User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2

File:Animalibrí.gif

Talk archives 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 File:800px-PotbellySeahorse TNAquarium-cropped.jpg RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online Thanks, SV Just wanted you to know I'm standing for bureaucrat again and you were one of the reasons. I noted your remark when I mentioned that your erstwhile bureaucrat was a moth. I thought it was very sweet and it reminded me how much I missed dealing with all the nice people in the community such as (obviously) your slim self. :) Cheers, Cecropia 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I'm very glad to hear the moth wants to be a butterfly again. Do you think I could pass? We moths are always thrown out of the best butterfly clubs. ;-) -- `Cecropia 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Self-published sources Could you weigh in on this discussion at WT:V? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 15:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Distinctive fetures of the Holocaust Well, I guess that my first foray on to the Holocaust page was rather minimalist. This was for several reasons: I am still engage in a struggle with French Telecoms to get an ADSL line into our village house in the Gard. Until then, I am hobbled with a dial-up connection when we are there. I wanted to start on the issue of uniqueness without waving a red cape, or getting involved in that sterile (and often demeaning) discussion about “ownership.” I do believe that it is very important to understand the uniqueness and in my experience it is one of the first questions that is asked by those new to the subject. Thus I put in what seem to me to be the most important points with links to more detailed references. When efficiency and scale are the only reasons given, then the evil which was the foundation of the events risks being swept under the rug. After all for most efficiency and scale are not inherently evil. I did want to add some other references, partularly one from Friedlander (the Years of Persecution, p. 149) about the decision to go to 3 of 4 grandparents, but the book was back in my office. To my delight, you referred to the long awaited second volume which I hadn’t realized was out. Did you buy it in the UK? Or do I have to order from the States. (I had the good luck to have him as a lecturer back in the Dark Ages of the 1960’s.) Joel Mc 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Enough I've called for a third party opinion. Please leave me alone until someone else adds their own input. I'm discussing this on the talk page as I always have. Marshall 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) wow I get a new computer and spend a couple of days away and all hell breaks loose! That is one long argument on the Factory Farming talk page!-Localzuk(talk) 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Agriculture I thought you may be interested in this article by Bernard Stiegler. Although brief, it requires some effort, but in my opinion this pays off. It places the debate you have been engaged in into a slightly different context. Anyhow, just a thought. When you get some time. FNMF 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered Hello, An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Request I own these pictures [1] [2] [3] [4]. I have them in my own private albums and I took them with my own camera. User:Hipocrite is attempting to provoke me by tagging them with "unfree image" tags. Help please. Jaber777 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah, thanks for the help. Jaber777 11:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC) User:Sparkzilla Hi, I noticed you had some problems with User:Sparkzilla over a BLP-issue. I thought it might interest you that he is thought to have an undeclared CoI (not related to the BLP-issue, however). [5] Heatedissuepuppet 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Jeez, I had a legitimate question regarding the scope of sensitivity on a BLP. I still believe that there is scope for certain editors to abuse the policy, and would like to revisit this issue with you under less heated conditions. I sincerely hope that you did not take my discussion personally. Passionate certainly, but not disrespectful. Best regards. Sparkzilla 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Vandalism on G.W.Bush discussion page I just noticed that someone from this IP address (70.72.196.49) just deleted the entire discussionpage for George W. Bush, and replaced it with this: "Gorge [sic] is a dummy". I reverted that edit. Can you do something about that IP address? Thank you! Sdth 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Deletion without AfD? Why the deletion of List of books and films about Martin Luther without a discussion or AfD? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC) SV, I appreciate your interest in the subject and your editorial passion, but please do not undo my contributions without a discussion. That will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Deletion at Greer Hi Slim Virgin. I was not aware you were editing at the same time as me. The information you restored was contradictory, she was married for 3 weeks in 1968. I am in the process of trying to improve the article and presumed those with an interest would use the talk page. I hope we can improve the article. Regards. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes I removed that comment [6]. I'm sorry that you perceived it as kind of an attack, it was only meant to be ironic. I also replied there. All the best, —AldeBaer 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I also rephrased my second question. It now reads "Do you really believe that it's best practice to oppose for what could be perceived as purely 'political' reasons? I'd still appreciate an answer to that question. If you believe that the question doesn't apply, why not just state it? —AldeBaer 10:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Factory farming Hi. I responded to your question here. Thanks. FNMF 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Biographies of living persons Hi. I am proposing that the Biographies of living persons policy should require material to be moved to the notable event in cases where the event is notable and person not except for the event. Perhaps you would like to create the actual edit to the policy. You excell at that sort of thing. WAS 4.250 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC) re: Zionism <"Expanded duplicate" of what I posted at Talk:Zionism appears below. Could I ask you to respond either there or here? Thx, Y> BYT 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Slim Re: (Brandon, AN WIlson is not a historian, or any kind of serious researcher in this area; for a contentious edit like this, you would need an academic source or otherwise recognized specialist.) Clarifying: Slim, what kind of source, specifically, do you feel would qualify as an "academic source or otherwise recognized specialist"? I want to be sure I am hitting the mark for you, and it would be disappointing to both of us if I went out, purchased something in Hebrew, purchased something else that translated it, sat both of the volumes down, and carefully transcribed them for the benefit of discussion here, only to learn that some T had not been crossed or some I was missing a dot. I know you will be fair about this. Please let me know clearly what I'm aiming for here. I have provided not one, but seven citations for this quote thus far. (Addendum -- I am not at all sure why "Source the second" or "Source the third," below, would not satisfy your criteria here. BYT) Source the first: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousands Negroes [kushim - in the original Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - (Protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech at Jewish Agency Executive, 20 May 1936. In Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140) Source the