User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2

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 [1]

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.— Robert Frost And in case 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.— Jorge Luis Borges Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Omura Entry Efforts Appreciation My appreciation for your efforts and good offices in re this. The entry seems to me fine, indeed, at this point. For my part, many thanks. Fucyfre 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, thanks for your work in cleaning up a touchy issue. -Will Beback 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Personal attacks It's hard not to when Will Beback harrasses me and I make a sincere effort to resolve our problems and he keeps ignoring me while trying to get me banned. He is committing slander and he ignores all of the positive edits I make. He cherry picks my edits and takes them out of context to make me look bad without even letting me defend myself. If that is how you want to operate wikipedia go ahead but it's not fair. I would be happy to do whatever is necessary to resolve this if you will let me. Jerry Jones 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 3RR I just made my 3rd and last revert on Template:WPArticle, in view of your warning you might want to consider that you yourself have already made 3 reverts now beforehand. --Col. Hauler 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) SV, I think the explicated examples of personal attack should remain. If you still wish to remove it I ask you discuss it with me first on the Talk page there. That portion really says nothing new. It merely gives explicit examples in line with sub-heading/bullet there. We live in a dumbed-down society, and peole need cold, stark examples. --Diligens 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Unexplained revert I noticed that you reverted some text I posted to WP:3RR [2], but I don't see any place where a reason was stated. The text did not constitute vandalism, so a reason would normally be given. I think it's entirely fair to ask you why you did this. Al 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Another unexplained revert Why do you insist on removing factual and supported information from the Robin Webb article without discussing it? --SpinyNorman 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Your BAYT work Thank you for the good work. Crum375 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) On the Jews and Their Lies Slim, I just got through proposing a move for this page when I saw that you were the one who performed it. Is there something I'm missing here? There doesn't appear to be any reason to disambiguate the title, and even if some other work were to exist, it would be substantially less notable and probably derivitive. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Perhaps the excerpts could be merged with the original article. I think that the excerpts article was made because of the length. Merger could avoid complete deletion. --Drboisclair 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) OK, I guess I see the reason behind that. But at the same time I feel that its inappropriate to parenthetically lengthen titles of pages in the absence of disambiguation. I have seen other examples of across Wikipedia, which inevitably don't work. American terrorism (term) is the most recent example of this that I can remember. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't endorse things that we write about; but explicitly attempting to make clear that we don't endorse certain things is equally problematic. Also, I think the capitalization and the old-fangle "On..." makes clear that its a book title rather than an article about the Jews and their lies. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Just so you don't get confused, I think Drboisclair is commenting on the "exerpts" subarticle for that same page, not the move. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for cleaning up my archiving bobble on Talk:Juan Cole. I would have gotten there eventually, but it was nice to have help. Also, thanks for your clear and very readable comments on the policies and appropriate behavior. --William Pietri 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC) I would like to emphasise some of my closest friends are Jews, most of them Sephards. But I'm aware most people share the Ashkenazi point of view. Foreigner 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC) CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin Be excellent May 20 AFDs I was closing some May 20 AFDs and came across a group of them you speedy kept, despite some of them having consensus to delete at the time of speedy keeping (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federation of Zionist Youth for one; the others were mainly no consensus). Could I inquire why? And, by the way, one you closed as speedy keep is currently up for a 2nd AFD (I assume DRV should have been undertaken, or maybe it was and sent to AFD again, I don't know). Cheers, NSLE (T+C) at 04:51 UTC (2006-05-25) My apologies, upon further investigation I've found the thread regarding this at the noticeboard. Cheers, NSLE (T+C) at 04:53 UTC (2006-05-25) Oh, no.... not again Hello. Colonel Marksman here. I'm here to ask from an Admin. about NPOV and POV. (Sigh, I wonder how many times you answered these questions!) You see... *Blaw, blaw, blaw,* and then because... *babble, babble, babble*.... please understand that... *yawn*.... for my conclusion for... *tsk, tsk.