User talk:SlimVirgin

Why local?

Hi SlimVirgin,

I see you restored Image:Zigong People's Park Zoo.jpg, saying we should keep a local copy. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the various Wikipedia image issues and this was a new one to me. Would you mind enlightening me on the advantages of having a local copy of an image that exists on Commons?--Kubigula (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense - thanks. Though I sometimes work the on-Commons backlog, I'm skeptical of the real benefit of those deletions. If the deleted local version is still available on the server, we can't be saving much space or processing power.--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, SlimVirgin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours,, I am sorry if this is a repost, Chafford (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

VP

don't you mean VS? :) ViperSnake151 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Incivil"

FYI, per the English language, if enough people in the world use this word (especially in reputeable places like en.wikipedia), it can become an officially recognised word. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks, SlimVirgin, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:StephenColeridge.jpg

Hello, Image:StephenColeridge.jpg seems to have ended up on Commons, but it really shouldn't have as it doesn't seem to be in the public domain in both the UK and US. I've removed the CSD I8 nonsense for now, but I'm sure it will be back. So, you may want to add a {{KeepLocal}} tag to our copy so that it doesn't get mistakenly deleted. Many thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop going on about CAMERA; you, in particular, with the user name you chose, can't point the finger at anyone else regarding being on Wikipedia to emphasize a particular POV. ... talk|edits 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We should use sources that refer to "Palestinian Duplicity" the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". Sources like this that use "hate-speech" are closely linked to gross historical fabrications and my suspicions regarding CAMERA have been spectacularly proved correct, they have indeed been trying to distort the project - and more, to cheat, elevating sleepers into admin positions.

This kind of thing might be less of a problem if people demonstrated more personal integrity, avoiding sources that might be expected to cheat. If the rush of three brand-new SPAs were labelled, then their interest in a topic in which CAMERA has a special interest (33 articles) and is on a campaign would still be suspicious, but not so disturbingly opaque. PR^talk 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Hi, just another nudge here, can I ask you to try really hard to avoid using the words "you" and "your" in the al-Durrah discussion? I know that you are very experienced with Wikipedia policies, but it is precisely because of that, that I'd really like to see you set a good example on the talkpage. If you disregard my requests, then it weakens my authority with everyone else, too. So, please?  :) Thanks, --Elonka 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you are doing on the al-Durrah page

I just want you to know that I appreciate it and consider it a tremendously valuable contribution whichever way it ends up going. As regards Elonka's comment above, I sometimes try to use the impersonal "one" instead of the more personal "you"...hope that helps. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kipling

Hi Slim Virgin, see pls commons:Image:Kiplingcropped.jpg and the warning about speedy deletion. Some two years ago I uploaded this image from en.wiki as I needed it for cs.source. In the meantime it seems to be deleted here so that I cannot find any source. Do you have something??? Thanks, I hope the image will stay, -jkb- (cs.source) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I found something, see diff [1] if it is right, -jkb- (cs.source) 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thx for your answer, I continue here. When you have a look on commons:Image:Kiplingcropped.jpg, so there is a remark that you have uploaded the cropped image on en.wiki, I must have found it there, now it seems to be deleted. So, my question is, if you can remember the upload of this image, and if you can confirm that (my opinion) the image has been made (probably by you) from the image commons:Image:Rudyard Kipling.jpg I have seen some 20 minutes later by a chance. I watch your talk page now, so you can answer here. Thanks a lot, -jkb- (cs.source) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I do recall uploading something that was cropped from the Commons image, if that's your question. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, so I will link to the uncropped image which has a suitable licence, let us hope the commons activists will have a good mood exceptionally :-), -jkb- (cs.source) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ATT

Please try a new solution at ATT. I've tried to trim to a core which we can build on. As written it is not succeeding. Can we try to rebuild rather than just replacing the same failed material? Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I see your point and have mixed feelings about replacing two related but different policies with one. However, if it is meant to be an archive, it should be tagged as failed. As it stands at the talk page there is more support for this being some type of instructive essay, which it really is not in the current form. Please let my edit stand for a while and then revert it so we can demonstrate my point. I'll trust your judgment and won't revert your choice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that too much PR and PC went on to come up with this "policy that is not a policy', a fudge by Jimbo etc. If it is to be a summary, then it should summarize, and there should be a standard for creating a policy summary, just like there is a standard for creating policies and guidelines. If we need summaries, then we should develop the concept in the light of day, not quietly in a corner of the project. Frankly I think that the solution is to simplify the policies. As to the politics, my understanding is that ATT was developed as an alternative to WP:N, then took on a life of its own when N was revived, becoming a process seeking a purpose which ended up trying to replace two core policies. Are you familiar with the term "escalating commitment"? This could be the case here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right my bad on the idea that it was to replace WP:N, that was AI. Anyway, the history is interesting, but the purposes served today are most important. I see your point in preserving this as a record of the work etc. But I don't see it serving any active purpose as written. I'd just archive it and determine independently whether we need a summary of the policy pages or just clearer policy pages. We'll probably have to agree to disagree here. PS: I'm sorry to see you getting so much flack over maintaining your privacy. Good luck and keep smiling. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is not easy to change policy pages, but we've made really good progress at consensus and WP:N in the last year, with the former being much clearer to understand. One step at a time. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

response to your note

You do realize that you had a conflict of interest in that block in not just one, but two ways. One, you were in dispute with that user, two, you were asked to do it by the subject of the article itself. Jossi got taken to ArbCom for his CoI with Prem Rawat, and ended up putting a self imposed restriction never to edit the article. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused?

I think you are confused "Philip, please stop changing the policy" see this diff Regards --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tundrabuggy

I swear to God if people spent half as much time writing articles as they have discussing this (relatively) simple ban, we would have six new featured articles. : - )

As I explained to Elonka on my talk page, it's a ban from one article and one talk page. And, you've been around long enough to know that this wasn't about the specific edit, per se. It was about the behavior and the nature of the edit. Jayvdb has offered to review Tundrabuggy's behavior in a month and he (or someone else) is free to re-evaluate the ban at that time. Really, with over 2.4 million other articles to edit, I don't feel Tundrabuggy is really being disenfranchised by not being able to edit a specific article and its talk page. If, after a month of editing other pages, it looks as though he can behave properly and edit collaboratively while not making disruptive and point-y edits, I would be happy to see the ban lifted.

Let me know if you have any other concerns. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so we are clear . . .

I was objecting to this. I think this needs some clarification on the quote issue and have no objection about the mention of page numbers there. --BirgitteSB 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate any feedback you can offer at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal.--BirgitteSB 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiGiraffes

I've made this offer before to others, when there was a chance of an appearance of a conflict of interest... I'll take the block on, (via an un/re block in quick succession) and take responsibility for it, if you wish, because I agree it was completely sound... and I agree there is an appearance of a conflict, even if there isn't an actual one. If you want me to, just let me know. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)