User talk:Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive5

New article on a complex subject

A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:

Israel lobby in the United States

--Ben Houston 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Eulogy

It is a sad day when a big-time contributor, an administrator, someone with 8800+ edits, someone with specialized knowledge in a specific field, departs from the community. I am so sorry for the troubles you went through and for anything that may have built up your frustration all the way to an unbearable level. Your knowledge and contributions will not be forgotten, and I am among the many people who appreciate your efforts and achievements. I wish you the best.

On the other hand, there are many people who announced their departure from Wikipedia, sometimes more than once, yet couldn't resist the temptation to rejoin later on. I don't know what will happen in your case, but I do hope that you will change your mind and come back some day, no matter how impossible that might turn out to be.

Good luck!

Scobell302

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Expert Retention

I invite you to check out Wikipedia:Expert Retention; several expert editors who have left or are otherwise upset with Wikipedia are listed there (including yourself); several are presently commenting. I think that you could make a useful contribution. Whether anything will come of it, I don't know.

--EngineerScotty 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Can you point me to the policy or guideline that gives you the right to delete this [1] without a vote, without discussion, without alerting the uploader, without waiting for seven days, even although you're involved in a content dispute on that page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article

Going forward, I suggest a focus on dealing with these three issues with the NAS article. If we can effectively tackle these at least my concerns over the article will be addressed. My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows:

• Neutering critics
• Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation
• Article is about modern NAS theory, not term

What do you think? --Ben Houston 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you "really" left?

Since you declared your "departure" two weeks ago, you've made more than 100 edits, including today, which makes me wonder whether your "departure" was sincere or not. 17:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.2.251.74 (talk • contribs) .

I am hovering between leaving because I am disgusted with how wikipedia functions, and staying because of the potential that it could have if there was a willingness to really make an encyclopedia. But I guess the main reason is that I am involved in some issues that I want to finish appropriatly. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I know just how you feel; I have left one page [2] and am considering going altogether too. Whether we like it or not, WP will be increasingly used as though it were authoritative; so do we stay and do our best to help that, or are we merely giving the appearance of authority to something so flawed its best feft alone? There are some very good articles here, and some very good editors.Gleng 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of you should stay and help fix the problems. Best to remember that every reference is subject to bias including peer-reviewed journals. These issues need to be accepted and handled matter of factly. Wikipedia is very upfront about its weaknesses, more so than other media. In the long run, wikimedia projects will likely have a postive influence on the way that all media sites deal with real time addition of information. FloNight 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is this kind of paternalising reactions, by people who think that they have to tell me how science works, that I get the strong urge to leave. At wikipedia, it is process and power over content. And that drives experts away. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading your page. It is interesting. I have seen other pages with similar sentiments. I have not been here long enough to be cynical yet. I sort of hope you don't go, but on the other hand, if you feel really bitter about things, it might be best. The problem that I see is that even though wikipedia may not be perfect, it is huge and it has a gigantic presence on the net. Try google on anything and you will see a wikipedia result. Now go to Scholarpedia. Does that thing even have any articles written yet? I think you are right to be frustrated, but on the other hand, perfection might be the enemy of good enough. --Blue Tie 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments on proposed policy?

Kim,

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editors, and comment? As an admin, your perspective would be rather helpful.

Thanks,

--EngineerScotty 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So long! See you soon

I must tell you that I have appreciated your humanist and neutral view of our 1) world and 2) process here at Wikipedia. I am sure we will talk again soon--since I am an optimist and like to look forward to good things specifically and in particular. Goodspeed! --Rednblu 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear you!  :)) --Rednblu 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are addicted to wikipedia

You are addicted to Wikipedia it seems. I find it addictive too. Especially when there are things I feel are unfair I find I sink too much time into trying to fix then. The trick is to build up life outside Wikipedia and then it puts the little fights and petty POV pushing on Wikipedia into context. If everyone did that Wikipedia would be a better place. Unfortunately, Wikipedia by its nature draws a lot of people without much else in life -- probably for real reasons in some cases -- and thus little things become big things and squabbles get out of control. --Ben Houston 17:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I agree with your comments on my anal penchant for accuracy concerning the bacteria example in the Natural Selection article. It is a occupational necessity. For that reason I have decided to only edit and write concerns in discusion and never write or directly modify an article. I forget it needs to be a simple encyclopedia. The old adage "Keep it simple stupid" needs to be my personal mantra. I believe like AdamRetchless that expertise is a hindrance to writing a simple, balanced, and informative article. You seemed to be angered over the situation. I hope I have not contributed to that. I too considered abandoning this Wiki. I know many in academia who are either incredulous or discourage its use by their students. I tend to agree to some degree, but my greatest hope is that this Wiki will evolve into a gold standard for Wiki's and a standard of excellence for encyclopedias. If people (laypeople, scientist, or experts) abandon the project because of personal frustration or slight then the effort is weakened. I think it is not about us to some degree, but a commitment to produce a product that all will take some pride (I know I am altruistic, what an idiot!). Anyways, I discourage you from abandoning the project and I apologize if I have added to your frustration. GetAgrippa 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What would you advise? At your convenience. Please let it percolate.

