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]

File:Pikachu.gif Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost And in the (highly unlikely) event that 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. Perhaps I should advise would-be enemies to send me their grievances beforehand, with full assurance that they will receive my every aid and support. I have even secretly longed to write, under a pen name, a merciless tirade against myself." — Jorge Luis Borges 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 Archive 17 Archive 18 User:TheUnforgiven Thank you for dealing with this person. I can tune out his absurd accusations and racist personal attacks, but his bizaare edits (and accusations of anti-white racism for reverting them) was beginning to grate. --Briangotts (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC) I'd also like to thank you. His racially motivated crackpot theories were getting on my nerves.--Wiglaf 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Thanks Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Are secondary sources preferred to primary sources? I'm having an argument with Zeno over at Maria al-Qibtiyya. There are two stories explaining surah al-Tahrim, one of which involves Maria. Zeno accepts the story re Maria and believes the other story to be false. I'm asking him for proof of an assertion, he's saying he found it in some secondary sources, I say I can't confirm it from primary sources, and ... he's quoting you to the effect that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. I do think that he's misunderstood your injunction when you opened the Islam article up to edits again -- you said you wanted good, solid, academic, secondary sources. I read that as you don't want a recrudescence of web-site and chat-forum material; he's reading that as secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. Please come to the Maria article and clarify your remarks. Of course, if you're going to say that secondary is better than primary, I'll disagree vehemently with you, but we might as well get straight what your opinion is, and what Wikipedia policy is. Zora 12:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Vamprie article dreamGuys at it agin, removing my additions, claiming they are crap when i tried rather hard ot make it a good one, and trying to insert pPOV again. all im trying to do is to help the article along, hes deleting massive sections and alteringthings with zero explaination. please helpGavin the Chosen 01:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Islam Hey, a while ago you said you'd get back to me about the Islam article issues we'd discussed. Just curious if you're still doing somethng or what... if you're busy just quickly write "busy" so I know what's going on. Thanks. gren グレン 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Regarding Gabriel/Gavin For the record, I did not agree to not "talk to or about" Gabriel, as he apparently claims wa his understanding... I simply volunteered (as in something out of my way just to be nice and not at all required) to "avoid conversation" with him. I'm certainly not going to abandon any articles he might show up on in fear that I'll come into contact with him, and I will revert him if (when) he makes changes I feel are totally inappropriate to articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. And of course I also think it's only fair that I present evidence at his RfAr if I want to. I've been trying not to just in general because I don't want him to rationalize things to himself as a conspiracy I have against him, but then he already did do that anyway thinking that the ArbCom position was something I told them to say. I'm not under any sort of punishment here, I was just hoping to give him less to come up with bizarre and inappropriate excuses about. DreamGuy 12:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC) Feedback (Part III) He keeps changing headers from "the song" to "song information". Most WP singles articles have "the song" listed. He may not like it, but most articles have "song information". Oops, I meant the song. Mel claims otherwises on your page that they are equally divided between the two concering the pages in dispute. Please don't listen him. That is a lie. And I should know, since I created those articles or added the headers. I don't follow, sorry. SlimVirgin <fontcolor="Purple">(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Mel said that the single articles were divided between two headers, but they all said "the song" before he changed many of them to "song information". He keeps removing headers from single articles. Can you give me an example of an article where he's removed the headers? Low (song) and The Trouble With Love Is It does look odd with a header called "The Song" when the article is about the song. I'd say Mel is right about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Isn't song information just as bad though? Because when I think of "the song", I think of the song aspect of it. But when of think of "song information" it seems odd, because the whole article is about information of the song. If you look at www.jenniferlopez.com, you can see the remix notation No, I couldn't see it. You need to provide sources showing you have a reason to go against WP house style, so could you provide links please (several of them, not just to one website) show that this is the industry style (link to specific pages, not the home page of a website). Without providing sources, you can't keep changing the house style. