SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Diatribes |
||
Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
Hello SV. [[User:GCarty|GCcarty]] has done a cut-and-paste move of [[Mount Erebus disaster]] to [[Air New Zealand Flight 901]]. I wonder if you could help to merge the page histories [or perhaps I should just revert his changes?]. Sorry to be a bother. (P.S. Thankyou very much for the barnstar!) -- [[User:FirstPrinciples|FP]] <sup>[[User_talk:FirstPrinciples|<talk>]][[Special:Contributions/FirstPrinciples|<edits>]]</sup> 09:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC) |
Hello SV. [[User:GCarty|GCcarty]] has done a cut-and-paste move of [[Mount Erebus disaster]] to [[Air New Zealand Flight 901]]. I wonder if you could help to merge the page histories [or perhaps I should just revert his changes?]. Sorry to be a bother. (P.S. Thankyou very much for the barnstar!) -- [[User:FirstPrinciples|FP]] <sup>[[User_talk:FirstPrinciples|<talk>]][[Special:Contributions/FirstPrinciples|<edits>]]</sup> 09:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks VERY much, it's looking great. But I think the intention was to move the whole page to [[Air New Zealand Flight 901]]. (Which name do you think is the most appropriate? Perhaps I can ask for naming advice on the [[Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board|New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board]].) -- [[User:FirstPrinciples|FP]] <sup>[[User_talk:FirstPrinciples|<talk>]][[Special:Contributions/FirstPrinciples|<edits>]]</sup> 10:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC) |
:Thanks VERY much, it's looking great. But I think the intention was to move the whole page to [[Air New Zealand Flight 901]]. (Which name do you think is the most appropriate? Perhaps I can ask for naming advice on the [[Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board|New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board]].) -- [[User:FirstPrinciples|FP]] <sup>[[User_talk:FirstPrinciples|<talk>]][[Special:Contributions/FirstPrinciples|<edits>]]</sup> 10:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Diatribes == |
|||
You made a very good point, Slim: |
|||
:obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of |
|||
Can we deal with this by then (1) giving them a clear [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] block and then (2) protecting their talk page? (If we had to continue talking about the block - everyone but them of course - we could do it on an unprotected subpage.) [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 17:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:50, 13 July 2005
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 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Unlocking the Islam page and the Islam Slavery page
I'm sure that if SlimVirgin were a Muslim, she'd be a sunny one (though she might cloud over a bit when people aimed ill-judged and bigoted remarks at her). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC) Well, Slim, I'm again having quite a problem with an article I came to originally because of an RFC (when will I learn my lesson?). You helped out so much with PJ.com that I thought I'd contact you to see if you're interested in this one. I originally came to the article because several anon users (probably Aiken fans) kept removing a brief, NPOV paragraph about pop culture speculation that Aiken is gay. Apparently, Aiken's fans really get incensed about the rumor. Anyway, we got a good, ~4-5 editor consensus to keep, but there suddenly was an influx of anon users from different IP's reverting only that information. I suspect someone posted a message on a fan forum somewhere and the floodgates opened. Anyway, I finally posted a request on RFP and someone protected the page for a couple weeks. That stopped it for a month maybe. Suddenly it's started up again, although now the dispute seems to be over whether to include a link to a fan group called "Openly Clay," which is basically a forum for Aiken fans who think he's gay and are fine with that. Now we have a new phalanx of anon editors coming to erase the information, and a couple who have registered for accounts solely for the purpose of erasing the information (and a couple have left messages on the talk page). Most of them are extraordinarily belligerent and can't seem to understand NPOV. Their arguments for removing the link essentially consist of: we don't like the link because they talk about the Aiken/gay rumor. It's devolved now into ad hominem attacks (mainly against me, somehow), and one user (which I have reported on WP:3RR but which hasn't been acted on) that just took a vandal comment from my userpage and then reposted it on the talk page. I'm sort of at a loss at this point; reported on RFP but no action yet. Understand if you're too busy to take a look, but thought I'd run it past you just the same. Thanks in advance either way. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:59, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Slim :)The images on your user and talk pages always make me smile. Long time no talk. I've left the following message[2] with El_C regarding the Wareware Arb Com process, which includes a link to my comments on the Arb Com talk page. I'm not stewing about this; this kind of thing (like Wareware's racism) is old hat. I've long since moved on. But in archiving stuff on my talk page, it occurred to me that some loose ends required attention. Not the least of which is a thank-you to you. I very much appreciate your helpfulness and concern in the Wareware matter -- and your time. Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 07:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Animated flag imagesHi! I noticed you uploaded the animated flag images. You labelled them as PD, but 3DFlags.com's terms of use only allows their use with credit and a link, which isn't PD. The site for the UK flag (which you labelled as fair use) says that they're used freely but they ask for a link back to their site. Unfortunately, that license isn't very clear, either. It's better for us to have images with clear licenses. Are there any truly free sources where you could find these images? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC) have a gander?I posted this on Mustaffas talk page too, but the more invokved the better the piece (In theory anyway) Wondering if you can have a gander over at two revert wars Jayjg and I are involved in. Al Andalus (Muslim Spain) and The Sword of the Prophet. You can check the talk pages to see his rationale for the constant reverting, because I don't understand why he's doing it, but, help is appreciated! regards - --Irishpunktom\talk 19:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC) I am sorry I was slow to find rule violation info you requested, but I'm new...SlimVirgin, You asked me for info regarding the 3RR situation, and I feel I may have been prejudiced by my slow response. As you recall, I made the claim that i felt that this user violated the "spirit of the rule," even if not the "letter" by creatively trying to get around a "technical" revert. Well, he protested along those same lines, and apparently it got by us. But, he got smart with me and demanded I cite the rule, and the exchange that follows -and posted in the 3RR page, clearly shows he violated a rule that I had imagined ("spirit of the law") but did not know really existed (e.g. “gaming the system“). (Here is in pertinent part below the exchange: Have i lost my argument because I was slow?)