* thank you for your time. -- (Replies I'm getting) Well kid, just go #### yourself ok? You have no clue what you're talking about. (Continues fighting) :( Just make it clear to me Wikipedia's outlook on the differences on POV vs. opinion (what's the difference?). As someone explained it, "Do you want to say the glass is half full, or half empty?" But something else didn't make sense to me. Why not just state the facts? I'm yet to come across an encylopedia that does any more than that. Also, is anything ever actually "implied" in any Wikipedia policy? I guess, for everything I'm trying to say in a nutshell. I'm not asking you to fight my battles, and I'm not asking you questions because I'm a child in need of an adult (I'm not even asking you to say anything in the discussion). I'm asking because I'm concerned and all anyone around me does is the above example. It concerns me that NPOV is constituted as simply "balancing the POVs". (E.g. So-and-so says the glass is half full, but so-and-so says the glass is half empty... why not just say, "The glass is 50% filled with liquid" and avoid everything?) Something tells me Wikipedia tried that once and it didn't work. (Only stating the facts.) Colonel Marksman 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Put briefly, it's because people don't agree on what the facts are. o.0 ... I'm terribly sorry, but that is never the issue I ever come across. The issues I always see in any arguement (thus far) is not whether or not so-and-so is true or such-and-such is true or it really did happen, but rather, inserting the sources way of putting that truth (POV). In the Hitler page for example: the arguement is that "this source says this about Hitler's religion". "Oh yeah? THIS source says this!" and worst of them all: "You want to take out my source because it hurts your personal POV, and you suck because of that." -- Most of this is about deciding Hitler's religion. In trying to help at one point by saying, "Hitler's religion was never of any importance. This is the first article of Hitler I read saying anything about his religion. Its only a few paragraphs... can we take it out?" -- "NO! We must keep up controversy about this, and we must keep arguing about it because his religion was what influenced his actions." (My look on it) My question is, why is anyone arguing about it? Just state the facts with a reliable source, ignore any personal opinions, and on subjects that require certain information a POV, fall back on the NPOV. (E.g. in my example about sources stating Blacks are whores screwing America, that's not really any necessary information) In order: WP:NOR, WP:V, then WP:NPOV I doubt it's the disagreement on what the facts are (never at all), it's who said the facts and how they word it. Colonel Marksman 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) For laudable work The Original Barnstar For your laudable concern for good editing and sourcing and your tireless efforts toward the same I award you the Original Barnstar--Drboisclair 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Can we bring the discussion on the village pump to an end? Hi Slimvirgin, can I request that you help me put an end to the argument about Arniep on the village pump? I do not think anything is gained from further debate. I have told Arniep, in my capacity as an admin, that his assumptions/generalizations are not acceptable whether he believes there ok or not. I would like to request, strongly, that the argument not continue. -- SCZenz 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Or, at least, that it not continue on the village pump; if you feel it's useful, take it up with him on his user page. -- SCZenz 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Slim, saying that much of the Israeli media has distorted information on Rachel Corrie does not make someone strongly anti Israel. Arniep 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Aquirata Just to be clear, User:Aquirata (who has indeed enormously gotten under my skin) has not once at this pointedited the Wiki space. He is good faith near as I can tell--talkitive and verbose, but good faith. Did want to make that clear given that you brought up his editing experience. He may be tying up NPOV talk at the present but there's nothing that says he can't. And it's not as if NPOV doesn't need a tweak or twenty... Marskell 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Philip Sandifer I deleted the article once; please see Jayjg's page for my explanation. Demi T/C 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Perhaps you can tell me what you find unclear then, since "An AFD would result in a huge battle and many nonconstructive interactions, for almost no value to the encyclopedia." pretty much sums it up for me. And please verify in the deletion log that I deleted the article once, before you say again that I deleted it twice. Thanks! Demi T/C 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC) SlimVirgin, you could and should have discussed this with AdamBishop before restoring. This shows extreme hypocrisy. Demi T/C 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Keep this page deleted. For legal and tactical reasons, it is quite unwise to supply any information at this point in time. Kim Bruning 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Argh, well, whatever we think of it, SPUIs putting it on DRV has killed it dead. Kim Bruning 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Infobox Idea Hi Slim, I'm testing out an idea. One thing struck me. We have many long and extremely good articles. But many readers just come to the site to glance at articles and won't read the full text. I'm testing out the idea of adding in a summary box, called an infobox synopsis, containing a two or three line basic summary, in articles, to see if they work. For example: Synopsis of the article SlimVirgin SlimVirgin is a long term contributor and administrator on Wikipedia, who contributes widely to articles. I've placed it on a handful of articles as a test, including Bertie Ahern. Any opinion? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC) juan cole i"ve copied some discussion for your interest Some pages on controversial subjects, like Talk:Evolution, explicitly send people elsewhere to discuss the topic rather than the article, perhaps that's a good idea here. Personally, I'm staying out of editing the article itself; I've just dropped by to put out enough of the flames that this article gets unlocked and editing proceeds as normal. I do agree that it seems like there is a consensus on Sandbox/1, so perhaps a couple of the regular participants should ask an admin to unlock the pages. --William Pietri 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Okay, maybe we should discuss the topic elsewhere. As for the apparent consensus on sandbox/1, I really don't know how to ask an admin to change the damn page finally. It's like we're all sitting at the dinner table looking at each other, waiting for someone to start eating. Greg Kuperberg 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC) It seems the discussion went off topic in this section. I unprotected Juan Cole/sandbox/1. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Great, thanks. But what I meant by "the damn page" was not sandbox/1, but the actual Juan Cole page, the one that was locked weeks ago. Almost everyone here agrees that sandbox/1 should or could replace it, but we plebes cannot do it. Greg Kuperberg 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC) I thought William was an administrator but if he's not and if Humus is not willing to take the action why not put a request on SlimV's talk page to pull down what's there for the Juan Article and put up Sandbox1 take CAre!--Will314159 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] So what's the deal? It appears there was consensus to replace the protected page with the stripped down sandbox page but keep it protected. That hasn't happened yet. It's also not clear what sandbox page new additions should be made to. Can anyone clarify whether we are moving forward here or not? Thanks.--csloat 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Take Care!--Will314159 00:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) blp/defamation templates SV, I noticed you were adding template:blp to talk pages and I know you've been involved with developing that protocol, so I'm wondering if you can help me. I'd like to find a template I can use to put on user talk pages to warn against placing defamatory material in articles. However template:defwarn is so strongly-worded that I'm reluctant to use it in many cases. I'm thinking there should be a message that is shorter and less dramatic for instances which are not serious, such as kids who may not even realize that a "free encyclopedia" does not mean they can use it to call their teacher "fatso". Essentially a nice note saying that real people have real feelings, that we only want verifiable information, and that writing false derogatory things about living people can have consequences. If there isn't usch a template, can we write one? Cheers, -Will Beback 08:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Image Tagging for Image:Hizb1.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Hizb1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Appeal of Saladin1970 to Arbcom Saladin has requested to appeal his indefinite block to Arbcom. I have entered his plea on his behalf at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (making no judgement as to its legitimacy) and have named you as a party in the request. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Partnership minyan discussions Hi Slim: You may be interested in the comments and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Self-promotion concerning the Partnership minyan article, and the edits by User:Shirahadasha, for example, User:TShilo12 reports below, Best wishes, IZAK 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Argh. This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz). In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006. It was Anystat (talk · contribs) along with 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs) who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, Shirahadasha (talk · contribs), and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs). My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat". Tomertalk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Hello, would appreciate your commenting here. Complete discussion (so far) is below. My concern is that the basic thrust -- I've done nothing but links to Shira Hadasha, it's one minor minyan and doesn't deserve an article, I've somehow done something sneaky -- isn't factually true, and there seems to be much POV gnashing of teeth about the evils of feminism etc. --Shirahadasha 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) is self-promoting a particular format of tefilla as practiced by, no surprise, a minyan in J'lem called Shira Hadasha. While no doubt there will be plenty of people fascinated by this development, it is still quite a small-scale thing. Could some others have a look at Shira Hadasha and the innovatively titled Partnership Minyan, and see if they can be merged? My personal view is that this amounts to revisionism for political reasons (feminism). I'm not personally aware of Orthodox critics of this development, but I doubt this has gone unnoticed in Israel's Haredi circles. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) User:Shirahadasha contributions do not seem like those of a new editor, but of some who has experience with Wikipedia. Perhaps there were edits as an anon, or under a different name. I believe that an admin can look into things like that. Jon513 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Oh, I'm not too concerned about sockpuppetry or something. Some people edit as anons for months before finally registering. I'm more concerned about a push to have the Shira Hadasha view pushed on multiple pages while it is a very small development. