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]

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 settlement/neighbourhood clarification Hi SlimVirgin, I saw your rv on Pisgat Ze'ev and I'd like to know what consenus, if any, would allow me to maintain that position with respect to the other neighbourhoods constructed in the parts of Jerusalem captured by Israel in 1967 and annexed in 1980. Since I raised the issue on Talk:Har Homa, I was met with the [somewhat expected] result of finding the other prominent neighborhoods (i.e. Gilo (neighborhood) and French Hill) being labeled settlements. Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 3-RR Is it a revert if you insert text to an article in such a way that it changes the meaning of a sentence? For example, if the sentence is: "Jesus is God" and someone writes: "Jesus is not God" and this has never been said before, have they made a revert anyway, because it "undoes" the work of another editor? - Drogo Underburrow 01:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Ayaan Hirsi Ali Following your comments on Talk:Hamas regarding balance in article intro's and the relative level of attention they should give to current events, you might be interested in taking a quick glance at this article. I have made some comments on the talk page, for what it's worth. Palmiro | Talk 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Update on RichardMalter and Bi-Digital O-Ring Test As I just noted on WP:AN/3RR, RichardMalter has now reverted your reversion of Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and responded to your warning on his talk page. --Philosophus T 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Special:Contributions/Incorrect Please see user's very non NPOV edits above (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Special:Contributions.2FIncorrect). Arniep 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) In case you missed it [2] may be of interest. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) A good query, but... Wikipedia:Editing policy pages is going to be mess of people adding options. Try "yes, in general, plus suggestion" and "no, in general" first. Then take the few most cited suggestions and have a run-off. (I'd say). Marskell 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I inserted two headlines to emphasize the either/or. You know, six months(!) will actually exclude numerous admins... Marskell 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I don't see the need Slim of choosing many options. That would make things confusing. Cheers -- Szvest 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153; Brave girl. Somebody had to do it. Based on project demographics, I don't see it succeeding, but it's worth discussing. Many good ideas will never be implimented here, but such is the system we are in. Keep up the good work :). - Taxman Talk 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC) No, this is definately not the way I'd ever want to see wikipedia to go. This is a terrible plan. No matter that people are messing up the project space, I still don't want to limit the work of good people who are there as well. Don't take the wiki out of wikipedia, please. Kim Bruning 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) My userpage Please do me a favour and unprotect it. SeanBlack is pretending not to know the difference between harmless fun and personal attacks and has protected it to try to upset me. As you know, he has a personal problem with me. I know you don't like to undo other admins' actions but I am asking you to do it as a personal favour because I doubt he will want to wheelwar a respected member of the community. Feel free to admonish Sean at the same time. He's way too fond of bullying other editors and needs to grow up, learn this is not the schoolyard and learn to behave properly around adults.Grace Note 23:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your edit to my userpage. However, I am not going to be bullied out of having my userpage the way I want it by someone who has a personal problem with me, particularly not Sean. There is no personal attack in comparing someone with a fictional character for fun and I don't see why I should change my page just because some bully or other orders me to. This is supposed to be fun after all, and we are all friends here. Losing sight of that is a lot worse than any "personal attack". I've noted that I will remove the link if Dave Gerard has a problem with it. It's my belief, which I actually state on my userpage, ironically, that if a person feels attacked, then you must consider your remark to be an attack and set it to rights. But a remark does not become an attack just because someone who is spoiling for a fight chooses to claim it is. -- GN. question about this edit Hi Slim, Maybe this was agreed upon before [3] but it is not accurate nor give the complete picture as to the nature of the area. I am sure you are aware of the tunnels and the operation of "militants" (what ever you want to call them) in the area. Zeq 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) see question again below. tnx. Zeq 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Question about Kastner edit Hi, I was just wondering why you erased my edits regarding the Kastner. I edited as follows: The court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel which exonerated Kastner of most charges in a 3-2 decision that was sharply critical of the lower-court judge. However, all five judges upheld the lower court decision regarding the "criminal and perjurous manner" in which Kasztner had "without justification" intervened on behalf of several Nazi war criminals. ([6] p. 50) (where [6] was a reference to Linn's book "Escaping Auschwitz, a culture of forgetting"). Thanks, Escamoso 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles Hi SlimVirgin: I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know. Two recent examples will illustrate this problem: 1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote). 