User talk:SlimVirgin/archives 1
Pan Am Flight 103
[edit]After reading the edits you made on the Pan Am Flight 103 article I just thought I'd mention a couple of things. It's great that you've gone to the efforts of attempting to reach a compromise through different attempts at changing the article, through discussion on the talk page and through a post on the VP. It seems to be between just two of you and hopefully someone else will come along and lend their opinion.
I think the whole article needs a copyedit, to be honest, as the structure is not particularly great right now. One thing I must warn you to avoid is changing British English spelling to American English (or vice versa) - you'll just get yourself into arguments about that!
I hope the article can be sorted soon - it has great potential. violet/riga (t) 22:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Herschel
[edit]Herschelkrustofsky is, sadly, allowed to edit articles. He is a longtime member of the LaRouche cult and a shameless liar and slanderer, and nothing he says or writes here should be believed. Unfortunately the people who run Wikipedia are too gutless to defend their own project by banning him and people like him from participating, or to defend legitimate editors against their wrecking. That is why I have withdrawn from editing all articles except Australian ones, and even there I find Herschelkrustofsky spreading his poison. No doubt I will soon be banned altogether for reverting Herschelkrustofsky's edits. I wish you luck in dealing with him, but I fear Wikipedia's failure to deal with him and other like him will result in the whole project being fatally damaged, which is very sad. Adam 09:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Adam, is right when he says that people, like Herschelkrustofsky, who uncritically believe the information from a single source that is unreliable beyond reasonable doubt are a danger to Wikipedia. Another one is [1] I know all about this myself. I was a follower of Sathya Sai Baba Andries 10:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- With regards to the death of a man after he attended a meeting of LaRouche, I just wanted to say that this is impossible to prove. And he may indeed have been schizophrenic See also http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/AZ.htm about my former guru. Scroll down for suicides and murders. I can not tell here what I know to protect the privacy of people involved. Andries 10
- 34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jeremiah Duggan
[edit]Slim, an excellent article on Jeremiah Duggan. You can expect an immediate counter-attack from the LaRouchies. Adam 13:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I just saw your note on Adam's talk page. You might want to have a read of this prior decision by our Arbitration Committee regarding the LaRouchites. If you feel that they've breached any of these terms, then you may want to request that the case be re-opened at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Ambi 00:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The address is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, but don't expect any help from them. The sad fact is that Wikipedia has no mechanism for defending itself against extremists and cultists, the people who run it seem to have no interest in developing one. Adam 01:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mediation
[edit]Hello SlimVirgin. I've removed your comment from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on the mediation between Adam and Herschelkrustofsky. Because of the nature of mediation, we ask that those not directly involved in the dispute do not edit the page. I appreciate that you were aiming to help Adam, and I realise that removing comments is an unusual step, but in this case it is best to leave it to the mediators. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)
- The mediation committee will not make any decisions or judgements in the Adam/Herschelkrustofsky case, that's not our role. What we try to do is look at any conflict with an eye to helping the participants discuss issues and find common ground. Of course, that sometimes isn't possible, but that will become evident if that's so. I have found that it's best to start any mediation with the comments of the participants only. Sometimes comments from other parties, however well intentioned, can disrupt this process. Even if you believe that mediation is not possible, it's my job to start from a position that it is. You may be interested to read Wikipedia:What is mediation? which give more information about what we do. As a mediation committee member, I'd ask you not to comment on that page at this time - if the mediation gets under way then there is no reason you can't contact the chosen mediator with your opinion then. Or if this goes to the arbitration committee then evidence from anyone is accepted there. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Slim, thanks for your comments at the Mediation page. You make some excellent points, but I'm afraid I am not very optimistic about the likely outcome of this matter. Adam 03:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The group forming at Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards has potentional as a base for organising some action on this front. Adam 03:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Terrorism
[edit]No, I did not mean to say that. The word terrorism on Wikipedia is being regarded as POV, by the way. WhisperToMe 05:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's a debate at Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks - It looks like people are divided but I say that it's safe to try to not use the word that much - I guess I put it too simply last time... WhisperToMe 05:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Death of Jeremiah Duggan
[edit]Done. Jayjg 23:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
About intellectual accuracy
[edit]Hey Slim Virgin, the legend is not Indonesian but Javanese :-). Indonesia was founded only after WWII. Andries 12:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reply from Herschel
[edit]No, I do not. Why do you ask? --Herschelkrustofsky 14:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Returning favor?
[edit]Hi. I have put in a word on your disagreement about the Jeremiah Duggan article. Maybe you’d like to help with one of mine.
- Talk:Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004 How much information about the invasion should be included?
Thanks. Maurreen 03:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ZioPOV offends me
[edit]The Abu Iyad quote is taken out of context from Palestinefacts.com, a pro-Israeli site. If the original can be sourced, I'd be interested to read it. What you think about Arafat and his honesty is your POV and has no bearing on reality. --Alberuni 07:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I was just going to say hi. To get to know who you are dealing with here, take a brief look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alberuni. Most people here are helpful and friendly, though. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jeremiah Duggan draft
[edit]Hi, Slim. It's easy to make a new page. You can use this.
- User talk:SlimVirgin/Jeremiah Duggan draft
- I put it here for now. I figure some semblance of privacy is better for drafts. When it's ready, you can let the others know. :) Maurreen 08:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm glad that worked out so well. Give a yell if you need me to come back.
- Thanks for your comments concerning the Iraq occupation article. Sometimes all that is needed is an outside voice. When I went to the occupation article the first time, I was just checking on an old RfC that someone else had listed but which had apparently died out.
- I've been a little discouraged on Wikipedia lately, and the occupation article is the lesser problem, but your success heartens me somewhat. :) Maurreen 05:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see you were involved in the discussion here. I am looking to restore the page to a stable state, and remove surrounding disputes. Would you mind speaking your mind on the subject? Awesome user page, BTW. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tavistock
[edit]Yes, the article on Tavistock Institute bears little relationship to the activities of the Tavistock Insitute and seem to be mainly derived from LaRouche conceptions. Any user may remove such material, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Removal_of_original_work, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Should it be re-inserted or an edit war develop, "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Edit_wars_or_re-insertion_of_original_material. As of now, no one has removed LaRouche derived material from the article Tavistock Institute nor has anyone tried to re-insert it or engaged in an edit war. Fred Bauder 02:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
That sentence
[edit]I get paid to edit better work than that sentence you left me. :) By the way, I've recently done a little work at the Simple Wikipedia. It appears much less contentious, probably at least partly because it's smaller. Maurreen 08:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
From Herschel K
[edit]Please note my response at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Response_from_Herschel.
--Herschelkrustofsky 22:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)