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Argh. This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz). In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006. It was Anystat (talk · contribs) along with 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs) who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, Shirahadasha (talk · contribs), and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs). My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat". Tomertalk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Chodesh Tov everybody! I'd invite folks on this board to take a closer look at both my edits and my articles. If you take a look you'll find the majority of articles I've edited don't deal with particular forms of tefilla at all. Take a look at the history of Passover, Passover Seder, Korbanot, Birkat Hamazon, List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings, Amidah, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Avi Weiss, Zugot, and much more. Some of the content may be controversial, but there's nothing like self-promotion going on here, no irrelevant content, no spurious links, no refusals to participate in discussions, no simple pushing. Tomer is correct: I made a decision to separate professional and religious edits. The reasons why are obvious. There's nothing nefarious about it. I've forgotten to sign on at times, but I haven't presented myself as multiple personalities in the same place. FYI I've also used several computers, some of which were shared. As to the Shira Hadasha and Partnership minyan articles, given acknowledgment that the stuff is notable even in "Israel's Haredi circles", and given the sources proving notability (listing minyanim, conferences, etc. quotes by leading OU and YU figures, etc.), I'm not sure I understand why there's a problem. SlimVirgin and others have added articles to Wikipedia's collection on Orthodoxy and feminism including articles on the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, Blu Greenberg, and Jewish feminism. There's enough going on for this to be notable. One's certainly entitled to think the whole shebang is a bad thing, "revisionism", "political", whatever. But what's personal POV disagreement with an article's subject-matter got to do with labels like "self-promotion"? See Personal attacks#consequences. --Shirahadasha 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) For your work The Barnstar of Diligence For demonstrating calmness, resolve, and dedication to editorial excellence in the face of controversy and abuse, I, Xoloz, award SlimVirgin this well-deserved Barnstar of Diligence. Xoloz 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Hello Dakota ~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! Jack Hensley videos Why did you remove the Jack Hensley videos? If the links no longer worked, that's okay. But if it is because you are personally offended by the content, than it's not okay and they must be placed back. The videos are technically primary sources and historical evidence. WhisperToMe 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Jimmy Wales SlimVirgin, you might want to read the secion above the ones that you added, I am in a discussion there already with the person who insists to keep it in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC) I think you did a good job on the article! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Bernard Lewis Wilson College and the Polytechnic may be some pre-university schools, which may even no longer exist, but nobody knows that for sure, except perhaps Mr. Lewis himself. For now I've removed any references to them so as not to mislead the readers. Pecher Talk 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Also, thanks for the fair use rationale. Pecher Talk 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Smiles I am glad you liked [3] the smiley --Dakota ~ 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Request for adminship I wanted to alert you to an adminship application I've filed. Given our disagreement that night, I figured it would be fair to alert you to give you an opportunity to vote on this, even if indeed your vote is an oppose. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Policy question I have added a request for clarification on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on whether it is acceptable to blank your own talk page. I am notifying you because I (believe I) have specifically seen you take a stand in the past that it is acceptable. However, I have seen many other admins say it is NOT acceptable. I'm trying to get an unambiguous determination one way or another. Anyway, I thought you may want to weigh in on the issue. To be clear, we are not in conflict. My problem is that I do not know what Wikipedia policy is. If official policy is to allow such blanking, that's fine with me. --Yamla 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Regarding Mistress Selina Kyle reblock Dear SlimVirgin: I am writing in regard to your reversal of Linuxbeak's mentorship unblocking of Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs). Although I strongly respect your desire towards wishing adequate community consensus prior to permitting an unblock of this user, due to charges of misconduct previously levelled and indeed justified by user contributions, I do feel that there would be no adverse consequence to permitting a mentorship unblock of either MSK or, indeed, Blu Aardvark, provided the users' actions are watched with adequate attention and that the users are expeditiously reblocked should a user renege upon the conditions of their mentorship agreement. I would ask you to please reverse your re-blocking and permit MSK perhaps a final mentorship chance. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC) SlimVirgin, I second NicholasTurnbull's comments and am surprised that you stated that MSK "was never a useful contributor", which is extremely unfair and untrue. wikipediatrix 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA! We are here to build an encyclopedia! Hi Slim (or is it "Ms. Virgin"?? GRIN!), and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Support from senior editors such as yourself is especially gratifying, and I'll do everything in my power to live up to the trust you've placed in me. Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?... Discovered something On a template discussion, someone pointed out to me that Image:Anime by nima.jpg is actually fanart/a tracing of "a character from some Anime series". This is protected by copyright; see [4] and so forth. I therefore had to reclassify it as fair use, so (unfortunately) you'll have to remove it from your userpage. Ashibaka tock 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC) I just wanted you to know that I really have nothing against you and there is no reason for me to hold a grudge against you. I don't know you in real life. I have no wish to disrupt the encyclopedia. You are not interfering with anything I do. I'm sorry if I caused you anguish. We're just two strangers on the Internet, and we can disagree or agree, but in the end we're here for the same purpose. Peace. Ashibaka tock 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Don't go You only let the trolls and bullies win by leaving. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Please don't.--Dakota ~ 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Please don't go... if only because i will not have anyone to nominate me for RfA otherwise :( Rockpocket 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) I would like to reassure you that I, and I believe a majority of the ArbCom if not in fact all of us, do NOT welcome MSK or BluAardvark back to Wikipedia; in fact, quite the reverse. I believe those who do are a tiny percentage of Wikipedia's admins, let alone the organisation itself inasmuch as such exists. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC) No, no, no! Slim, stay with us! We've lost one of the very nicest admins in the last few days — we can't afford to lose another of them. AnnH ♫ 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Dear Slim, it would be so sad for you to leave. Even though we haven't seen eye to eye all the time--to understate matters--I have learned very much from you. You are a learned editor for whom I have the utmost respect. Please do not leave us we need you. --Drboisclair 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC) File:Hand with thumbs down.jpg Don't let the trolls win, you're making it too easy for them. Be difficult. — May. 29, '06 [10:51] <freak|talk> Don't go, if you do it would be one of the worst things to happen to wikipedia Jaranda wat's sup 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Even so I do trust linuxbeak implicitly. I hope we can discuss on skype or so sometime soon. Kim Bruning 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Take a break Take a break, but don't go away. :-) Kim Bruning 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) I'm feeling less nonconfrontational and smiley prone about this. Don't let it be a victory for questionable Wikipedia factions set out to harass, with their highly suspect methods of action and "communication." Some people are going to answer for this. Time for accountability and sorting out the complicit from the complacent. El_C 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC) This is rich coming from El_C aka Pavel Novak, the bourgeois who roleplays a progressive. -Dna4salE 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Ooh, I'm shaken. It's all about being rich or serving the rich for your type. Who is "Pavel Novak" and whose sockpuppet are you? The dark forces of the reaction hover over you like a shadow. El_C 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Kacha HaChayim. Speaking of dark forces Elsie.. You portray yourself as a socialist revolutionary, yet you're never wavering in your support of SlimVirgin - the single most neoliberal administrator on this project. Why is that? And even after she treats you with the utmost condescension! SV has gotten rid of hundreds of leftwing editors and you cheer her on, which means you're either suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance, or you're a fraud. -Dna4salE 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Who are those "hundreds of left-wing editors" (names?)? These are claims you've failed to demonstrate. That I disagree with her politically and that I chastized her over her support of Carr is no reason for me to support her departure here and the manner it took place — that would be politically motivated fraud. You've yet to answer whose sockpuppet you are, nor explain the whole Pavel Novak thing. I await your answers with an especial trepidation. El_C 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Take a break, and come back a new person. ;-) -Dna4salE 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Ditto. — mark ✎ 10:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) This is a huge loss for Wikipedia. Few, if any, editors have been more effective advocates of making Wikipedia into a source of accurate, reliable information than Sarah. This brings Wikipedia a step closer to just becoming a social club for internet trolls with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) This rhetoric is unhealthy! Anyway, I have a request - could you please come back and help me proof-read this ever-controversial article? Sometimes it is good just to edit/read articles :). RN 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC) I really don't think SlimVirgin is going away. She seems like a good editor and from my interactions I have no complaints. However, I've had very limited interaction with her so others complaints may be true. I don't know but they are not really relevant in this case. I truely believe that SV is only bluffing, that it's a bit of an emotional outburst, which is a rather rash. I think as soon as she cools down she will be back. This threat of leaving is a well known phenonmenon and it has served a purpose to make her protest known in the strongest terms, and help to get what she wants in the conflict she is having with other admins. I think this is a classic example of this: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye I note that FloNight has already returned as