User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive40

[edit] An ice cream to say thank you

I present this strawberry ice cream to SlimVirgin for her fantastic work in bringing articles into line with the BLP policy, and for her willingness to help new users. ElinorD 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of WP:ATT

Hi SlimVirgin, I'm wondering why you did this revert on WP:ATT. I think some clarification is needed to keep that section in line with general Wikipedia philosophy. Do you have any suggestions? --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange coded message thing

This was not me. I was making another change and this stuff somehow got registered to me. Curious. --Dking 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

Yes, we need ask what the good is. Oemb1905 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Deutsch

In regards to the George Deutsch page, I would argue that we should revert this article back to the orginal form, before 208.255.229.66 began the edit war, since that was it's most informative state. The information about The Scientific Activist was in there long before I began editing Wikipedia, and is certainly relevant. 208.255.229.66 removed that information when he or she began purging Wikipedia of any mention of Nick Anthis, and this case was particularly inappropriate, since it removed relevant information that had been on Wikipedia for over a year. The original revelation came from The Scientific Activist, as pointed out in The New York Times, and although that may be fairly common knowledge now, it certainly won't be many years down the line. Biochemnick 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Familiar tune

I like the seahorses. See: this COI complaint I just filed. It should sound familiar.--Cberlet 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on enbatteled users.

1/ It's sad to see Zoe has left after that edit war.

2/ Homer slips got a personal attack from Saintrotter. I will wipe the P.A. as soon as posible.

^{Warning- Saintrotter is a new bloke, who has a right wing bias. He also apears to be in a bit of bother over his general attitude on edits wars. Steer well clear of this guy.}--Longend. 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Why are you archiving current discussions? At attribution you archived things discussed just yesterday. Wjhonson 08:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I've restored a few active discussions. We should probably only archive things that have had no discussion for at least 7 days I'd think. Even that is being pretty strict, but the page is rather large. People come to it, not just to talk, but also to read-up on what's been recently discussed. If they are in conflict on a recent policy edit, and the discussion has already moved to archive they have to have a lightbulb go off "Oh I'd better *also* check the archive". Not that many editors are that quick on the uptake to do that.Wjhonson 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Williams

WP:FN requires that references should go directly after the punctuation mark with an external space. I believe each existing FA should continue to adhere the featured article criteria and comply with the manual of style. Thanks. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the manual of style isn't a policy, althought it's preferable that articles should have certain accepted standards. I can't require each article to meet it, but featured articles must to. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:FN#Where to place ref tags: Wikipedia uses American convention for the placing of reference tags,[4] i.e. the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark. There has been consensus on this addition at the guideline talk page quite a while ago. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Marsden etc

Would you please have a look at my edit to the Rachel Marsden article - I'll be looking for support - and at my comments on the talk page of your policy proposal. I do think it is a problem that some marginally notable person may have to live in fear that we'll discover the old newspaper article that prints a story about some forgotten indiscretion. However, I don't necessarily think the solution is to delete entire articles. We should make it the culture not to write such things - Mel Gibson's recent run-in with the law is different, because it was highly publicised and we did him no additional damage. But why publish non-notable but damaging facts about marginally notable people? I think this point falls within the spirit of BLP, and I'd like to see admins (and other users if possible) adopt that spirit. This may mean changing some policies, as some people will wiki-lawyer at the moment about their right to muckrake.

I'm not sure I agree with your actual policy proposal, but I certainly agree with your identification of a problem. I suspect that Jimbo would agree, too, if he became aware of the problem in these terms, though of course it's only a suspicion and maybe I'm wrong about that. Metamagician3000 13:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply on my talk page. Metamagician3000 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Making it happen"

Well, you're more responsible for that than anyone. And it has happened, hasn't it? With less trouble than expected, we've pulled off a merger of V and NOR. The talk page is still getting hit by waves, but the boat isn't tipping.

