaack, again!

I'm ba-a-ack, again, and sitting on my chair! Fortunately, the weather in VA was just perfect, and I got to spend a lot of time outdoors, t'was so nice. A lot was going on everyday & night, but somehow with all that I still managed to start rereading John Womack, Jr. 's seminal Zapata and the Mexican Revolution (the book which, writing for the New York Review of Books, Ernest R. May called, "the best piece of narrative history that has been written about modern Latin America in any language," and Carlos Fuentes, "a feat of historical writing"), and began reading Robert Hamburger's Real Ultimate Power: the official ninja book — and also somehow, I highly recommend both! I do have a lot to catch up on on several fronts, it looks a little daunting, but hopefuly... you know... Real Ultimate Power! El_C 01:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advice on User_talk: page protocol, please

Okay, Slim, I need advice, please. See User_talk:Peter_Ellis#The vote. Cheers, Peter Ellis 03:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debate at Israeli-Palestinian history denial

I'm having a debate about content at Israeli-Palestinian history denial; would you be able to comment? It would be greatly appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help!

You might not want to get involved in yet another battle with creationist editors who simply refuse to answer straight questions, but moan and whine about how unfair it all is, and how biassed we all are — but we could need another clear head at Talk:Teach the Controversy. There's one old friend, and a familiar-sounding new User (ne on me, anyway); the former spins pointless webs of words in an attempt to avoid saying anything useful, the other does little more than whine about the unfairness. The page has been protected until agreement can be reached, but at this rate I'll be drawing my pension before it's unprotected. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

At Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, you wrote Anyway, I've used another program and I've now managed to see what's written on the star. It isn't sheriff.

What program did you use and what was that word? And are you going to get a refund on that program? Because this image (Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png) indicates your program doesn't work very well. Any comments? --Calton | Talk 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved either. On the other hand, you made an explicit and firm statement of a fact -- which turned out to be flat wrong. I, for one, think an explanation is called for. What program did you use to reveal something not in the picture and how did it lead to this misinterpretation? What was this word that you say it said? --Calton | Talk 03:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, for an administrator, you're not showing a great deal of integrity here. --Calton | Talk 21:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't question my integrity. That isn't fair, and it's the kind of personal abuse.... It's perfectly fair to question your integrity because it IS in question. What's in question is a statement of FACT -- verifiable fact. You were wrong about that fact -- verifiably wrong -- and hand-waving about "he-said-she-said" doesn't change that. You've deleted questions about it, resorted to false equivalencies, and tried deflecting questions about it by characterizing them as personal attacks -- all to avoid what started out as a simple request for the source of your misinformation. So to lay it out simply:

1) How did you come to believe that the badge in the picture said something other than "SHERIFF" to the point of stating it as a firm fact? Be specific.

2) What was the word you thought was on the badge?

Meta-question:

3) The statement that I made was not, in my view, flat wrong; and in your view, it was. How can your statement possibly characterized as any sort of matter of opinion?

--Calton | Talk 01:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An inspirational response

Without getting all emotional here, I just wanted to personally thank you for your suggestion to contact Dr Zen. His response was an inspirational one which validated what you said earlier— I now understand his reasoning. It's a damn shame we ever lost him, not to mention the brilliant others which have been silenced. —RaD Man (talk) 09:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing links and exploring talk

SlimVirgin wrote: Hi Ben, the link to the book that you've added to several articles, can you say more about what that is, please? It looks a little like a personal website/personal essay. Has the book been published? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail message, but I don't see how I can use talk to reference your comment in making a reply -- an artifact of my ignorance. I appeciate your gentle tone, insofar as you are a knighted defender against spammers, vandals and propagandists -- yet are giving this newbie the benefit of the doubt. I don't know your (or Wikipedia) standards for adding external links. I sincerely believe the link I added is very authoritative, although I wrote it myself and it is a link to a book on my website that has never been published in paper form. Ben Best 03:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I fill this one? Ben, it dosen't need to be published in print necessarily (though that helps wrt indicating its notability), but it does need to be well-known. That you are the author is somewhat problematic (in terms of the insertions being understood as self-promotion), but the key issue, for now, is to establish the work's notability. Otherwise, it cannot be mentioned on the article namespace, I'm afraid. Not a comment on the actual work (which I have yet to read or even glance at). El_C 05:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cited by an MP

Hey, I see that the page you linked to, London MEP urges investigation of Jeremiah Duggan's death, an MP's blog, lists our own article, Jeremiah_Duggan, as a reference. Wow, now that's a great endorsement of Wikipedia's work (mostly your work really). While of course we are not here to advocate, sometimes the simple NPOV facts speak for themselves. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