predicted. So, SV will be back after a break. Just wait and see.Giovanni33 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) That's my prediction as well. Al 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Let's hope so. -Will Beback 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) You've been truffled by Charlie Charlie has given you some of his famous Solid chocolate truffles! Chocolate truffles taste good, help moods, promote WikiLove and hopefully make your day better. Hope you find the truffles to be tasty, and make sure you enjoy them with a nice tall glass of milk (they're rich)! Have some chocolate & stick around!!! We need good people to stay! --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) In case In case, you have decided to go, please wait for few moments: please touch your heart and think: would it look nice to part in this way? I know our system has several lacunae, but we can surely continue here to realize the best-ever dream of human civilization: to build the sum total of human knowledge. I too disagree with several aspects of our functioning, yet I am continuing as I know that we are the most resilient virtual community, and we shall deliver what we have promised to deliver to the human civilization. Come on, and continue. --Bhadani 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, I was feeling Hungary, and took a piece of Solid chocolate truffles! I am sure that you shall not mind. --Bhadani 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Why the blank user page? Hi SlimVirgin. What gives? Thanks! --Tom 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC) see WP:ANI#Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle:_unblocking. RN 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Please don't leave Don't let the trolls win. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) I don't think it was the trolls that got SlimVirgin and FloNight to give up in disgust. IMO it was the fact that their peers, including Jimbo, decided to unblock a pair of disruptive users who apparently harassed them from off-wiki and apparently condoned even deeper and more vicious harassment of them from the same site. I believe the issue that really upsets them is that they feel that by policy, victims of harassment must be consulted prior to re-instatement of the offenders, under any circumstances (e.g. 'mentorship' here). Crum375 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC) If You Can Hack It Out Your good offices and your humanity, along with those others who then came to assist, persuaded me to hang in. Please consider the importance of such qualities in so potentially volatile a venue as this. That said, WP, while an important asset, is not of necessity the center of all things. Place yourself first. Thanks, again, for your help in the past, and, if you so determine, in future. – Best. Fucyfre 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Adding a voice to the chorus I formally request that you stay instead of leaving. DS 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawal I've been reading the entries at [[5]] and, for what it's worth, as a newbie, I agree with SV's position, whatever components of personal emotion and/or tactic it may comprise. I will watch to see what happens, what she decides, and to draw appropriate conclusions as to how effective WP can, in fact, be in the processes by which it attempts to function in its stated goals. Fucyfre 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Support I will be a copycat and join the chorus of people asking you to stay, despite the actions of the loathesome trolls at WR and the wildly clueless actions of a certain bureaucrat. I realize that talk is cheap, and I'm not the one dealing with whatever you're being put through, but nonetheless I want to say that I support you, and whatever help I can offer I'm offering. Send e-mail if necessary. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Keep it WP:CIVIL. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC) To be fair to him, he did have some nice words for SV; I've never seen him say anything nice to anyone before. Clearly that's progress. Everyking 09:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I Think Also That there may be need on the part of those more senior at WP to restructure some procedures. I may be new to WP, but I am not new to this sort of problem. It requires addressing. Fucyfre 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC) You are perfectly right. I agree with you. --Bhadani 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Don't let the bastids grind you down Do you think a cup of tea and a lemon-curd sarnie might be enough to tempt you back? Or am I going to have to open up the custard cream biscuits? Grace Note 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Yikes! Those custard creams sound dangerous! Kim Bruning 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like) Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Not sure if you'll read this But if you'd drop in MSN sometime, we could probably work this out. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Support: Three barnstars Since, in over three years of editing on Wikipedia, I have never awarded anyone any Wikipedia:Barnstars, I hereby solemnly award User:SlimVirgin three of them now. This tripleheader award is in recognition of all the critical roles she has always played on Wikipedia. All who agree are urged to sign below. In sincerest admiration, and hoping for a speedy return, IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Awarded to SlimVirgin for her defense of Justice on Wikipedia. IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Awarded to SlimVirgin for her Wisdom in this regard. IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) A Barnstar! The Resilient Barnstar Awarded to SlimVirgin for her Valor IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Support IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I would like you to stay too. It's no fun in the long run taking the burden of evidence without you here ;-) - So please come back. Foreigner 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Let me throw in a little Chai . Take a wikibreak if you need it and come back when ready. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC) It's hard finding good people to help keep Wikipedia clean and accessable, and it would be a pity to lose you. Evolver of Borg 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC) You deserve praise and encouragement for all your good efforts, maturity, and fairness. Whether or not you decide to come back. This enterprise will fail unless people like you stay with it. --Leifern 10:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC) SUPPORT for the most NPOV and anti-troll editor on Wikipedia. I've ordered a vat of Wikihugs, given that I can't email you flowers. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Support I miss you already!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Yes. --Bhadani 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Support please come back and help keep the scum and villany of Wikipedia Review out of the wiki. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Keep the baby, Faith... or Sarah. Frustration is understandable, and your feelings are valid. We hope that after a bit of rest and reflection, you'll see that we need you too. Ð’?talk 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Support, of course. Seriously, though, it'd be quite a loss if you decide to leave permanently. I hope you'll reconsider. Tijuana BrassE@ 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Me too. Come back William M. Connolley 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Ummmmm! Cool beans! -- Szvest 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153; Natch. --Ashenai 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Come baaaaaaaaaaaaack! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC) O yes! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Illegitimi non carborundum... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Support, come back! Kuratowski's Ghost 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) You're a real asset to Wikipedia, and it would be sorely diminished without you. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Per everything above. 172 | Talk 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Absolutely. And what Mel said. FeloniousMonk 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC) hip hip hooray for the barnstars! and I hope you come back soon. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Of course. But, Slim is beyond barnstars, in my opinion, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC) We're all missing you. Pecher Talk 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I hate putting pressure on people, but you know — Wikipedia wouldn't be the same without you! AnnH ♫ 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Support. I want to let you know that I appreciate all the hard work you've done here. I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for you. Take a wikibreak and come back refreshed. —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Support. I know we haven't crossed paths alot on here, but I am always here as support. Always always always. We've lost one terrific admin in the last week. Don't want to make it 2. *hugs* --Woohookitty(meow) 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Support. You make Wikipedia a better place. Vashti 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Please don't leave. We haven't always agreed but I respect you and would hate to see you driven away. Please stay. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC) New Age hoax? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni I have contacted professor Fogelson at the University of Chicago about this one. Mooney makes no mention of this. If this is a hoax this is quite offensive. Professor Fogelson only makes mention of the name, not tablets that predate the old testament. Who were the Ani-Kutani? An Excursion into Cherokee Thought. by Raymond Fogelson in Ethnohistory 31 (1984), pp. 255-263. I want his word on the entry before I contact anyone else. LoveMonkey 11:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Goodbye? See: Meatball: Goodbye. What reason was there for it? 203.122.194.131 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Saladin1970 I have unblocked Saladin1970 to participate in his arbitration case. He is expected to limit editing to arbitration pages and his own user pages. Fred Bauder 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Smile -- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! One of life's ironies Hi Slim, It sounds crazy, but I was visiting your talk page to discuss a blocking policy I'm thinking of proposing (basically, a partial block that'd stop vandalising IPs from editing articles but allowing them to edit talk pages). One of the things I admire about you is your emphasis on civility. A lot of "senior" wikipedians don't value civility as much. When I had enough of incivility while discussing Israel-related articles, I didn't quit, I changed to a topic that wouldn't attract incivility. I won't say don't go, just look after yourself, and I hope you come back some day soon. Cheers, Andjam 13:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Not sure it will matter to you much anymore... Not sure who this is (or whose sock he is), but as you were mentioned by name, thought I'd keep you up to date if you weren't already aware (If you're even still around). [6] See ya (maybe). --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Oleg of Novgorod Some of your special brand of common sense would be useful here... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Are you a ReveredLeader Hmmm, meatball:ReveredLeader seems a lot like the (anti)pattern you are encountering. Kim Bruning 01:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)