2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept. As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course. This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective. Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors. Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified. Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Vote of no confidence I was going to put a really angry message at village pump, but fortunately remembered on time to first take things to talk. At the moment, there's a couple of people on "policy/guideline/essay patrol" (the triple wording there already shows that we are deperately understaffed, else we'd fix the silly subdivision). Adding yet even more rules won't do it, in fact I predict it will make things worse. Adding people would help out, but thanks to your massive vote of no confidence by creating Wikipedia:Editing policy pages, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to recruit more people again. :-( Perhaps you could help salvage this situation? Or is your confidence truely that low? (And if so, how can we help restore it?) Kim Bruning 09:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Wouldn't restricting the pages as SlimVirgin proposes actually help this? (Not that I agree with that, but we do seem to be understaffed, at least with certain kinds of patrollers....) Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 10:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Restricting them will provide a false sense of security, which will make editors even less likely to patrol the pages. But this question should probably be moved to the appropriate talk page. --Philosophus T 10:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) No, it hurts a lot, because often it's the new and enthousiastic people who come up with the great new ideas on how to fix things. Adding rules places restrictions on who can edit and when. This drastically cuts down on the people we can recruit to help out with patrols. Kim Bruning 20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC) <replying to slimvirgin> Alright, I can't be mad at you if you don't get what I'm mad about. I saw you on msn earlier, but got no response. Much of the guidelines were written by people who, at the time, were new and enthusiastic. Currently I keep getting help from new and enthusiastic people all the time. After a while the foundation or otrs or committees or what have you come and steal them from me ( They know a good thing when they see it :-P ), and I have to start over. That's understandable, but still somewhat frustrating, even though I'm proud to be able to work with these people. :-) Your proposal makes it much harder for me to find new people to replace those who go on to other tasks or leave. And that is REALLY frustrating. It's especially annoying because wikipedia conventions (policy/rules/essays) etc, are still a mess and much is an utter disgrace to wikipedia. It needs a lot of work, and it is already slow plodding work to even get a single line altered, let alone actually fix entire pages. Making it yet even harder to work on the wikipedia conventions is the very very last thing we want to do at the moment. In such a large environment, once you have started an initiative, it is very hard to unstart it. As you acted in all innocence, I can't very well be angry at you. That does not take away that I am rather displeased with the current situation. Kim Bruning 21:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution Hi Slimvirgin I have recently been trying to participate in a discussion on the Evolution talk page. It seems, hoever, that my views are in contradiction to the beliefs of some of the editors there, and they have repeatdly tried to silence me by resorting to personal attacks. Examples: User:Slrubenstein maybe do not understand science in general think there is still value to being able to tell ignorant dogmatics like Sangil that their points are addressed in the article Now, Sangil may never be educated by the article, but smarter or less dogmatic readers who listen to creationist (or "ID") arguments because they are very open-minded or naive may indeed be educated by our article User:WAS 4.250 You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity User:Plumbago he was countering your ridiculous statement thx1138 That's complete BS You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect? User:Graft Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it I was going to do what WAS did and insult Sangil's education, but no need These edits are taken from Talk:evolution#Kinds and Talk:evolution#Misconceptions_sections My request is that being an administrator, you step in to stop this rather crude bullying, ans allow all views to be expressed equally (as long as they are expressed in a civil manner). i don't know what form of intervention would be preferable, but i feel that the current situation is not acceptable. I also beleive that User:Slrubenstein's attempt to "educate" users is rather problematic, and is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in regard to WP not being a soapbox. I have posted a warning to these users regarding WP:Civil, which has been ignored. Note: I have also posted this message on User:Jayjg's talk page. Thanks -Sangil 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) ELF An anon is labelling the ELF as a terrorist group. I'm near breaking 3rr on this, so I need someone else to go there and help me out. I think that we should go with the same consensus as on the ALF page, although there does not seem to have been any discussion on the ELF page of this issue yet. Still...we don't even label al-Qaeda a terrorist group. The Ungovernable Force 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Archives