| Revision as of 00:44, 20 July 2006 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits No more communication, please← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:53, 20 July 2006 edit undoFormeruser-82 (talk | contribs)15,744 editsm Reverted edits by SlimVirgin (talk) to last version by IsarigNext edit → | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
| Fine. You did not really think that I will be enging in such folish vandalism. mistakes occur, it is very tense here as you can imagine and I am more likly to make a mistake. that is all. ] 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | Fine. You did not really think that I will be enging in such folish vandalism. mistakes occur, it is very tense here as you can imagine and I am more likly to make a mistake. that is all. ] 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == No more communication, please == | |||
| I've asked you this already, but once again, I'd appreciate it if you would stop e-mailing me or posting on my talk page. Yes, I did revert you on the workshop talk page, but only because I briefly thought you had posted to my own talk page; I reverted myself when I realized my mistake. I really feel we have nothing more to say to each other, so communication is best restricted to the arbitration pages. Please don't respond to this. Many thanks, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:53, 20 July 2006
Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please:
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.
Thanks again for visiting.
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | June 2006 archive
Your talk page
I'm a bit puzzled- you seem to have a deleted talk page, with no links to archives. Is this correct, and if so why? Petros471 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for sorting it out now. Petros471 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible RfC
Homey, I'm seriously considering opening an RfC on Jayjg, Humus and SlimVirgin concerning this out-of-process page move. It's conduct that I wouldn't accept from an editor and I'm frankly appalled that fellow administrators should be behaving this way. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Original Research
Please stop removing the original research tags. They are there for a reason, and I have at least one editor(Nysin), who has expressed his support on the talk page for my original research concerns. Just because you do not seem to understand the finer points of WP:NOR does not give you a license to revert changes. Please re-read WP:NOR, as I believe you are suffering from a serious misunderstanding as to what makes something original research. Bibigon 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Israeli Apartheid arbitration
The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whether you admit/want it or not, you are an involved party. This case is not about today only. ←Humus sapiens 07:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
RfM
 | This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead. |
SlimVirgin 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Eric Margolis:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Removal of other editors' statements from applications for arbitration
Please don't do this unless you're sure you know what you're doing. Despite being banned from editing the article, he may make statements about it. Please restore his statement to WP:RFAR. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Right. We are aware of Zeq and will make our own decisions about his participation in the arbitration. Fred Bauder 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Alternative to checkuser
An alternative to check user is to send e-mails (not through wikipedia, but direct from your e-mail program) to a mutually trusted admin (or editor) who can do some verifications. This comes down to the same level of security as checkuser has (or even better). -- Kim van der Linde 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Please go to User talk:Jdoorjam and make your suggestion.Homey 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Answered you on my talk page
Answered your question on my talk page (feel free to remove this notice once you've seen it). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
André Harvey
As you created this article, we thought you'd know. Is this polician Harvey the same Andre Harvey who was awarded the Bronze Wolf award for work with Scouts Canada? Please respond on the article's talk page. If you have details on this, please let me know or add them to the article. THanks. Rlevse 12:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Israeli Barrier et. al.
- We had an AFD in which the consensus was to merge apartheid wall with Israel West Bank barrier. Please do not unilaterally overturn that. Homey 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also, it's not acceptable to make a major change and pass it off as a minor edit. Homey 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems a chunk of discussion up and a'went missing :) Ah well. It's your page, do as you see fit.
I'm sorry about the minor change marking; my profile defaults to having minor edit checked. As for the former, the issues are there, but it makes no sense for a section whose primary purpose is apartheid to be in a non-apartheid article. But, if it really concerns you, feel free to revert it and I can put it up for a new merge/delete nomination. -- Avi 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- The other problem with your rewrite was that it left only the criticisms of the term "apartheid wall" with none of the reasons for the description ie it was a very POV rewrite. Homey 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I thought I had both: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=63109278&oldid=63107482
Some opponents call the barrier the "Apartheid wall", arguing it promotes apartheid by isolating Palestinian communities in the West Bank and consolidating the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. Opponents of the term reject both the "Apartheid" and "wall" designations, mainly because they disagree with the implicit analogy with South Africa, but also because 93% of barrier is currently fenced while only seven percent is actually walled.
— Israeli West Bank barrier, Previous revision
-- Avi 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the link. -- Avi 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
3RR at Apartheid (disambiguation)
Please be aware that you are very close to violating WP:3RR with your reverts at Apartheid (disambiguation). As always, you should discuss controversial decisions first, as continuous reverting is not helpful. -- Natalya 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Drive-by tagging...
The reason why I placed the tag on it was my dispute with User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg and User:Guy Montag about what I view as their arbitrary deletions of material in the section on biological weapons. As the rest of the article is not disputed, I have replaced the NPOV tag specifically on that section. --Robert Merkel 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:AGF
I suggest you read all of it. Zeq 06:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Zeq
Okay, fair enough. My apologies. SlimVirgin 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have to disagree with the second point you added. He's definitely free to take part in the RfAr. It was never part of any agreement that he wouldn't, if there was no mediation. SlimVirgin 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- He can be a party if he wants to be. He can do whatever he wants regarding the arbitration, subject to doing what the committee says. SlimVirgin 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're forgetting what the agreement was. You were asked to do what you could to get the others on board too (at that point, only BHouston disagreed). Also, you have continued to post to the arbcom case, so far as I know (I'm not following it, so I don't know exactly what has gone on). In any event, given the mediation didn't happen, all bets are off, as I'm sure you know. As you say, there was going to be one process, and the arbitration is it, so Zeq is obviously allowed to take part. No one ever said: "if there was no mediation Zeq would not be part of the RFA." SlimVirgin 12:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is more of the wikilawyering that you and Kim have engaged in, and it's what has caused this whole problem. The deal was designed to faciliate the mediation. But there was none. Therefore, the deal is irrelevant. Had there been mediation, Zeq would not have taken part in the arbcom case, but there was no mediation, thanks at least in part to you. He can therefore take part in the only process that currently exists. Please give it a rest and stop being so controlling. SlimVirgin 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. I wanted mediation instead of arbitration. And Zeq agreed not to push for arbitration if you would agree to the mediation and help to get the other dissenter on board, so then we'd have only mediation. But you didn't. You hesitated, then agreed at the very last minute, and AFAIK did nothing to ease the process along, so the whole mediation effort was for nothing. You didn't even reply to my last e-mails to you. Therefore, all bets were off. SlimVirgin 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
1806232 5705Homey 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk
I'd be happy if you could take a look at the recent 3RR report that FeloniousMonk has filed on me, and take action as you see fit Isarig 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thnaks for your support on this. I know you and I have had our share of (heated) content disputes, but I've found you to be an editor with integrity. That's something I can't say for FM and his clique of friends. I've been watching their behviour recently and find it to be unacceptable. Isarig 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3RR blocking of Zeq
Hey Homey, please let me know your side of the recent 3RR-related block of a suspected Zeq IP sock. JDoorjam Talk 05:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration
You presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse. Please click Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration Israel Article--Oiboy77 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to revert this vanadalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel&diff=64696955&oldid=64695160
obvioulsy I made a mistake in the revert (between my checking of the logs someone had also reverted it and I by mistake reverted the revert) but you can report it if you want. The fact that you can even think I will delibertly do such stupid vandalism show that you have not really understood wp:AGF Zeq 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. You did not really think that I will be enging in such folish vandalism. mistakes occur, it is very tense here as you can imagine and I am more likly to make a mistake. that is all. Zeq 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)