I had been hoping to have a proposal to present to you for your comments on removing the self-contradictions in the text and definitions of the WP:NPOV page, but right now I cannot think of anything much beyond the vernacular expression and outline of some ideas in this edit. I have noticed for some time that you see a very realistic balance between the opportunity and current problems in Wikipedia NPOV policy. If you think of some advice that you think might be useful to me, please leave a message at your convenience on my TalkPage. I admire your work greatly and find your analysis very useful. Thanks. --Rednblu 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom appeal

I have launched a second appeal against the article ban, and have quoted your opinions in the statement of case based on a contribution of yours on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just wanted to alert you in case I was quoting you out of context. David | Talk 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. You may very well see me on the Admin's noticeboard commenting constructively on how to build a better encyclopaedia, but not, I am sure, as a problem user. David | Talk 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well its out of my hands now

I requested a protect, but I also specified a specific version. You have protected the version of the page that the person conducting the threats did not like. I doubt the threats are real, but I think it is not wisdom to tempt fate. Ideally you have not made a bad decision. I think wikipedia could wait a while while the investigation was conducted and we could be assured that there was no danger to a living person.

It seems to me that wikipedia needs a policy on this matter. --Blue Tie 20:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was needed. I do not agree that you should have protected the version that may put a person at risk. I do not know if this is a common occurance, but if it is, there should be a standard set forth for how to react. It seems wrong to me to have you or anyone on wikipedia make this decision in haste without guidance. --Blue Tie 20:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Abstracts

I have sent an e-mail re Jaguar abstracts. Thank-you kindly.

Re the use of the secondary sources, my thought had been that they are necessary to avoid OR through citation selection and synthesis. On the first point, b/w the Guidelines and the IUCN I could deduce, say, that Emmons 1987 and Seymore 1989 (which you have provided) are vital papers, and that Rabinowitz is a name I should use. But if I have Smith 2006, how do I know it's not a minority viewpoint, doomed to be cited by nobody, etc.? I wanted to foreground only that which others have already foregrounded. On the second point, I would say again that I was only disagreeing about how didactic we should be. For instance, "in the past" subspecies were recognized. Now, not to challenge in the slightest the fact that the papers deprecate the subspecies divisions, or your analysis of them, but do we have the right to say "in the past" until we have a paper, which others have regularly cited, saying so? When a good secondary source, like the IUCN, declares "Pocock's subspecies are no longer recognized", Wiki, a tertiary source, is on firm ground declaring the same. That's my opinion, anyhow. Marskell 07:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for e-mails. One came through garbled, but otherwise OK.

I had always thought of sci papers as primary sources themselves when, say, detailing observations in the wild, and secondary insofar as they cite other papers. In any case, "be conservative", especially if you're an amateur, was what I was trying to get at. Of course, you're absolutely right about being up-to-date (it's one of Wiki's advantages, after all) so it's kind of a teeter-totter. I've enjoyed going through the FA process with this one, as it's improved my attention span. No more random googling... Marskell 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bye

I'm gone. Was fun to work with you. See [3]

Thank you...

for semi-protecting List of banned books. That sort of rent-a-mob behaviour just isn't on. Marnanel 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Leaving? Are you kidding me?! Are you thinking of Citizendium? -- Szvest 11:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm sure. Like I said in my email, I hope you reconsider.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA

is there nothing I can do correctly? why is everything I say contorted out of proportion and declared "troubling"? - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"I have my motivation to object seriously against you being an admin."

And that's previsely what I was asking about. What is that motivation? Is it the Deir Yassin thing? Do you think I am Zionist? What is it? - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#SlimVirgin

Just a friendly gnomish note: in the arbitration case statement above, you mention "RfA" twice, but seem to be referring to a Request for Arbitration (WP:RFAR) instead of a Request for Adminship (WP:RFA). It being an arbcom case, I'd really rather not be bold and jump in and fix it, but would rather leave that to you. Have a nice day! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision. KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances. Should Guy Montag violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Still unsure about HIV??

Still haven't noticed how transparently STUPID the HIV apologists are? (I mean, you have a head on your shoulders, you can recognize intellectual dumbasses...)

Did you read Henry Bauer's papers? Here's the links:

• "Demographic Characteristics of HIV", by Henry Bauer
  • Part I
  • Part II
  • Part III

I find it hard to imagine how anyone with a modicum of scientific background can HONESTLY read these 3 articles and NOT start questioning the HIV/AIDS religion.

darin

How 'bout that article in JAMA?? Take 60 minutes to read that frikking joke and tell me what you think. 69.252.201.61 20:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for some Help!