On BLP, what did you think of allowing 'crats to have total discretion? Much has been said about bureaucratship being a less than full glass that could be topped-up by other things. (Though we don't have a lot of them active.) And what do you think of moving "Biographies of living persons" to "Information on living persons" or "Material on living persons" (WT:BLP)?

And thanks for the barnstar; it's been a while. Marskell 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

I'll take a look at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage reverting

Oh, hey, thanks. Jkelly 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jadger here

could you maybe protect Recovered Territories as they (Balcer and Piotrus) won't discuss on the talk page. I would prefer to discuss with them before an RfC, and I think maybe a temporary protection of the article may work to atleast get them to discuss it. an RfC would only really work if they were actively involved in discussion, which they aren't

--Jadger 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just see talk page for who is discussing and who is not... and a user who refuses to change his argument throughout over a year is not really discussing anything. Also, Jadger is activing quite disruptive. His posts at User_talk:Jadger#3RR_block and User_talk:Piotrus#thanks are close to violating WP:NPA, and the first one especially states quite a few false statements: Piotrus violated the 3RR just as much as I did, this block was lifted because it was rather unfairly represented, etc.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dershowitz/Finkelstein affair

Please don't block me again. I am now discussing it on the talk page. So any further attempt's to block me from editing now stand as completely unfair.annoynmous 06:07, 5 March (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

^{Superscript text}What self-published third party sources are you referring to? This is complicated business, and it would help if you would be specific. --Tsunami Butler 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be reluctant to name the source you are objecting to. Is it Daniel Brandt? I have gathered from various Wikipedia controversies that you and he don't get along. His organization is no different than Chip Berlet's (in fact, Chip Berlet was once part of his organization) and in fact, there is an organization, whereas Dennis King's website is entirely self-published.

But you still haven't answered what I think is the main question here: we are not talking about "contentious claims about living persons." We are talking about a conspiracy theory of Lyndon LaRouche. You yourself have taken pains to emphasize that he is a conspiracy theorist, and this is an article specifically about his theories. I don't see how you can object to LaRouche as a source for his own theories. --Tsunami Butler 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mousetrap

I'd like to have your opinion on the images used in the mousetrap article. In my opinion most of them are informative and useful. On the other hand some people feel we are going overboard with gore. Haukur 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Haukur 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt deletion rationale

I appreciated your rationale for deletion of this article and agree completely. In your last point you stated that, "…bios of borderline notable living persons should be deleted on request." There was recently a request for comment at WP:BIO about adding this provision to the guideline. I tried to bring this up a year ago, but it seems that the policy wonks for that guideline routinely shoot this idea down every time it comes up. I wonder if you would be interested in offering your opinion there. If there was consensus to add this to the guideline, it would go a long way towards seeing that there would be solid reasons for deleting this article and preventing this type of situation in the future. —M (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BabyDweezil

Thanks for the heads-up. It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but you made the right decision. -- ChrisO 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity in bios

Why is so important to mention ethnicity in some bios and not others? Should we remove ethnicity from all bios?--Tom 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity often, or even usually, isn't mentioned. To pull someone out at random, I don't see Julianne Moore's ethnicity mentioned. How do you see Libby's ethnicity as relevant to his bio? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree. From my wonderings, I have found ethnicity, specifically Jewishness, mention in 90% of the bios. Is it ok to remove these references? If so, there is a ton of work to be done, especially with Jewish American Baseball players. I am not in the camp that says that Libby's actions/policy are based on his ethnicity, but in a full bio, it could be mentioned. It seems that an effort to keep his ethnicty out of his bio is odd. --Tom 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting Roger Federer

