en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin?limit=100 (note she didn't go for more than 2 days without editing...)

I saved your userpage for you at http://wikipediareview.com/slimvirgin SV, you can restore it now this whole temper tantrum is over and you got what you wanted...

http://dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=slimvirgin.com

LOL

Has anyone tried writing an email to the address listed in the whois page or telephoning her at the phone number listed?

This post is by ME, Scott Grayban, and wikipedia review has no say over this content since I take full responsibility of its content. SO SUE ME !


For a fellow Canadian to act like a some kiddie hitler when Canadian's are well known to be tolerant of other countries, religion, race, and sexual orintation, Sarah is by FAR the most ignorant asshole b*tch I have ever had the unpleasure of knowing.

Yup I'm Canadian... Born in Kelowna, BC. Sarah your one sick disgusting human. Words cannot explain how much I loth you as a fellow Canadian..

Is Sarah McEwan also known as Linda Mack? Go to this page and scroll down to Linda Mack on page XX. Hover over the email icon. It's the same email address as on the domain registration. I just got this tip today.

I know a little bit about Linda Mack. She was using NameBase on floppy disks back in 1989-90 (in 1989 it was called SpyBase). There is an outstanding invoice for pages I sent to her at ABC News in London for $11.90, dated 1990-01-22.

She lost a close friend on Pan Am 103, an American student from Brookline, Massachusetts, who had been at King's College. At that time she was pursuing a philosophy Ph.D. at King's College, Cambridge, but dropped out. She was 27 years old (which makes her about 45 now).

Linda Mack became deeply involved in the Lockerbie investigation, as a freelancer stringing for Pierre Salinger and ABC. She called me in Arlington, Virginia on 1989-08-11 to tell me that she had been pursuing a rumor about someone who knew all those spooks were on the flight, and who told the Iranians. At one point she contacted a CIA spokesperson. Not only did the CIA deny it, but she said they dispatched John Scali to call her and tell her to back off. (Scali was very high at ABC and was a special consultant on foreign affairs, and then ambassador to the U.N., under Richard Nixon. He has been spook-connected his entire career. He died on 1995-10-09.)

Holy crap, I'd probably start using another name too at that point.

This was a facinating post, Daniel. It does tie up with one of her earlier posts on the Pan Am 103 article, (a post which was discussed here on WR a few days ago): it indicated that the Libyans were not guilty. This was interpreted as a defence for Muslim terrorists in general... if I recollect correctly. I didn´t´post it then, but I reacted against this conclusion, as I recall that some of the Lockerbie relatives (still to this day?) do not believe that Libya was behind it, but instead point the finger at Iran.
One question: did Linda Mack teach English as a foreign language "all over Europe" in "her twenties"? Slimvirgin posted that she had.
She also posted inf. which made it clear that she knew about what they were teaching in journalism in the US in the 70´s.

On another note: Slim has also made quite a few edits relating to substance abuse, and how to beat it, like Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, Rat Park, Lauren Slater. Seen together, her edits here (especially in the last two articles) make it seem relatively "easy" to quit any dependency. (And that is not the experience of those I know who have tried to quit smoking )

Also: shouldn´t we move all this to the main S.V thread?

Ohhhh I knew I remebered that SV has even edited the Pierre Salinger article heavly as well......

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...9&oldid=9815169

Avillia, if you are still out there: I need some medicine, please! I have the hangover of the year, due to this

and sgrayban: I think I´ll go for 99%

Flaming Blissy??
Ok. That´s it: 100%.
Can somebody block him, please? A waste of time, and not even amusing... (Perhaps that was my "hangover" speaking )

I think that Daniel Brandt got a hit. Sarah McEwan doesn't add up, but Linda Mack does.

And whilst it looks like (someone named Joe, last name redacted) might not have been totally on the money, it was a pretty good guess too, I think.

I am willing to agree that Linda Mack is our hit.

But now what do we do with that information? We need to prove that she's done something wrong.

Uhh think here......

What are the odds of 2 people in 3 countries all having a link about Jews?

What if Linda Mack stole Sara's Identity to hide ? Or used that info to fake another person? After all the CIA was after Linda Mack and her investigating the Lookerbie Crash.....

There is a link here I am missing... I just can't place this. Why would SV specifically use a name in Canada that has anti-jewish views like she does? Why does she know so much about the Lookerbie Crash?

It should be fairly clear that Linda Mack is SlimVirgin. Now, what do we do with that information?