Hi, I did think that everyone was meant to archive their talk page but I don't know where the specific policy/guideline is if it exists. There was a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Blanking_of_messages_on_User_talk_pages_should_not_be_considered_vandalism which resulted in removal of warnings not being considered vandalism but most people in the discussion still seemed to think it good practice to archive. Arniep 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Please restore my message to GraceNote, I created the archives in good faith. Arniep 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Hi he did actually say he would consider making them. Arniep 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Editing policy pages Hi Slim. We seem to be close to, if not actually in, an edit war over the oppose votes (of which I probably cast the first to start with). I tried to make my reasons clear in the edit summaries, but there is more time and space here. If we decide we want to discard the oppose votes in the end, it's a trivial operation to go over them after the poll closes and discard (or, even better, just ignore) them. If we remove them now, then someone else opposes, we remove them again, someone new opposes... and then in the end we decide that we do want to look at both kinds of votes, it becomes a real pain in the ass to go through all the revisions and collect the votes again. So I think the prudent thing is to leave them in for now. And please WP:AGF. Take a look at my contributions if you think I'm here to make trouble....--Stephan Schulz 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Request for Assistance Hi. I'm not certain this is the appropriate way to advise of this sort of situation, but it seems to be, I think, and so here I am (so to speak). This RichardMalter person is at it again in the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test entry. Any advice or assistance appreciated. Fucyfre 06:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I think, as a new Wikiperson, that this process may prove, at least for me, illustrative. RichardMalter is now happily turning the BDORT entry, in the name of neutrality, into an advertisement for the wonders of the BDORT. I'm new, as I've indicated, at this process on Wikipedia, but it seems to me suggestive of the dilemmas inherent in many cooperative enterprises. Fucyfre 13:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I don't quite understand how Dr Omura's own journal, published from his apartment, promoting his 'researches' is a reliable source. Am I missing something? Fucyfre 14:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC) The dilemma, here, and I would think this comes up a good deal in such situations, is that an adherent, effectively a true believer, sees abundant 'objective' evidence. In this particular case it would seem one is dealing with an accolyte of Omura's, based on his page's link to one of Omura's two principal sites. He happily, and with, I suspect limitless devotion, will likely 'improve' the entry – Yoshiaki Omura's entry as well, now - to meet his notion of objectivity and his notion of reliable sources – meaning those of Omura. That, at least, is my take. Fucyfre 14:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC) As I've noted on the Bi-Digital O-Ring Discussion page, the journal in question is in fact simply a self-published enterprise. This entire enterprise is infinitely self-referential. Fine, if it didn' contribute in its delusions to the suffering documented in the NZ authorities report. Fucyfre 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Hello, again. I'm just dropping by to say I've given up on the BDORT entry as I've just noted in the Discussion section. It may sound mere petulance, but while I'm certainly prepared to engage in discussion, I literally cannot spare time to engage in endless, mindless combat with a true believer. Whether that is my limitation or that of the process in this Wiki space I am not prepared to judge. I certainly think it unfortunate in the extreme that Wiki seems readily put to use by adherents of a belief structure which clearly, by any external, reasonably objective assessmeent, is pseudo-scientific and puts people's lives at risk, as per the findings of the NZ medical commission, the only external, credible body to have evaluated the matter. I have no interest in endless, pointless, combat. I will cede the field to those who do. Fucyfre 00:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC) AfD I noticed you removed the AfD tags from various pages nominated for deletion by User:PZFUN, presumably because they are bad faith nominations. In that case, wouldn't it also be a good idea to close the AfD discussions for those articles here? David Sneek 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC) When you close AfDs When you close AfDs please remember to add the {{subst:ab}} tag at the bottom.--blue520 15:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC) AFD closures I'd like an explanation for why you closed my AFDs. It shows an incredble lack of good faith. I am deeply disturbed. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure why you bulk closed those articles for deletion either. I'm sitting here scratching my head over that. PZFUN is a fairly ok person most of the time, and checking some of the articles... well... they were short. While keeping per default doesn't do much harm, it still leaves poor PZFUN wondering what he did wrong. (And it also looks slightly strange to speedy keep an AFD that says "delete delete delete".) Soooo, I'm slightly puzzeled. Does this have anything to do with IZAKs recent errr... spam-campaign (for want of a better word?). Can you tell me more? Kim Bruning 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I concur with your current Ignore All Rules closure of the Articles for Deletion. This is nescesary to keep the peace. In the mean time, PZFUNs actions appear to have technically been correct, at least, for the random sample of articles I looked at. We could have been looking at different random samples of course. In the end , wikipedia is an encyclopedia governed by NPOV, and it does seem at first blush to some degree that a group of editors are banding together and trying to push their POV. This would be bad. Though, this could also be an incorrect early assesment. I'm investigating further, and I'll ask more people to look in. Kim Bruning 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Some of those articles were worthy of discussion, at least. For example, Liverpool Jewish Students Society. How could that be a speedy keep?--Nydas 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Bulk actions beget bulk actions ^^;; If you like, maybe you can undo the speedy if you like, or take it to Deletion review. Seeing the circumstances, any of those options should be ok. Kim Bruning 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Ok, answered. I do think you should have discussed this more with PZFUN before immediately taking it to AN/I. Since the situation is somewhat volatile I would have preferred to keep the incident under wraps. 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I've also put a notice at the articles for deletion page, so that a 3rd party does indeed do a review, as you are suggesting. In the mean time, you wouldn't happen to have skype or msn or so available, would you? Kim Bruning 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Some of these clearly seem to deserve more discussion than speedy keep. I hadn't seen your note on the the articles for deletion page and have just noticed it above - will go and read that now. Dlyons493 Talk 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC) PZFUN leaving Hello, despite our coming to an agreement, several editors have apparently taken it upon themselves to yell at PZFUN anyway :-(. Even though policy says he's entirely in the right. In part this is a consequence of your posting on AN/I, instead of resolving the situation quietly. Would you care to help clean up this situation some more? Thanks! Kim Bruning 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Further deletions by PZFUN Hi SlimVirgin: Here is a list of other articles relating to Jews and Judaism that User:PZFUN had nominated for deletion, without their being some serious discussion among Judaism editors if these actions are in any way justified. Any Judaism editor that has seen these pages has voted to keep them. Thanks. IZAK 20:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Sholom Day Camp Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Tel Noar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Star Camps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitz (sorry, this one was just zapped without notice and it could happen to others! well, now it's back but the name of the article was changed to Amitiz, so something is technically not right behind the scenes.) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Galil Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Gesher Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Massad Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Miriam Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Tawonga Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Yavneh Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurojews We have already seen those, IZAK. There's a massive row. They're all from: Category:Judaism_stubs. Sorry to say so, but according to policy, they need to be cleaned up, else someone else will come along and nominate them again later. Kim Bruning 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Hi Kim: Many people now are voting to keep those articles (except for the one that was snatched away now, unethically, considering the situation.) Nice hearing from you again, but here is my point again, if they need clean-up then either the original editors need to be informed and given ample time or alternately contact other Jewish/Judaism editors who have contributed to those articles. It has taken YEARS for many of these articles or stubs to be written and compiled, a very laborious job, by good editors who know something about the subject. You CANNOT expect that overnight, any admin will come along and expect that within hours or days somehow magically thousands of articles about NOTABLE topics will either be improved (which they don't even care to want) or suddenly wham NOTABLE topics will be deleted just because some people enjoy the fun of doing nominations for deletion. Remember, it's a lot easier to delete than it is to write, and you may be losing good information, then you will have people reinventing the wheel as those articles will reappear soon enough as it is. Nominations must also be done in good faith, as I am sure you understand the writing of these articles and stubs was done in good faith. We do not have enough editors who have the time and the English skills to touch up all the articles that sometimes do verge on Yinglish which nevertheless are crucial to the over-all subject-matter of Jews and Judaism. Many long-time editors are aware of this problem and we have been trying to correct it as best we can, but we are few in number, yet we have chosen NOT to delete, but rather to improve as time permits. I hope that no editors will add fuel to the flames of trying to perform a "virtual Holocaust" of NOTABLE Jews and Judaism (by Jews' and Judaism's standards) topics on Wikipedia which will only enrage all Judaism editors. People are getting impatient with shoddy writing, very nice, but it will take years to build Wikipedia, and no good will come of looking for quick fixes by the rise of the mass "New Deletionism". IZAK 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC) "Virtual