I saw that you unprotected this page. Was there a request for unprotection? The vandalism that many tennis articles have been experiencing, including Roger Federer in the past, is continuing. This was the reason you protected this article on February 21, 2007. Tennis expert 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism never stopped. It just moved to the unprotected tennis articles. See, e.g., the edits of 65.6.54.37, 72.155.110.55, 68.155.20.145, and 70.153.126.141. This user (Lman1987) has proclaimed that he has "thousands" of IP accounts and is never going to stop "World War III." Administrator Ryulong, Administrator Redux, myself, and many others have spent tons of time fighting this vandalism and blocking the sockpuppets of this incivil user, including this past weekend. Many of those articles remain protected for this very reason. With all due respect, unprotecting Federer is just going to increase our burden. Tennis expert 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protecting those articles would be very helpful, although it obviously would not prevent him from moving on to other articles or registering new accounts like he did with Tennis Genius. Thanks very much for the offer! Tennis expert 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. If your offer to semi-protect various tennis articles against anonymous IP account vandalism is still open, please consider semiprotecting the following articles as they have been the target of continuing vandalism by one particular individual with numerous sockpuppets who promised as late as yesterday that he will "never stop" doing this and has an unlimited supply of IP accounts. Hicham Arazi, Arthur Ashe, Marcos Baghdatis, Alberto Berasategui, Boris Becker, Tomáš Berdych, Sergi Bruguera, Pat Cash, Michael Chang, Arnaud Clement, Alex Corretja, Albert Costa, Jim Courier, Kevin Curren, Stefan Edberg, Thomas Enqvist, Vitas Gerulaitis, Fernando Gonzalez, Goran Ivanisevic, Thomas Johansson, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Petr Korda, Richard Krajicek, Gustavo Kuerten, Henri Leconte, John Lloyd, Alex Metreveli, Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster, Ilie Nastase, Yannick Noah, Magnus Norman, Tom Okker, Mark Philippoussis, Nikola Pilić, Patrick Rafter, Greg Rusedski, Rainer Schüttler, Stan Smith, Michael Stich, Guillermo Vilas, MaliVai Washington, Mats Wilander. Thank you! Tennis expert 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for protection on List of Ukrainians

Please protect that article. I am attempting to stop an anon from relentlessly pushing his POV without providing any evidence (well at least that is my take on it). Anyway, we have an edit war and it should be stopped. Help.

The anon's insults on my talk page are certainly not helping me to be reasonable and cool. Balcer 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for acting so promptly. I agree that I broke 3RR. It will not happen again. Balcer 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_Ukrainians

It looks like we both protected the article at exactly the same time (6:36). My semiprotection seems to undo your protection. I understand that you want some equality, while I was trying to still allow adding uncontroversial Ukrainians to the list, while the anonim is free to get an account. Besides the anonymous edits are highly controversial (almost vandalistic). There was no Ukrainian state at that time and very little proof that all these Poles and Jews considered themselves Ukrainians.

Anyway, I understand where you came from. Please reprotect the article if you feel it is better Alex Bakharev 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unpacking "likely to be challenged"

A long debate has come up at WT:WIAFA (see last thread) over whether to use the "likely to be challenged" wording in the FA criteria, and what exactly it means if we were to unpack it. As you know, FACs and FARs are often whacked by silly citation requests. I know the ATT talk hasn't settled down, but defining "likely to be challenged" a little further could be an all round good. Someone pointed to this, which I thought interesting. Perhaps something like "statements for which an informed but not necessarily specialist reader might offer plausible alternative explanation." Marskell 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK, I'll give it a try

And I apologise if I caused you any offence in the past. Look after yourself ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BabyDweezil

I have unblocked BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) so that she can file a request for arbitration. Editing is limited to Requests for arbitration and her user pages. Fred Bauder 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit to Partnership minyan

Hi Slim! an edit was made to Partnership minyan adding the following paragraph:

Recently in the JOFA 10th Anniversary International Conference on Feminism & Orthodoxy, three members of these minyanim (Elitzur Bar-Asher, Michal Bar-Asher Siegal and Alanna Copper), in a session under the title: "Beyond Women Issue: Partnership Minyanim Engages Orthodoxy," articulated for the first time the methodology of the halachic decision process and the ideology behind these minyanim. <ref>[http://www.geretz.org/partnership_minyan.htm "Orthodox Conference explores "partnership minyan"],''The Jewish State''</ref>