External links, use of talk

Thank you, SlimVirgin, for your explanations of talk. I only wish that the Wikipedia help pages were more clear on the subject. Perhaps you could rectify that better than I, considering your greater knowledge. I do agree that the context of the dialog should be preserved -- referring to the comments replied to. Perhaps there is no good solution to this within the current context of Wikipedia talk. Concerning external links, I admit to self-promotion. I do believe that what I have to offer is highly informative material not readily available elsewhere, but of course I am biased. And of course it would be asking a great deal to be expecting editors to read volumes of material for every poster who wants to add external links. I will make no more trouble about this. Ben Best 11:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your thanks

You are very welcome. Your decency and fairness have already made my short stay here positive. It's only the positive people who make doing this worthwhile, so I appreciate them. Grace Note 11:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Block conflicts

Don't worry; I was wary too of changing things I didn't really understand. And "install" was probably a poor choice of words on my part as all it involves is editing a page and copying and pasting something in. Based on your comments, I assume that you do want it, so I've taken the liberty of "installing" it for you. If you don't like it, feel free to delete it or tell me and I'll delete it. All it does is add a "block" and "blocklog" tab to user and user talk pages. The block tab brings you to the blocking screen with the username or IP address already filled in; the blocklog tab shows you the blocking history for that username or IP address. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure why you reverted Human [2], as it looks like the anonymous user added a closing parenthesis. I'll put it back in. If I'm missing something, feel free to take it back out. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You would see the tabs any time you were looking at a user page or user talk page. They appear on the top right next to the "watch" tab. I assume you are using the (default) monobook skin; if not, it won't work. Also, you may require your browser cache to be cleared, either the next time you restart or by using control-shift-R to do a forced reload. Wait and see; if they don't show up, not a big deal: I'll just delete the page then. Regarding the Human revert, I believe you reverted the edit after the one you meant to revert ([3]). Anyway, it's all fixed now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's no problem. I didn't mean to keep harping on it but they were so useful to me and I was sure you would like them too. I'm glad it's all worked out now. See you around RC patrol! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moshe Marzouk

I'm having a debate on the use of the word "terrorist" at Moshe Marzouk; care to give your opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know I wasn't invited but I added my 2c too. Personally, I feel we should avoid the word "terrorist" wherever we can. If we have described neutrally what the bombings were, we need not judge them. This applies to attacks by either side in this conflict. I have been convinced that this sort of viewpoint is the only real way forward on this issue (and the only hope to reconcile the two opposing camps) by SlimVirgin, who correctly notes that carefully sourced, carefully neutral statements are how we should build contention out of these articles. Grace Note 10:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is in part, I think, that there's a disagreement over whether the term 'terrorist' is a judgement or a description. I take it to be a description, though it's true that I don't think that any instance of terrorism can be morally defended. The initial problem, in fact, was that no-one involved in the debate did deny that 'terrorism' was an accurate description; Jayjg simply said that it shouldn't be used anyway.

A further problem is that the word 'terorism' is used in Wikipedia articles to describe events, not merely in reports of what people have said about them. Not to use it in an article like Moshe Marzouk, therefore, appears to make a statement. If the word were never used, I'd not complain, but we can't look at each article in isolation — readers will see the discrepancy, and draw conclusions about our neutrality. I'd rather that didn't happen. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to agree to differ over whether the term is a judgement or a description. I think it is generally the former: we all know only the other side uses terrorism. Whether you and I believe it is a judgement or not is not the issue. Some believe it is and that view is what must be considered and accommodated. It's always helpful to remind ourselves that we are not simply applying our views to these questions. (When we do just do that, we have massive edit wars, because our views conflict.)

Where it has been used to describe events, it's generally been a battleground on WP. This is, naturally, particularly so for Israel-Palestine.

Where I do very much agree with you is that we ought not to be inconsistent. That's what I'm urging.

Ideally, we would have agreement over a definition of terrorism and would use it according to that definition wherever it's appropriate. Unfortunately, what definition you accept is very much political. In the Israel-Palestine case, one side very much wants to define terrorism as nonstate actions against civilians and the other very much as any action against civilians (to omit some of the other elements of the definition).

