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]

The spinning tulip is courtesy of Bishonen

File:PoodleM1.jpg

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

Please leave comments about articles on article talk pages.
Any such comments left here may be moved or deleted. Many thanks.

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

In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

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)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your work in cleaning up a touchy issue. -Will Beback 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your BAYT work

Thank you for the good work. Crum375 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]