I don't have any problem with the reliability of the media source, which contains excerpts from the JOFA paper which could legitimately added to the article. The paper itself, if it were published, could be cited and its content excerpted. But it doesn't seem to me that the mere presentation of an unpublished paper in a conference -- with nothing about the content, just the presentation of a paper and a claim the paper is a first -- is appropriate encyclopedia content for this article. (I also disbelieve the claim of first publication. For example, Tamar Ross wrote about these topics in her 2004 book Expanding the Palace of Torah, although doubtless not in as much detail). I want to be helpful to these people and if they have value to add and can reliably source it, I want to them to get their content in and they're welcome to cite any acceptable publication. However, I feel that simply adding a paragraph about the existence and virtues of an unpublished paper without meaningfully describing what it says on the article topic is not appropriate encyclopedia content and is possibly WP:SOAP. I'd appreciate a second opinion on this issue as well as your input about how to proceed. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You might want to see the discussion on Talk:Partnership minyan#Notability. --Shirahadasha 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huntingdon Life Sciences

Hi Slim, I saw you got the inuse template out, just want to make you aware of my comment on the talk page. Catchpole 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by User:67.180.67.179

It seems the User:67.180.67.179 is still at it. Please take a look at the following edits: [1] [2] [3] [4]. In your opinion, would you consider these to be malicious and hateful vandalism? I certainly would. Please take whatever action is appropriate in such situations.

I left the same message on the talk page of User_talk:Alex_Bakharev. Balcer 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Classicist

Hello Slim, good to see you still here! I offered to help the people at Digital Classicist and digital medievalist (since deleted). It's an interesting area (one in which I have done work) and deserves a mention (after all there's enough fancruft and pop trivia here as it is).

I have some ideas to make it more encyclopedic, but would appreciate any help and advice you can give! Do check out my new look user page. Best ... edward (buckner) 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay, BLP, and my bedtime

Hi, SlimVirgin. I know you're very good on BLP issues. Some blogs and attack sites (wikipedia-watch, wikitruth) are being added to Essjay controversy. See here, for example. I'm going to bed now. Perhaps, if you're around, you could check the article? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

[edit] Arbitration request - Request to review indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

This message is to let you know that I have posted a request for arbitration on the above. [[5]] BabyDweezil 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help/arb on Islam and children, Islam and Slavery and Muhammad's slaves

All of these three articles are being used for one central point: That Islam is to blame for slavery including slavery of children, and written using primarily 19th century orientalist sources/refs that we can't verify, and has the same editors on all 3 pages. I have listed my objections to all 3 on the talk page of Islam and Slavery. Aaliyah Stevens 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

have you got my e-mail ?

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1293

http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

Zeq 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnetwerker (again)

Hi. I'm trying to track down the precise reasons for the latest block on Gnetwerker. All I can see are various references to e-mailed information, including this one. Can someone, perhaps you, explain the situation to me? Maury 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know because I had dealings with this person in the past. Bad dealings, I should point out. Nevertheless, I would like to know the reasons. Maury 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of talk page comments

Please cite the policy under which you are wiping my talk page comments? Thanks.Wjhonson 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that active discussions shouldn't be wiped. We were discussing on that page, whether or not we should be allowed to post to that page. You really can't hold a discussion like that somewhere else, it wouldn't make a lot of sense. And even if the page is historical I don't see any harm in allowing people to continue to post there if they wish. Wjhonson 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm hoping to achieve is the ability for people to hold discussions on historical talk pages. I see no reason to suppress this.Wjhonson 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "being raped isn't your thing"

In the discussion on Islam and Slavery i was told "If you think its so nice do you want to be possessed by my right hand? No really being raped isn't your thing" and "that you find this insulting is good but the truth hurts. As the kids of today say "Take the Shame!"" by user Hypnosadist. I find talking about raping me a very sensetive topic, even if he claims he wasn't threatening me, I'm sure most women would, like me, be extremely offended by such ovetures or "jokes" by a man we don't know. Then he said that me feeling insulted by this was a good thing, this made it worse, which means he showed no remorse. I don't know what to do, it has upset me very much, can you help, can i report him? Aaliyah Stevens 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Aaliyah Stevens repeated support and mitigation of slavery highly offinsive, though i was out of line. Hypnosadist 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of talk page comments