holocaust" indeed. I am appalled at the level this discussion has sunk to. Back to the days of yore with usenet flamewars. Very well. As you wish. I invoke Godwin's law. This discussion is over. You lose. Sorry, you had a lot of good points. But I can't let your behaviour slide. Kim Bruning 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Kim: Please stop playing the "good cop-bad cop thought police" here, and please stick to the debate at hand. Get used to the way many Jews think and speak, sorry if you take it in the wrong way. IZAK 00:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I would second Kim - "virtual Holocaust" is going far too far, nauseatingly so. Especially since, as has been mentioned, PZFUN is part-Jewish. Also, please reflect on what you wrote above, "NOTABLE Jews and Judaism (by Jews' and Judaism's standards)" - what may be notable to Jews, or to any other follower of a religion, does not equate to what is notable for Wikipedia; that, I think, might perhaps be the misconception that you are operating upon. I also cannot see how the articles that PZFUN nominated could have possibly have taken years to write, as you assert above, as many are improperly sourced, POV, badly written, and often not properly fleshed out (either too short, or not comprehensible to those who aren't cognoscenti) nor that the process of creating them could have been "laborious". You write as if the articles PZFUN nominated for deletion achieved some gold standard of encyclopaedic quality, which they didn't. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Nicholas: Wikipedia = it's editors! As you well know with Scientology you can't have any Tom-Dick-and-Harry tell you that any old disciple/s of L. Ron Hubbard was notable, it takes PEOPLE, flesh and blood ones, like you and me and others, to use their brains and based on their intimate knowledge of the subject to decide if articles that are written up are worthy of merit and deserve being kept so that they will get better with time. Let's say someone says that an E-meter is no better than a bunch of wires attached to a battery and should be deleted because it's a pseudoscience contraption, now who better than a HUMAN BEING who knows about the subject to decide if what has been written is true or false, accurate or junk. I have nominated my fair share of Judaism articles for deletion, and even lost those votes sometimes, but when I do so I base my moves on deep KNOWLEDGE of the field and not on some shallow notion that I dig up by merely Googling. You and I, as editors, are Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not just a disembodied abstract notion flying around in outer space. Similarly, Googling will never be an absolute substitute for true scholarship, and over the years every group of editors in every area gets to know who those are that have CREDIBILITY as editors. Many Judaism editors monitor Judaism articles every day and we know when something is not deserving to be kept. VERY OFTEN it's deleted or redirected or merged, but I will be blunt: This new threatened "wave of terror" of the "New Deletionism" as exhibited by PZFUN and some others will not work and will backfire. You may shut me up, but you will not shut up every Judaism editor now or in the future who will reintroduce these articles simply because it's NOTABLY attached to the subject. Judaism, or any subject for that matter, is not what Wikipedia says it is, it is what its adherenets believe and know it to be and they often practice it as well. You may as well get used to that, just as we accept that you may know a thing or two about Scientology (even though we have no proof of anything), so have respect for us as well! No-one is saying there is any "gold standard" for anything! The articles were not perfect. Often articles about notable people and subjects are written by amateurs, but that is what Wikipedia is about, anyone can edit -- and at the same time the more experienced editors will see to it that eventually everything gets sorted out. The articles in question were not marked for deletion because their veracity was doubted, so why victimise them en masse. There are so many other hundreds of thousands of articles to choose from, why dwell on Judaism-connected ones that will invarioubly breed controversy. That is just the nature of the beast. As you know 90% of articles and stubs need improvement not just Jews and Judaism ones. IZAK 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC) The "virtual holocaust" comment is, indeed, quite offensive. Homey 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Offensive to who? When almost fifty articles about NOTABLE rabbis (themsleves survivors of the REAL Holocaust) are voted for destruction that is already a mini-virtual Holocaust -- did you miss the word "virtual"? . When you are threatening thousands of articles with demise, considering the relative scarcity of articles relating to Jews and Judaism it's, yes, a "virtual Holocaust". That is how it comes across. PZFUN's half-Jewishness is not a factor and has never been. Am I the only one objecting to this mass deletionism?Don't you see how many others are disgusted by the prejudice? You are losing the arguments so you resort to acting indignant instead of staying on message. What a pity. IZAK 23:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) IZAK, since the Amitz article is actually about a chapter of a larger organization it would seem that an AFD is in order. Instead of lobbying for speedy keep why not argue your case on the AFD page?Homey 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) IZAK: After being told once, I think that repeating your insults goes too far. Kim Bruning 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC) I did, but this message is for SlimVirgin which you guys are reading, ok by me. IZAK "Offensive to who?" To me for one. My father and grandfather spent several years in