Hi Kim,

I’m sending this message out to about 4-5 people I’ve worked with here on Wikipedia. You may remember me as I did some diagrams for you in the oral sex article? Although mainly I actually do medical/biochemical diagrams. This isn't a blind carbon copy to 1000 people. Sorry its only partially wiki-related...

Basically as you probably know I make a lot of diagrams for use on Wikipedia in my spare time while studying a Biochemistry BSc (hons) degree at the University of Sussex in the UK. Next year (in my final year) I’m planning on starting up a medical graphics company. Its been suggested to me more than once that some of my diagrams are as good as, if not better than those presently in research papers and text books, so it seems like a good logical progression (and more so something I enjoy!) to start up a company producing them.

But without a reputation, and as a nameless student work will be stagnant or non-existent. So I’m desperately trying to make a small name for myself and to build a credible reputation as both a scientist and artist. So to cut to the chase what I’m messaging people about is just to say please please please, if you or any of your colleagues are publishing research articles/text books etc. and need bespoke diagrams please get them in touch, I would be forever grateful! I’m very very happy to do the jobs for free as I enjoy them anyway and the exposure would help me no end! They have nothing to lose, if they don’t like what I produce its not like they paid for it, and are under no obligation to use it. I can’t stress how helpful a diagram in a published work would be for me. I do have a portfolio of generally better work than the pics here on Wikipedia, but examples to show colleagues are those such as:

Anyway, as always if you need any diagrams done here on Wikipedia, I’m an email away! If you do by any chance know of anyone seeking a scientist/artist then please be sure to get them onto me! (My email is nick-daines@hotmail.com). Thanks!

WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Null edit

Hello KimvdLinde,

Sorry for having made this null edit to your user page. My only intention was to delink the image Image:Fruit fly male pupa-brown-and female-pupa-white-01.jpg, which is a duplicate version of Image:Fruit fly pupae 01.jpg. Best regards, Korg (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

HoTR evidence

Kim, you requested email evidence regarding the identity of Fullsome Prison. I had offered to provide this if there was still any doubt that FP and HoTR are the same. If you're still wondering if they are the same person, you can leave a note on my Talk page and I will send the evidence to you. Kla'quot 17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit of friendly advice

Glancing at your recent edits, it seems that you may be losing your cool a bit over Jayjg, HOTR, etc., so I suggest that you take a step back and turn your focus elsewhere for a bit. (Note: I am in no way involved in this issue, so you do not need to feel offended if you dislike this advice.) Scobell302 22:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Kim. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support, both during the process and more generally in project at large. I assure you I'll continue to serve Wikipedia to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 07:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaving wikipedia - invoking right to vanish - can you help?

Hi Kim, I've got major outside commitments and while it was fun to contribute to Wikipedia, it isn't something that I really can continue to do. I am invoking something called right to vanish -- it is described here [4]. I have changed my username and I would like someone to delete my user talk page [5] and [6] (I've already had the user page deleted) and then protect the main user/talk pages against recreation as well as blocking the account against future use. I'd appreciate it if you could help me on this matter. Best. --Deodar 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deodar. Done. Talk pages are not protected, maybe people have something to say, but I have protected your main page and blocked you indef. All the best. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deodar's Talk page

Kim, I found User Talk:Deodar with no edits at all in its history except yours. How did come to be this way? Where did everyone else's contributions to the page go? Also, I consider this: [7] to be vandalism and have removed it. Kla'quot 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

People have the right to vanish. So, if you had checked the deletion log, you would have seen that the page was deleted according to the meta page related to right to vanish. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the deletion log alright, but of course while it said that the page was deleted, it did not explain why a new version of the page existed with only your edits in it. I figured out eventually that after deleting it you must have created a new version of the page. And instead of leaving it blank, which would have been the standard thing to do, you added your own comments to it to complain about what (you think) a third editor has done. I doubt I'm the only one who considers it inappropriate for the talk page history of a good user to consist entirely of bitter comments that have nothing to do with him, made after he left and asked to be indef blocked. I see that Khoikoi has restored the full history of the page and it's now blank as it should be, so I consider the problem resolved. Kla'quot 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

As you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in Talk:Iraq_War#RFC. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Autism (Incidence)

The Autism frequency article got rfa'd, and autism (incidence) may merit some attention again. I suspect there is a need for a prevalence article. Midgley 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you should know

User:SlimVirgin has been removing youyr entry from Expert retention (c.f. this diff). Mangoe 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not as though I'm trying to tempt you into further conflict. Well, maybe I am. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of what was going on. I can understand your sentiments, though, as I am somewhat inclined to throw in the towel myself. Mangoe 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another cat