Please cite the policy under which you are wiping my talk page comments? Thanks.Wjhonson 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that active discussions shouldn't be wiped. We were discussing on that page, whether or not we should be allowed to post to that page. You really can't hold a discussion like that somewhere else, it wouldn't make a lot of sense. And even if the page is historical I don't see any harm in allowing people to continue to post there if they wish. Wjhonson 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm hoping to achieve is the ability for people to hold discussions on historical talk pages. I see no reason to suppress this.Wjhonson 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "being raped isn't your thing"

In the discussion on Islam and Slavery i was told "If you think its so nice do you want to be possessed by my right hand? No really being raped isn't your thing" and "that you find this insulting is good but the truth hurts. As the kids of today say "Take the Shame!"" by user Hypnosadist. I find talking about raping me a very sensetive topic, even if he claims he wasn't threatening me, I'm sure most women would, like me, be extremely offended by such ovetures or "jokes" by a man we don't know. Then he said that me feeling insulted by this was a good thing, this made it worse, which means he showed no remorse. I don't know what to do, it has upset me very much, can you help, can i report him? Aaliyah Stevens 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Aaliyah Stevens repeated support and mitigation of slavery highly offinsive, though i was out of line. Hypnosadist 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Liar! I did not support slavery, and do not. That is clear from the records. I am arguing that your insistence on claiming that islam does is wrong. You have attempted to sideline, and minimise as much as possbible the majoriy of Muslim scholars who have argues against Slavery, and have instead written an article that leads the reader to believe that Islam accepts slavery, killing, and rape. I see your comments about raping me have been conveniently removed, but are still here in an old edit: [6]Aaliyah Stevens 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user Jon Awbrey sockpuppeteer

Banned User:Jon Awbrey is editing with at least 15 sock puppet accounts. See the entry at Talk:Charles Peirce. One of the sock puppets he is using is User:Slim Margin, an obvious "salute" to you. --Blainster 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

• Citylightsgirl (talk · contribs)
• PunctualPeter (talk · contribs)

Because of a report on WP:BLP/N, I had begun to monitor edits by these two accounts, which was why I restored a version of Neil Clark (journalist) as it had been prior to serial vandalism by them. Very soon after that, I was glad to see that you removed what I also see as an extremely questionable portion of the remainder. — Athænara ✉ 09:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to post a note with my sincere gratitude for (both of you) helping me to understand the issues going on at the Neil Clark (journalist) article and talk page. I seem to have hopped right into a giant mess instead of taking baby steps like most newer editors should. I am very grateful for the help in getting this sorted out factually, and for the opportunity to learn policy and process by example. I worry that the "war" won't be over until page-protection occurs, such as with the related Oliver Kamm page, but I am hoping for a better outcome with careful "third-party" monitoring and discussion. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way. *Vendetta* _{(user talk contrb)} 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of information from old WP:RS

the sum of my question is why did you remove this? If you felt the section was poorly written or not coherent, the policies spelled out at WP:DR clearly state that outright removal is to be avoided... and the general guidelines for changes to a policy (not arguing your opinion of whether RS was a seperate policy or not) is to obtain consensus before major changes. Reviewing the talk page at RS i found no such discussion. I will be returning the Non-scholarly sources section to RS's new home as discussion needs to be done to remove it in the first place. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved that material to WP:ATT/FAQ, and adapted it so that it is compliant with current policies. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on the FAQ, so that it does not become the mess that RS was prior to the merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ha ha!

"I find the sourcing in Medieval cuisine not too bad, given the topic; it would need more if it were a contentious subject, but I doubt people are fighting in the aisles over whether almond milk was used instead of cow's milk during Lent."