second: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995). Source the third: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [7] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [8] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993). Source the fourth: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991. Source the fifth: "Chaim Weizman, Israel's first president, once noted that, "there are a few hundred thousand negroes [in Palestine], but that is a matter of no significance." Israel's 'apartheid' should not be allowed, Jeremy Tully, Johns-Hopkins Newsletter, November 15, 2002. Source the sixth: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10. Source the seventh: "Chaim Weizmann, a future president of Israel, noted in 1917 that the British had told him that there was a population in Palestine of 'a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Mark Zepezauer: 'Boomerang'. Common Courage Press, 2003. BYT 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you, Brandon, and my apologies. I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The balance and objectivity you bring to this joint are so predictable now as to run the risk of being taken for granted by the regulars. Rest assured that I do not take them for granted. I'd put quite a lot of work into tracking those sources down. Thanks for looking them over. BYT 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Well, thank you, I appreciate that. :-) Your commitment to fairness, good writing, and the use of reliable sources is also not taken for granted, believe me. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Reverting of punctuation fixes Hi, Slim Virgin, first of all just a quick thanks for all your valuable, tireless edits. They are most appreciated. I am kindly noticing that my recent punctuation fixes to The Holocaust were reverted twice on your part without any explanation. The changes from hyphens to en or em dashes (where I made such changes) seem unquestionably correct to me, and the use of four full stops/periods for ellipses at the end of sentences matches what I've always seen prescribed in writing style guides. Perhaps you didn't catch the specifics of my edits, as busy as you are :) I'm going to revert shortly your edits (relating to my punctuation fixes) one more time with this polite, good-faith assumption made. Again, thanks for your valuable work here at Wikipedia, and let me know of lingering questions/concerns if any still exist. —Respectfully, Catdude 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks very kindly for the reply posted to my Talk page; I posted a brief courtesy reply there (quick synopsis: everything's amicable here — not an earth-shattering issue :) ) —Best regards, Catdude 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) What does it take to add a name? I've tried to add Dr. Flores to the UTEP wiki and it gets cut out. He is a respected prof at the university. Any reason why? Could you take a look at something for me? Hi Slim, I got involved with a long running and stupid dispute over at Panorama Tools between 2 competing projects who seem to have a rift outside of the site and have brought it with them to this site. One of the users User:John Spikowski is insisting on changing the 2 pages PanoTools and Panotools to a disambiguation page made up of external links and a link to the original article they were redirecting to. I have tried to explain that we are not a link farm but he refuses to listen as he now thinks I am in some way involved with the other party (both sides have accused me of this now, it is highly amusing). Could you pop over there and provide some sanity to this silly incident. I am getting close to proposing RFC's on the lot of them, as they seem to be unable to see past their own biases and are obsessed with warring and being disruptive. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Gracenotes' adminship request Hi. You seem to be pressing Gracenotes for an explanation on question 5; perhaps I can help. I'd point a new user to Help:Reverting for an explanation of what "we reverted it" means, but I imagine you've already read that. We were both bored and thought we'd redirect our userpages to each other and see what happened. They were only like that for a few hours and no lasting confusion ensued. Rest assured that we are not sockpuppets (a fact that is surely backed up by our contribution histories); indeed we live on different continents and have never met. Thanks – Gurch 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Just another quick note, regarding your comments on question 7: surely "artificial inflation of edit count" is only a problem if one actually gives any weight to a user's edit count once it's more than a few thousand. Even on adminship requests, that doesn't seem to happen as often as it used to – Gurch 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) It's relevant because if a person has made 5,700 edits to articles, and thousands of these were bot edits (or bot-like) which can be racked up in a matter of hours, and there are only 343 edits to article talk, it suggests limited understanding of the encyclopedia, limited interaction with other users over content issues, and therefore a limited ability to deal with these as an admin. It's also worrying that the candidate himself didn't point these things out. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) "Only" 343? I must be out of touch, how many talk space edits are we demanding these days? – Gurch 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) There's not much point in arguing about it here. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, but the relationship. If someone has made 5,000 edits to articles, I want to see more than 300 edits to article talk. Otherwise, we're talking about someone who just hits save thousands of times in a row, without interacting. This isn't a useless thing to do if the person is reverting vandalism, for example (though thousands of GN's bot edits were not reverting vandalism), but there's no need for adminship, and no preparation for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) We have a name for "mindlessly hitting save thousands of times in a row" – it's called maintenance. We do it so that people like you can write content without everything falling apart at the seams. Adminship is a maintenance role not a content one. I have to say I'm surprised you never opposed my RfA if this is really such a problem – the figures were skewed a lot further in my case. (They're skewed so far now it's laughable, >90,000 edits and I've added content to pages about 50 times) – Gurch 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) But you've since been desysopped, I believe, though I don't know why, and perhaps it was your choice. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) It was my choice, yes... and it certainly wasn't because of a skewed edit count :) – Gurch 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, adminship is not limited just to a maintnance role; it also, crucially, involves communication skills. El_C 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC) And if the candidate had these communication skills, he would have been able to put my mind at rest with his first response. Instead, every response of his has deepened my concerns and given rise to others. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Have you noticed during your little banter on oppose #29 that it actually makes no sense whatsoever in the context? I'm certain he's talking about Grace Note, not Gracenotes... if such a vote is considered acceptable, I find that very troubling – Gurch 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Tag Can you explain to me why adding a tag to Night (book) seems inapprorpaite? --Fez2005 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) It's not just the quotes, a lot of the article has nothing to do with the book itself and is too long (it even says so if you look on the edit page). Even if it's not a quotes tag, it needs some sort of a tag.