My first suggestion is to let the person herself know that her identity has been revealed. I've already emailed her to tell her that she's been tentatively identified on this forum.

My second suggestion is to stop and THINK about what you are doing before you go any further. I'm one of the people who agrees with Daniel Brandt's accountability project. Accountability is what Wikipedia needs. However, there is a difference between accountability and harassment. We haven't got to prove she's done something wrong. If she has done something wrong, then I'm not saying disguise it or keep quiet about it. But this forum is turning in a direction I am very concerned about. One person today who didn't seem like a troll to me was turned into a troll, and then someone's address was posted against forum rules. This isn't good behaviour. The forum moderators need to moderate themselves.

I don't have as many pet theories about SlimVirgin as some other posters do, but I do have one, and that is that this article provides important clues to SV's identity, and perhaps her actual agenda at Wikipedia.

hmm Cambridge Conversazione Society is like the Skull & Bones here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones

She is a member of the Cambridge Apostles? An undergraduate group of the 12 cleverest students who debates topics, and has been involved in spying?

Whilst it does add up, the issue is that of nationality. Slim Virgin is not British. She speaks from an American POV. Whilst she might be Canadian, she couldn't be British. Unless of course she just went there to go to University, which is a possibility.

She also has edited it quite a bit and it'd be interesting to look at her edits to see where this fits in.

Better do it before they censor it to the level that they censored Pan Am Flight 103.

I didn't say that, I have no evidence to that effect. But she is clearly fascinated by it, and the article notes that very few women have been members. I hope that Daniel can factor this in, and pull more rabbits out of his hat.

An analysis of edits might help. We found out a bit about the Pan Am Flight 103 by analysing edits. It was enough for Jayjg to decide to permawipe some stuff from history, saying it was "stalking", which is a good hint that we were on the right track. However, the edits he wiped were some that we didn't analyse...

I don't really see how it could seen as a defense for muslim terrorists given that the alternative theories variously indict Palestinians/Syria/Iran.

Ok, I wasn´t very detailed, and it could be misunderstood, but here are the posts I was thinking of (they got moved around a bit, now they are all in the "main" SV thread), look at:

#103: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=10148
(#118. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=10200)
#125: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=10226

It is SV´s first quote in #103 that I thought fitted very well with the info Daniel Brandt just gave us.

PS: It seems I was pretty much on target in post #118

I still think you're running up the wrong tree thinking she's anti Jewish or anti Israeli- do you think Jayjg and IZAK would be best buddies with her if she was? Just because she thinks the wrong people were blamed for Lockerbie doesn't say anything about her position on Jewish or Israeli matters , it just means that she wants the people who were really responsible for her friends death to be held accountable for it.

Maybe so.... but she is just a very mean person to everyone on WP.... calling them names when they disagree with her... banning them or getting other admin to ban them. She twisted the policies to make it fit her hate of a editor. The word "fair" is not a word she uses.


If she is really a "virgin" then her outright hate of people would be right on target. Why the hell would anyone want to be around a person that is so hateful. My pecker would crawl back inside and hide.

I hope you don´t include me among those who think SV is anti Jewish or anti Israeli?? Read my above post #125 again, please.
I have from the very beginning found both SV and Jayjg (ant lots of others) to be extremely pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian. Those who think SV is anti-Israeli do not (as far as I know) edit on Israel/Palestine issues.

sorry you're right I was reading a quote in your post written by someone else

Turning the blame to the US is POV.... There is no evidence that this was ever proven. The facts remain that Pan Am 301 crashed from a bomb... SV's edits ASSERT'S HER POV not facts cite by Governments or certified sources. So her edits do reflect the Jewish Community based on this.

And its EXTREMELY POV when she allows her feelings of a loss to run her editing on this subject.... common sense here people.

I don't think she ever blamed the US, she just believes (I think) that it was the Iranians who did it not the Libyans.

Sure, I don´t have any argument with that. (Though SV surely would! She always claim she is NPOV)

..this is actually a common problem: the issues you know a lot about are often issues you also feel strongly about.

Actually she did blame the US ..... search the forum for "27 years" -- I made a paste of what she actually edited. It was clearly POV written on HER FEELINGS. Not cited as required or sourced. It's speculative and it still remains that way to this day.

She even said the man that was sent to prison for murder in Scotland was inocent. Speculative, unsourced, no cite. Writen on and by feelings. It is so POV is sucks.