"Not everything must actually be attributed, which is an important distinction, obviously, otherwise we end up with articles about Australian cricketers having references to prove that the subject of the article isn't some sort of imposter."

You funny woman!

qp10qp 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my talk page

Thank you for your comment.

Please participate in the discussion under "role of truth": I would like to see examples given of real or hypothetical situations where policy writers believe that the wording "not whether it is true" would serve better than some other wording. Please also comment on the hypothetical situation I described there about an editor insisting on keeping in an assertion the editor admits is false. I'd like to know what you think of that situation -- what you think the policy should do and would do in that situation. We need to work together to find a wording that will work well for all situations.

If there is a policy that says how much experience editors must have before participating in policy discussions, please tell me where it is.

Please do not remove dispute tags before a dispute is resolved. There is in fact a dispute: I object to the new wording "not whether it is true". Your participation in the discussion can help end the dispute. --Coppertwig 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly advice. If I've done anything against any policy, please let me know. I hope the dispute will not be protracted. You can help shorten it by participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. --Coppertwig 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice addition

The Finkelstein image adds a lot. Cheers. (→Netscott) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Template:Policy section:

You recently protected[7] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

You recently protected[8] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Anthony cfc#Spellings

Good evening (GMT time); hope you're well! I've replied to your post (located above) at my talk page underneath the original comment.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting without explaination

Hi Slim, it seems that including an explaination for a revision would go along way to helping the project and other editors. Otherwise folks have no idea why you did what you did. Does that make sense? Anyways, --Tom 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] URLs in ref tags

Hi, you made the comment "please don't put simple URLs inside ref tags" in an edit summary for Edwina Currie. What's your thinking? I do this because it's a minimal effort way of showing where material came from, when I'm trying to quickly improve an article. Of course, I could expend *more* effort and do all kinds of fancy things inside the ref tags, like using cite templates. But then, there are lots of things I could do. So, are you objecting to me putting the URL there, or to leaving something else out? Stevage 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T in K

Hi, You recently participated in an AFD on Terrorism in Kazakhstan. Your input on a proposed page move is desired. Regards. cs 18:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Phillips

Hi, SlimVirgin. I've just come across this, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a BLP problem with that article. Haven't time to look in detail, just going to have dinner. But if there is a problem, it would probably be helpful if that page is on your watchlist. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Big improvement. :) ElinorD (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverting

Please stop taking the side of every stalker you see. The anon IP you just restored has been issuing some very serious threats using a number of IP addresses. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how am I taking the side of every stalker I see. I was friends with Mackan even before he started disagreeing with you. And why is it every time someone actually does disagree with you, you resort to calling them stalkers or finding a way to have them blocked? Try a lesson in humility. MetsFan76 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pigsonthewing block

Sorry to harp on this (which we have discussed) - but I am troubled by this issue. Whatever else is going on, and whatever else relates to User:Pigsonthewing, I think the current block is based on mistaken evidence, as I commented at Talk:Gillian McKeith.

SlimVirgin's WP:ANI report [9] makes reference to four reverts as part of the reason for the block on Pigsonthewing. If you look at those cited as 2nd revert [10] and 4th revert [11], they appear not to be reverts at all, but minor revisions of material restored by User:Jooler. Tearlach 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tearlach 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note received. I don't see how you interpret it that way.

Explain exactly how those diffs you called 2nd revert [12] and 4th revert [13] are reverts. They're clearly not. Tearlach 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin, I've written up my rationale for this controversial block on my talk page and am open to comments and questions. Cheers. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I explained the violation from a somewhat different point of view than yours; maybe that means there's more than one way to look at it? Well, anyway, just so you know, I informed those who have questioned the block also, so there may be comments from them on my page soon. So you might want to keep an eye on my talk page. OK, see you around. Heimstern Läufer 04:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pallywood

Thanks for working constructively on the article. There's still room for improvement (isn't that Wikipedia's unofficial motto?) but it's looking a lot better than the mess that existed a few weeks ago. -- ChrisO 02:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout question