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Industry sources: Official Billboard Charts [2] and ASCAP information [3] Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information. Where does the MoS allow this? "Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article." I need a link please to the page and section. But my guess is that if you concentrate on that one issue with Mel, he may agree to compromise. All I know is that most publishers (and editors here) write one to nine or ten, and thereafter 11, 12, etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Yeah, I've been concentrating on that since Day 1, since its my main issue, but he doesnt want to budge. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Section 3, subsection 3. Too much capitalization in the infobox: Single Released, Single Format, Song Length. No need for the second word to be capitalized, because they're not titles. Well, this is not a major issue, but I can, I'd like to see if we could keep it some extent or work on some compromise. When the tables were put in, I was told they were offficial WikiMusic single tables or something like that. And Ive seen them on other articles. It goes against house style, and it doesn't look good. Ask Mel on the talk pages of the articles whether he's prepared to compromise on that, but don't revert because of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) I think in some aspects it does look good, like if you look at the pages where it says "Video director" it looks very odd. Well, is there any way to help this debate? Considering he wont even change things when the MoS says when can, I know this is going to be a hard time convinving him, even though his edits make things look horrible. He's already changed most of the infobox, which I don't agree with, but I'm just asking for a small points there. Too much capitalization in headers: References to Other Songs - it should be "other songs." Well the main part fo that part was the references in that song. So if something has to go, reference should stay The issue is whether to write Other Songs or Other songs in headers. It should be the latter. When it doubt, don't capitalize (that goes for everything, not just headers). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Well, like Ive told Mel constatnly, I have no issues with grammar. These just happened to get reverted back. Which is not a good thing, but Mel is guilty of doing the same. Like he just removed a whole section from that same article! Whenever he rolls back he gets rid of so much info. Okay, but you have to stop deleting his improvements to the grammar. If you keep doing it, it will count as disruption, which is blockable. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Can you tell him to do the same too? He always reverts things wholesale, and often removes information; like I just had to restore some more information to some article he reverted. He removed chart information for no good reason, and often when he reverts he always get rid of a lot of information. The main things for me are chart information, header changes, and remix notation. I have some other issues too, but for now if we can focus on those and compromise, I think that would help OmegaWikipedia 08:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Okay, thank you. He's right about the headers. He's right about the Remix/remix issue as far as house style is concerned, but if you can find sources to back you up, fair enough. I still don't get the chart information thing, and you need to refer me to a specific section of the MoS for the numbers, or explain exactly what you want to Mel, and look for a compromise position. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Until it's sorted, please don't revert him any more. The issue of general grammar and spelling is more important than whether to write Remix or remix, so that's what we need to concentrate on first. If you continue reverting, it will lead to pages being protected, it may lead to you being blocked for disruption, and it may also lead to an RfC, and it's definitely not worth the hassle for you. Try to compromise and stick to house style. If you have a specific article with a particular dispute, please post a note on my talk page, and I'll come and look at it for you. Does that sound fair? Well, I think the header aspect is even worse in the other way, but indeed, sounds fair. Can you ask him not to revert everything also? I just made some edits (which I dont think were wholesale reverts), and I bet he is going to cause another edit war. Whenever he reverts, he often gets rid of info (like I just had to restore something right now, cause he didnt even look to see what he reverted) Tell him to stop reverting me too. If he a problem with them, he should let us know on the talk page. Can you watch out for him too, and tell him to stop it? But yes, I agree with you, revert wars go nowhere and leave everyone screwed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) This [4] is good, because it shows an effort to compromise. Thank you. One small point though: she's not Mariah or Miss Carey (or even — better still — Ms. Carey), but Carey, as much as it may pain you. ;-) Oh, and it should be the Mel E remix (testin'). ;-D SlimVirgin [[User_tal The Trey Stone Gang I'd like to give you a heads up on the latest addition to the Trey Stone gang, User:Ray Lopez. He is an abusive editor, lying on edit summaries, making personal attacks and pushing the boundaries of even his own circle's rather hazy notions of good wikiquette. I'm going to be filing an RFC come monday, but will need enough support to make it stick. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 15:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Image tagging Hi Slim. Apologies for both the late reply and also if I caused an edit conflict with your image recent upload and my hasty tagging. I use the advanced RC look, and sometimes open the tab of new users to mark their uploads accordingly. I was doing so at the time when your upload appeared and as it was untagged, I fiddled :) Keep up your great work here. I'm just tucking in and straighting up any jagged edges. Cheers. -- Longhair | Talk 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC) the Vampire article I tried editing the article, and restoring massive sections that have been destroyed needlessly, but the other involved editor refuses to see that its not good to exclude that information, and calls me blind, rather then ghet in trouble, i have asked Ed poor's opinion, and i have placed a notice on the RFC, for i belewive thathte other editor is attempting to Soapbox, on this and other articles, just look at his edit summaries, some seem might strange. This is an ongoing problem, as he refuses to see any other viewpont then his ownGavin the Chosen 08:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Gabriel/Gavin And he's just back from his ban and blind reverting everything I did on Vampire and Otherkin back to a version before he left, which on vampire means he's yanking out a number of changes made by other editors to get back to the one he did yesterday. DreamGuy And he's using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy for personal attacks. DreamGuy 08:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC) He's currently involved in a revert war with Toshiba at Otherkin - seems to be reverting reasonably neutral language back to a POV edit. Vashti 09:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC) Regarding your message on my talk page, violations of 3RR don't have to have the exact same reverts each time, or else all someone has to do is split the same revert over additional edits to get around it. Previous 3rr cases for him counted if any single part of the whole thing was reverted four or more times, and he has that easily, with the restoration of the Modern Real Vampirism section, the improper capital V on vampire in the vampire subculture subhead, and so forth. And his splitting of the edit caused a whole section to be duplicated. (The drinking blood section is also under pathology.) If you really don't want to additionally block him for it beyond the 24 he already has for the RfC reverts, I'd be fine with that if you undid his last two edits to clean that all up, because I can't get in there and get rid of that mess without violating 3RR myself. As far as articles he edit wars with me on, that would be a long list. Most common would be Vampire and Otherkin of course, as he did those today evem but he was active in the past blind reverting me on Mythology, Vampire lifestyle, Lilith, Witchcraft, Werewolf, Therianthropy and probably others. DreamGuy 09:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC) He's acting up again Slim, could you please tell Mel to quit acting up? He is reverting edits again wholesale! Someone is trying to add content and he is just reverting them without looking at them. At the same time, I thought it would be understood that I wouldnt revert his major edits while we were in the middle of this debate, and he wouldnt touch mine, but he continues to do it. Can you please help? Thank you. And he is doing this to me too again content wise ! I just added some content, and he is reversing content again! Is there a way you can help me a file an RFC against him? I don't know why he keeps doing this. Maybe a better idea would be for you to protect all Mariah Carey articles? That way no one can touch them until this debate is over? OmegaWikipedia 12:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Many Thanks Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Political epithets Can you please reconsider your marking out of sourced information? The Zionist rag comment was indeed from an anonymous editor, but the rest wasn't. The source I listed was an article called View from the Sofa. Here's the specific quote: Baker bandies around the latest buzzword of the Islamophobes- Islamofascism as coined by that famous liberal Christopher Hitchens (so left he’s right) and there’s an air of smug vindication in his whole article. Yes the Zionist rag comment is offensive but once again it's in the COMMENTS section.Heraclius 20:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Take a look at the Judeofascism section. It contains the claim that most Jewish people find the term deeply offensive. I'm sure that this is true, and it seems like common knowledge. However, when I try to add a similar, obvious claim to the Islamofascism section I am asked for a citation of every single fact. I think that the best compromise here is to include both statements in both sections or remove both.Heraclius 20:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Image:ALAN TURING 1.jpg Image deletion warning Image:ALAN TURING 1.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion. You have blocked me and failed to deal with the vandalism I was attempting to prevent. Politeness prevents further comment. Coqsportif 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Gabriel's just back from a block and DreamGuys perscuting him already And doing all the same edit warring AGAIN, including Otherkin and Vampire. This is just so tedious. DreamGuy 12:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC) And he just violated 3RR on Vampire yet again. DreamGuy 13:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC) did not. any edit that was a r eversion was half of something, then i took the edit that soemeone else did and re added that , sopt hat your foolish deletion of MY work wouldnt be. becasue you stubbvornly wont seem to allow anyone you donbt agree with to contribute ANYTHING to articles you have your filthy hands in.Gavin the Chosen 13:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC) im nit edit warring, your removiong my worthwhile edit, and you probably havnt even read it. as for Othetkin, the change isnt w ar until SOMEONE starets reverting out of turn, not to mention totally unnessesarily, and IF you bothered to read what DragonflySixtyseven said on your page, youd be convinced as well.Gavin the Chosen 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)