The post is -> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...148&#entry10148

I'm not sure how that post says she blamed the U.S. just that she thinks there was a miscarriage of justice. I think we need to cool down on saying SV is an anti semite/anti American/Israeli secret agent/whatever, she is a bad adminstrator yes but not those things.

Yes, this is true, but I urge you to avoid the common error of the conspiracy theorist, which is to begin compiling lists of persons who belong to these clubs. The significance lies rather in the mindset of people who are attracted to this sort of social environment; you can characterize the typical member, or wannabe, as someone who prides themselves on being very clever and amoral, and revels in exerting power over those lower-ranking mortals who are too slow-witted or sincere to move in such circles. I think that this description might also apply, occasionally, to members of the Wikipedia Cabal.



I think that the whole issue of whether SlimVirgin is pro- or anti-Jewish is a red herring. I'll explain why.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that this whole Cambridge Apostles business indicates that SV is totally impressed with these gangs of putative intellectuals who dominate foreign policy for the UK and Commonwealth countries. What is their relationship to the Jewish community? Historically, the British establishment was more than a little anti-Semitic, but then they turned around and produced the Balfour Declaration -- not out of remorse, but because they saw an opportunity to use Jews to further their geopolitical interests in the Mideast and elsewhere. Now, let's consider their relationship to Islam. The largest library of Islamic literature in the world is at Oxford. Does this indicate a particular reverence or respect for Islam by the British establishment? Hardly. They also had the intention to manipulate Muslims for geopolitical purposes (I could suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on Bernard Lewis, but that article is so sanitized as to be completely uninformative. And, not surprisingly, I find SlimVirgin among the contributors in the edit history.)

Every country has its black history, the American's put the Japanese American's in "Camps" during WW2 then turned around and demanded that all male Japanese American's serve in the US Army when the US found out they were running out of live bodies. That's using them for there own gain wouldn't you agree ?

You will find this subject so sanatized on WP it makes the US look like angel's. Yet facts and cited sources say otherwise.

For instance in my town, Spokane, WA we had such a "camp".... and even here its so sanatized its not even funny.

You're not sure? Hmmm I thought the bold would show that....

Looks pretty bold and plain there to me....

And of course she FAILS 100% to prove and cite/source her claims. They of course are POV based on her feelings of losing a friend. Its rational POV to her but irrational when no source backs this.

Er I think "America's second deadliest attack against civilians" referred to Lockerbie as the second deadliest attack on American civilians after 911?

Is that what she said? It's not what the quote seems to say.

I am certain she meant "the second deadliest attack against American civilians", not "the second deadliest attack by America against civilians" as Lockerbie is the former not the latter. The two deadliest attacks against civilians by America are Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

SlimVirgin is an immensely experienced Wikipedia editor, and apparently one of the best editors. Why are we guessing what she might mean? Surely someone of her calibre is writing clear, unambiguous English.

She POV edits.... and when a editor comes along and disputes her edits she goes off on them calling them trolls and even stalks them on their talk pages. I have seen how she acts.... It's a kiddie temper and she flings names at them like a 5 year in a sandbox. I honestly do not see her with having any friends IRL. Might be why she edits on WP so much.

Many times she edits with ZERO source cited.

@jorge.... It's a direct quote from the talk page..... She knows exactly what she writes at all times. Even knows how to write her comments to gain favour. I highly doubt she meant it any different then what she wrote. SV wrote that coming from a personal POV because she lost a friend on it and blames everyone for it.

Sgrayban I know you want to believe bad stuff about SV, but this just isn't true. It just isn't conceivable that with SV's obvious academic qualifications that she would think that Lockerbie and 911 were America's biggest attack on civilians, not knowing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by far the biggest attack on civilians by America.

I go by what I see and read... If she is such a well educated female she is a disgrace to the female race. No matter what anyone wants to see about her. If you want to see just the few things good then you are misleading your ownself.

Come on... lets not get personal feelings in the way... you might like her but the overall actions of her is very immature. Calling editors trolls? Just because they disagree with her is way out of line by anyone let alone SV with her massive upper/class education. Even the upper/class of educated Brit's would snub there noses at her.

Honestly tho, was there ever any doubt she'd be back? Unlike Katesfan0 who left immediately and quietly SV made such a song and dance (comparatively) that I had little doubt she'd return. Tho admittedly not this quickly.