concentration camps and my maternal great grandmother died in one. I find flippant Holocaust analogies offensive as they debase the severity of the actual Holocaust in the popular mind. I urge people to avoid using the Holocaust as an analogy in an effort to score a point in an argument. Homey 23:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Calm down Homey: Both my parents were in the REAL Holocaust and three of my grandparenst were murdered by the REAL Nazis in it, so I know whereof I speak. (By the way, have you ever heard of the REAL Kristallnacht, it was a prelude to the REAL Holocaaust -- first they burned books then ... --- it must not be allowed to happen anywhere on any scale!) There is nothing wrong, or Verboten, in using Holocaust analogies if they make the point crystal clear. Take care, I must go pray now. Be well. IZAK 00:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. By the way, who the heck is Godwin? I have never heard of Godwin's law till now, sheesh people are making up new "laws" all the time, especially on the Internet, it's never going to be possible to keep up with that sort of thin now, is it? Now I am really late for my prayers...gotta go... IZAK 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I'm perfectly calm, I'm simply explaining patiently why your comments are offensive to me and I suspect to most Jews. Do you really think your grandparents would appreciate your comparing their plight to a trivial online dispute?Homey 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) And comparing AFDs to Kristallknacht is no less specious and no less offensive. Homey 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Homey: Obviously I don't view this as a "trivial online dispute". If it was, I wouldn't be wasting my precious time and effort on it as a labor of love. No doubt my grandparents (and parents) would be very proud of me that I go to the bother of protesting the eradication of the names of important Hasidic rabbis and some modern Jewish organizations on the most modern of communications mediums, the Internet, that spans the globe and reaches humanity no matter where they may be, a matter that is not "trivial" either, which is why how Wikipedia treats the subject matter of Jews, Judaism and Israel is so vital. I do have a decent brain you know. IZAK 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Speedy Keeps? Hey there, I was wondering why this AfD was given a Speedy Keep? I agree that the overall organization, NFTY, should indeed be kept, but the consensus has generally been that individual chapters or regions are not noteable except by virtue of their association with the parent organization. Similar articles for AZA and USY have also been deleted. You'll see I've proposed that all the regions be merged... so I guess I just wanted to hear your rationale for Speedy Keeping. - pm_shef 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Issue with User: Arniep Hi. I am having an issue with basically being stalked by User: Arniep and am looking for Administrator advice or intervention. I was notified by another user (not Arniep) that Arniep has put me on a list of something called an "Advertising Scam". First of all, understand I am not a "veteran" or daily user. I kind of tinker. I like reading more than anything but when I see something I can add to, I do. But I don't claim to be the Wikipedia expert. When I found out this Arniep fellow had put me on this "Advertising Scam" list, I tried to contact him directly to find out what it meant and if I had done anything wrong. Rather than deal with me in one-on-one, mature conversation Arniep advised me to file a complaint about him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. So I did what he asked me to do. Apparently that made him mad because he then put me on a list called "Sock Puppets" and put a notice on my User Page. Again, I tried reaching out to Arniep directly to discuss this. Again, he refused to talk directly. I was contacted by another User: Thatcher131. We discussed the situation and Thatcher131 decided Arniep was being unfair in his attacks on me and removed the "Sock Puppet" attack from my User Page. When I logged in tonight, guess what? Arniep has attacked me again. He has put the "Sock Puppet" attack back on my user page. Again, he refuses to discuss anything man-to-man. All he does is attack me. I don't understand and am not sure what to do. I would appreciate advice or intervention. Thank you Icemountain2 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) question Moved to talk page Hi Slim, I am trying to understand why you reverted this.[4] Some facts that are not disputed are presented as the "IDF view". Surly the proximity to the border and existense of smuggling tunnels is not just IDF view . Please help me understand. Thanks. Zeq 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC) missing Mir Harven Hi, I have noticed that you have acted on my 3RR violation complaint for user RobertaF, but not for Mir Harven, who made 5 reverts. He has not been blocked for this 3RR at all - is it perhaps that you missed him by chance. Thanks. Maayaa 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Daniel Brandt and audiatur et altera pars Dear SlimVirgin. Could you please check out the article Daniel Brandt? I posted the following paragraph which was deleted immediately for being POV and using "weasel wording": Blocking the user Brandt from Wikipedia and nevertheless keeping a biographical article about him anyone can continue to edit is a strong violation of the principle audiatur et altera pars. No one should be condemned without being given the opportunity to respond to the accusations against him. Brandt is an involuntary public figure. There is no weasel wording at all and the paragraph above is much more POV. This just presents an alternate view. --DenisDiderot 10:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)