Hi. Thank you for your excellent work on Melanie Phillips. I'm curious about your changing of the subheadings in the "Political views" from "===text===" headings to ";text" lines. Is there yet another Style guideline I haven't noticed, or is that a personal preference? (I'm wondering whether I should follow your lead in other articles.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Hi, SlimVirgin: I've gone ahead and unblocked Pigsonthewing, not because I think my block was wrong, but because I've decided four days is probably long enough, especially for a block many disagree with. This just seems to me to be the best way to keep the peace. I hope you'll understand. Heimstern Läufer 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Awbrey sock

Please block User:Created Equal, another Awbrey sock. He has reverted your rollback and consequent edits by another editor to the Charles Peirce article. --Blainster 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Thanks for your message SlimVirgin but I don't follow. I'll do what you suggest but I'd like an explanation so we can get to the bottom of it and hopefully be clear about it. --ElenaZam 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply about your request

Thanks for replying so quickly SlimVirgin. I haven't made any edits since you posted your request and so long as that's what you ask then I won't edit any further on those pages and will comment just on the Talk pages. You're entitled to ask this from a user. However, I've tried to edit always in line with policies and I don't know what's swayed you to this request. I appreciate your efforts to calm things down though and it's good that these pages are being looked at thoroughly. --ElenaZam 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Got your message. How may I be of service? WAS 4.250 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR and WP:V

Hello, I just added the time to the template of WP:OR (the retired version). I wanted to do the same at WP:V but it appears you have protected the article. --FR Soliloquy 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We have been able to fix the templates. Thank you and I hope everyone enjoies the added information. --FR Soliloquy 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/LA_Times_and_Israels_-Right_to_Exist-.asp Zeq 06:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greer, Pamela Bone

Hi, is it necessary to include the Pamela Bone reference? As the article stands I don't think it has been used to cite anything (save the contentious opening line). ABVS 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Charles Peirce

I wonder if you'd care to put in an administrative comment regarding the current discussion at Talk:Charles_Peirce#Franks_Valli_Has_Born_False_Witness? It appears some explaining may need to be done about WP policy. Thanks, Kenosis 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a check-user on User:Created Equal? This user has an approach that appears identical to User:Jon Awbrey. Thanks again. ... Kenosis 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your consideration

I have made a suggestion regarding a possible compromise here: Talk:Islamophobia#Page_protected -- Karl Meier 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

There's a mess here, and I see you've edited the article in the past. Can you read over my recent comments on the talk page about the incorrect article name, and see if you can get it back to the correct name, Fetal alcohol syndrome? I think it will require admin intervention to get the article and talk page and history moved back to where they belong, since the old article already exists. There's a lot of mopping to be done there. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not edited that page for a long time, Sandy. The new stuff does look scholarly, just a little too technical. Regarding the title, FASD is correct. FAS is a subset of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed you hadn't been there in months, which is partly why I was concerned. Not sure why you say FASD is the correct name, though, since the article acknowledges the correct name of the diagnosis as FAS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged definitions of spectrum disorders are highly problematic throughout lots of realms of medicine (e.g.; Tourette syndrome); there is no medical defintion of such, and the current diagnosis is still FAS, as far as I can tell. The current name goes against naming conventions, MEDMOS, and hits on both names on any important search. Until a medical authority defines it credibly as a spectrum disorder, we should stick to convention—is there something I'm missing? According to what diagnostic entity do we call it Spectrum Disorder? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, current diagnosis per ICD is (760.71) Fetal alcohol syndrome SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User One Elephant went out to play...

I don't know what this user's issue is, but you seem to work on the same articles as he does. Either he doesn't know me from adam or he has a great misconception about who I am. Either way, he probably respects your opinion. See his recent contributions and mine. I would appreciate any comment, and value your opinion, no matter what they be. Thanks. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about this. I've got a suspicion and I'm asking someone to follow up on it. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Very much appreciated. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Bastique

The details on this are fairly simple, Slimvirgin.