…but the sup tags weren't [in the original version], and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version… So let me see if I have this straight. In the version before my first edit (under discussion) there were no <sup> tags. I edited that version by adding <sup> tags (not changing them). When I did that, it "reverted" to a different version, which now even I can't understand. It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion. That is one magic concept. Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened. Duckecho (Talk) 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
--GordonWattsDotCom 02:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Good luckYou will need it trying to sort this out. The above is but a microcosm of what the rest of the editors on the Terri Schiavo Talk page and article project have had to deal with since his arrival. A complete and utter lack of ability to follow a point, and posts that verify Lenin's precept of quality vs quantity that "quantity has a quality all its own." Uh, half-truths enter into the picture, too. By the way, my apologies for even posting this here. I believe it is essentially unethical to plead a case here on a talk page, and I won't plead it here, but this user spews volumes all over the place and I don't want my voice lost. Duckecho (Talk) 03:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
To pet or to pet, that is the non-question, whether it isn't...File:Vulpes zerda front view.jpgFile:Vulpes zerda in Heidelberg zoo.jpgFile:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpgFile:Fennec001.jpg Luding BridgeErm, you asked for what Jung Chang said and I posted it ages ago. Could you give some sort of response on that, please? Cheers John Smith's 11:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
(Message below transplanted from my page, that is Gordon Watts' page)Hi Gordon, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I didn't follow it entirely, but the important point is that we can only block for technical violations of 3RR; the gaming-the-system thing is a bit nebulous. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Terri SchiavoBut there are problems with the page, which a copy edit will iron out to some extent, so please allow me to do it, and discuss any edits you disagree with on talk, rather than reverting without reading them. What makes you think I haven't read them? FuelWagon 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Flowerofchivalry, againOnce again he is using sockpuppets to start revert wars at Nanjing Safety Zone. You and others have warned him numerous times prior to this, so I thought you might be interested in it. I have submitted a 3RR log here. -Hmib 04:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Unfortunatelly, Hmib is still doing barbarous acts at all over the place, and I'm sorry for his leaving his filth. I think you now understand what kind of person Hmib is.--Flowerofchivalry 07:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Thanks for uploading Image:Map-Kaliningrad.gif. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}} or {{no license}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{GFDL}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}} but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. RedWolf 05:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC) Compromise on SchiavoHello, Mr SlimVirgin. Or Mrs SlimVirgin, whatever. I have put a suggestion for a compromise on the Terri Schiavo talk page, because I really don't like all the fussing and feuding. I do think both sides of this newly created hissy fit have been a bit irresponsible. Eh, I'm not writing it again ... go see the darn talk page. Proto t c 08:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=watts+schiavo+%224-3%22 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=watts+schiavo+%224-3%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8 http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/search/web/watts%2Bschiavo%2B%25224-3%2522 --GordonWattsDotCom 13:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Short Reply (it really 'is short!)Translplanted from my page: Hi Gordon, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I didn't follow it entirely, but the important point is that we can only block for technical violations of 3RR; the gaming-the-system thing is a bit nebulous. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC) I'm still not clear on your point. I'd say forget the apparent 3RR violation and get on with editing. Regarding where to post messages, I prefer them on my talk page, but others are different. There's no rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Flower of Chivalryre this 3 revert rule infringement, is there any possibility that the anonymous IP addresses were actually not 'Flower', but someone else? I mean, could they be associated with 'hmib' instead? or do they resolve to the area that flower is editing from? If you don't know, is there someone who could look into it before I ask 'Flower' ? Any advice? It will be a lot easier to advocate for the user, if I can be sure he's lying, or if I can be sure he's not. It kinda looks like it could be a frame, judging only by what I know of the original conflict between the 2... since flower is apparently blocked right now, I think it might be difficult to get a fast reply from him. Thanks, sorry to trouble you. Pedant 18:17, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
I replied all the e-mails. Hmib and Mark wasted you and my time using the false accusations, again and again. --Flowerofchivalry 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC) HammesfahrCiao bella, good work on Hammesfahr. Have you read his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo? If you haven't, you ought to look it up. It'll give you good insight into his methods and why he's held in so much contempt by the medical community. -- Grace Note
Measurement unitsHi, Slim, you might want to see this. Ciao. Maurreen 05:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Who/Whom'Who' is used as the subject, 'whom' as the object. I don't understand your revert Help with page moveHello SV. GCcarty has done a cut-and-paste move of Mount Erebus disaster to Air New Zealand Flight 901. I wonder if you could help to merge the page histories [or perhaps I should just revert his changes?]. Sorry to be a bother. (P.S. Thankyou very much for the barnstar!) -- FP <talk><edits> 09:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
DiatribesYou made a very good point, Slim:
Can we deal with this by then (1) giving them a clear Wikipedia:No personal attacks block and then (2) protecting their talk page? (If we had to continue talking about the block - everyone but them of course - we could do it on an unprotected subpage.) Uncle Ed 17:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC) |