If you happen to stop back in: Talk:Cougar#Cheetah_migration and Cougar#Taxonomy. Cheers, Marskell 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So, is it half decent? Marskell 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's funny you removed "unresolved". I've been relying on that word with the cats since you used it on Jaguar because so much of it is, uh, unresolved. Marskell 21:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's at least three papers. Whether the Cheetah diverged in the Old or New World (and thus its relation to the Cougar)seems perfectly unclear. Follow the first link above. But it's three months now, and it was hard enough then. Marskell 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC on editor conduct

I just opened an RfC on my conduct during the dispute surrounding the Gary Weiss article. You were involved in the AfD discussion on the article. The RfC is located here and I would appreciate any comments or questions you might have. CLA 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your page

Hello Kim. I'm was never active on English Wikipedia, I worked in the Portuguese edition, yet I enjoyed reading your page and I can tell you that some of these problems happen in other Wikipedia, as you might imagine. I don't know if you've noticed, but they deleted the essay about the expert who left and know you have a red link on your user page, it's probably something you might want to change. Greetings, --JLCA 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Note about a couple of edits

I noticed you linked grazer to herbivore on the OFT page. However, in this functional classification (see e.g. Townsend et al, Ecology) grazing isn't necessarily herbivory - for example a mosquito could be classed as a grazer. On the other hand, herbivory isn't necessarily grazing either, as herbivores may kill a plant by eating the whole thing or a vital part of it (e.g. chewing through the base of the stem or may live in such close association to be classed as parasites (e.g. caterpillars living on a single plant). One classification is by the effect they have on the prey and how closely they live with it, while the other is by tropic level (carnivore, herbivore etc), so similarly a true predator and carnivore are not synonymous (a true predator could be a herbivore and a grazer a carnivore, for example).

I also noticed you took down a statement about plants as herbivores, but even without citation (I agree the statistical part requires a citation and should have been removed) there are many well known parasitic plants that feed on others, so I added it back. Richard001 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should tell them to improve it instead :) Richard001 04:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ApartheidMerges

Template:ApartheidMerges has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

I noticed your edits on the Cougar page. Good to see you're around again. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Cretanpride...

Hi I have a REALLY importian question about User: Cretanpride! If its ok w/ you!--Lolicon-r.us 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

Good to see you are still around.--RidinHood25 18:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Man

Modern English has no gender for anything but pronouns. The agentive suffix "-er" is a good example. Someone who runs is a "runner" whether the pronoun is "he" or "she". Unfortunately, we've attached a feminine gender (-ess suffix, borrowed from French which retains a much stronger gender system) to some words making the neuter look as if it was masculine when it really isn't. E.g. "waiter" is neuter; "waitress" is feminine. To be gender-neutral in our speech we can use "waiter" for both sexes, instead of the ugly neologisms some establishments have settled on. (Not to mention the perfectly good, concise word "steward" instead of the absurdly polysyllabic "flight attendant".) Despite its now universal perception as a masculine word, "Man" etymologically is neuter and refers to the species. The original English term for a male human is "wer", preserved now only in "werewolf". "Man" in the sense of a male human only arrived later. But somehow, I don't see acceptance of "man" for humankind and "wer" for male humans arriving anytime soon. It would be a neater solution to the gender-neutralization problem than some currently in use, as would adoption of neuter pronouns for people when the sex is unknown instead of restricting it to inanimate objects.

Sorry for cluttering up your talk page with this, but I can't help it sometimes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Gender: Sexist Language and Assumptions. BTW: Kim, while I was happy to see that your article on Barnardius zonarius was approved at Citizendium, I am sorry that the project has not gotten more traction. It is a project that deserves to experience significant growth soon.--Onescrowd 00:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

cougar

Hi Kim,

I didn't blindly revert, I merged in all changes between the DumBOT removal of the page protection and the last edit before mine, except for a taxobox change. All the best. Beyazid 03:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean your edits from Sept 18th were lost? I wasn't around on the page actually until Sept 23rd. The edits of yours unfortunately were gone on the 23rd because of another user. Beyazid 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My expert proposal

I'd like to see more scientists gain something close to proper recognition on Wikipedia. In that vein, I've been working on a new proposal to define experts with a Wiki-centric POV, which will be the foundation from which real world experts, like yourself, will be "properly" recognized. By Wiki-centric, I mean 5-pillars. I believe this approach will "force" those scientists who are truly dedicated to the objective truth to grow in Wikipedia, thereby giving them the full respect of the community. I feel the great obstacle will be in mitigating the childish knee-jerk reactions of those who would become divisive elements. A community divided cannot stand for long, and it's my impression that Jimbo's 5 pillars are our unifying force. Are we not all helping to compose a free-content encyclopedia written by consensus, with a code of conduct, but no firm rules, for the editors?

In short, I'm inviting you to read my proposal, and add some comments, if you please. TIA. CanIBeFrank —Preceding comment was added at 06:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)