If we accept that the ideal is not achievable, I think we have to consider the next best approach: do not use the word unless we are quoting someone. Grace Note 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Signing post

Sorry about that. Yeah, i need to get to a habit of signing my post. I don't do it knowingly, for real gathima 21:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

I wondered if you could confirm the copyright and the source for the following images:

• Image:PAClipper.jpg
• Image:PAMemorialstone.jpg
• Image:PAMegrahiincourt.jpg
• Image:PAWantedposters.jpg
• Image:PABombeat3.jpg
• Image:PA103reconstruction3.jpg
• Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg

Cheers, Burgundavia 08:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • Generally, I am looking for a specific source, generally a website or a book reference. Hope this clears it up. Burgundavia 09:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I will do so, but a specific source is still required for all images. Someone must have taken them, and saying you can't find the source doesn't stand up in the court of law. (Not that WP is, but if we always cover our bases, we will stay out of one.) Burgundavia 09:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

You might sometimes think "why don't I steer clear of any article that's at all controversial? Wouldn't that make editing so much less stressful?" Well, to day I started wikifying dates and section headings on a set of articles devoted to lists of ministers in Australian Commonwealth ministries 1901-2004; my first attempts were reverted, and I received a very snappy message saying that they shouldn't be wikified because they were just lists. I mean, wikifying lists of obscure Australian politicians from the thirties, and I get reverted? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A minor request

Slim,

I boobed up and accidentally posted a comment to a non-existent page's talk rather than the user's talk page, as I had intended. Could you perchance delete the page , as it quite obviously should not be there! Thanks in advance and apologies for the inconvenience. Wally 22:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle! Wally 23:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Human

Your right, this link is the one I ment to provide. The reference to the soul wasn't so vital to me as the movement from the emphasis on creationism to one of emphasis on the diversity in supernatural concepts and postulated entities. Sorry to be discussing this here, but Talk:Human is pretty hectic ;) Sam Spade 23:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Careful Dysprosia 07:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for heading off another idiot. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom at Arab-Israeli conflict

User:Irishpunktom insists that the well-cited information you brought from Benny Morris at Arab-Israeli conflict needs to be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, while you're here, would you mind taking a look at the anonymous deletions on David Irving? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Sorry, we seem to be having a misunderstanding here. Those images are only public domain if they were taken by the US gov. They are crown copyright if taken by the Canadian or UK gov. If anybody else took them, they are copyrighted. Therefor, I am seeking to verify that they wore by looking for a specific website or publication they came out of. Remember, there is very little new public domain images/etc. in the world today due to automatic copyright and long terms of copyright. Hopefully this clears up the confusion. Sorry, for all this. Burgundavia 06:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• No problem, more important to find to just out. Even you need anything further, don't hesitate to contact me. Burgundavia 07:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:24.30.67.158

Hi there! This is my second attempt at writing this - I wrote it all, then lost it by a careless hitting of the wrong key:-( Thank you for contacting me regarding my blocking of User:24.30.67.158 and his alias/accomplice . What to do with such vandals is more of an art than a science and I don't claim to have all the answers, but factors to be taken into account include the nature and extent of the offence, the frequency of it, and the consequences of imposing a block as opposed to the consequences of not imposing one.

Indefinite and long-term blocks are considered an extreme step and are not to be taken lightly. Today's case was an example of a contributor who was not mistaken, but malicious, and whose sole identifiable purpose on Wikipedia was to make trouble. All of his edits were either vandalism or hate speech. Wikipedia needs to take a zero-tolerance policy towards such abusers, both because of the offence caused to decent contributors (Jewish and otherwise) and because of the potential damage to Wikipedia's reputation. (For both reasons, I am considering removing his comments from talk pages). I certainly wouldn't impose an indefinite block for an isolated outburst or for a one-off instance of unacceptable behaviour. This particular user's behaviour, however, fits a pattern that I've seen before, and it needs to be nipped in the bud before it develops into something more serious. Extreme abuse calls for extreme measures.

True, innocent users can be affected by blocks. This has happened to me on a couple of occasions, so I know what it's like. IP addresses might belong to a public library or an internet café, or might be shared by two or more individuals living in close proximity and using the same ISP. That shouldn't be a major problem, however. I have enabled my e-mail address, as have most administrators, so unintended victims of blocking can contact a sysop at any time. In such cases, we just have to cancel the block and HOPE that it has lasted long enough to cause the culprit to lose interest. It usually works.

I'm glad you're part of the team. It is users like you who help to keep Wikipedia a decent place. It's been a pleasure meeting you. David Cannon 12:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm just glad someone else took the action -- I was a little too involved, perhaps, and didn't consider well enough the ramifications of an indefinite ban on an IP address. However, David did consider them -- and then took the same action I had. It's so funny when Nazis whine about "freedom of speech." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to merge articles

Hi. I have seen some of your work on other pages, and you seem like a reasonable person. There is a proposal to merge the Teach the Controversy page into the Discovery Institute page. This seems to be driven at least in part by a dislike for the movement and policy, not based on neutral application of Wiki policy on merging (which is to avoid duplicate articles). I think both are legitimate separate topics according to Wiki policy, and to merge them would be to suppress a topic that some don't like. Could you take a look and perhaps bring a neutral perspective? Thanks. --VorpalBlade 14:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

I don't know if I helped, or muddied the waters further. Have you found anything about Habermas and my good friend Ludders? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)