I came here a few weeks back, I made my username, I had to get it approved after someone decided they didn't like it. Thankfully they did. I've been editing quietly ever since, I go to whatever articles I think are interesting, sometimes I hit the random button, that's how I wound up on Cars and Parthogenesis.

I saw a dispute going on at the National Council of La Raza page, and I saw what looked like bad behavior, so I cleared it out and left a message about what I'd done so that other people were aware of it. That's the point when this Bastique started persecuting me, because I'd undone something he did. I don't know what his problem is, but he's been nothing but lying, abusive, and rude to me ever since. Maybe it would have been easier if I hadn't left him a notice, but I THOUGHT it would be polite to let him know what I'd done and why.

Now he's apparently even threatening me when he leaves you messages on your page, so I don't know what else I'm supposed to do. The only thing I can think of from his behavior is that he's trying to scare away people from editing at that page for some reason. One Elephant went out to play... 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comments to Bastique

Please stop defaming me. I have no connection to those users you are mentioning, and I edit only what I see that I think needs editing. I do not see why you feel the need to go on some sort of crusade like Bastique is, but it is not helpful to behave in this way. You are being very hurtful, rude, and violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. One Elephant went out to play... 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of sock puppetry

I am saddened that you have accused me of using multiple accounts, presumably because you do not share the consensus of opinion with respect to the Germaine Greer article. You have an obvious bias with respect to the subject matter (which is okay, so do I) but you keep removing reasonable changes even when you are the only editor that disagrees with said changes (this is not okay). My email address is on my talk page if you wish to pursue this accusation off-wiki --Surturz 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

You recently protected[14] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Template:Policy section:

You recently protected[15] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input requests

Hi, SlimVirgin. There have been some ongoing disputes over at Template talk:Abortion and Category talk:Methods of abortion which I think could benefit from an outside perspective. You jumped in at Talk:History of abortion, so maybe you're familiar with the topic, but, I think that anyway the current situation could benefit from some fresh input from someone who hasn't been involved in editing any of these articles. Any input or advice you could lend would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Jreferee has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. (After seeing the above posts, I thought that you could use this. -- Jreferee 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Minor forest fire

Durova is making the same changes (about "uninvolved users in good standing") to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova claims this has "massive consensus" and is "vital to the raising of that page to a guideline", but in fact the main proponent appears to be xyrself. Could you please take a look? >Radiant< 08:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• And also, Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header. >Radiant< 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate behaviour

• I am unsure where I should go to lodge a complaint about User:Justanother's inappropriate behaviour on the project, against myself and other users. The most recent debacle was lodged by User:Anynobody at WP:ANI, about his revert of the removal of material that had been posted by a sockpuppet of the abusive banned editor, User:The real Barbara Schwarz. Now the user is continually using inappropriate edit summaries, as well as refusing to stick to content discussions, not contributors. See: Template talk:ScientologySeries, in which the user refers to me as "an unsubtle propagandist", and "POV-pushing and propagandizing" (almost sounds similar to another recently banned user who referred to another respected editor as a "propagandist"), however the restoration of User:The real Barbara Schwarz's attack against User:ChrisO is more eggregious. Thank you for your time, I don't know what to do. Yours, Smee 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] angelfire.com as an external link?

Hi Slim, I am over at Mountain Meadows massacre. There is a question over external links. Your imput would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! --Tom 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re your request about WP:ATT

Hello. I received your request. I don't wish to stop participating in the work of developing WP:ATT. I don't think there is a norm that silence is taken as objection; I don't see others following such a convention. For example, some edits have been done without my specific approval. It's my understanding that your request is asking for a personal favour. I'm sorry, but I don't wish to comply, because to do so would impede my work in policy development. Again, if I do anything that's against policy, please let me know.

Please do not revert edits which have previously been proposed on the talk page and to which no objection has been raised on the talk page. Please help resolve the dispute as quickly as possible by participating in the discussion at "Role of truth" as I invited you earlier. --Coppertwig 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources:

You recently protected[16] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia:Attribution:

You recently protected[17] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)