User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 24

Ten Top Trivia Tips about SlimVirgin! [2]

1. Europe is the only continent that lacks SlimVirgin.
2. Only one child in twenty will be born on the day predicted by SlimVirgin.
3. It took SlimVirgin 22 years to build the Taj Mahal.
4. Ostriches stick their heads in SlimVirgin not to hide but to look for water!
5. It's bad luck for a flag to touch SlimVirgin.
6. People used to believe that dressing their male children as SlimVirgin would protect them from evil spirits!
7. Banging your head against SlimVirgin uses 150 calories an hour.
8. If you put a drop of liquor on SlimVirgin, she will go mad and sting herself to death.
9. Research indicates that SlimVirgin will be attracted to people who have recently eaten bananas.
10. SlimVirgin can drink over 25 gallons of water at a time!

    It's all true, folks. Don't ask how I know, though. I don't kiss and tell. :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Mine are also true, of course. And thanks :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Patriots

Apparently I am the enemy of all that is Red, White and Blue. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are being drafted, again

Slim, would you please consider looking over this AfD. You haven't been caught up with these particular brand of edit disputes and your comments would be very appreciated. --AladdinSE 10:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

P. S. When I have accumulated 25 archives of User Talk, shoot me! Being only mortal, unlike SlimVirgin, I will be an empty, dry husk. SIGH. --AladdinSE 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

Hi Slimvirgin, if you check the discussion on Narcissistic personality disorder you will see that Chad Thompson of the APA refused permission to use the diagnostic criteria (which, in the case of the APA means paraphrasing too, and they get NASTY). To my mind this is completely unreasonable, but it was discussed (On Adminstrator's Noticeboard too) and decided to "let sleeping shrinks lie" on this one to avoid them coming down like a ton of bricks on the entire site.

What I think about the APA in this regard is unprintable in polite society :o(

I HATED reverting that. If you want to try asking them yourself the correct addy is CThompson@psych.org --Zeraeph 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What to do?

What to do about these two editors making a mess and wasting our time royaly in the policy pages. Clearly they are enjoying the attention, being disruptive, and I will not be surprised if they are one and the same. Would it be appropriate to ask for a checkuser in these circumstances? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just get some cement and buckets? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify

Hi SlimVirgin, a recent addition to the NPOV policy page about the three policies being "complementary" was defended with a reference to a similar addition to the WP:V page. It appears that this was done by you, on 29 Sep 2005. That's as far as the trail goes: I can find no comment, nor any discussion around that date about this subject. To me "complementary" is suggestive of equal footing, although perhaps not necessarily. Since NPOV originates with Jimbo and is not decided by us, do you have any sources on the status of NPOV relative to the other two policies? If not, just tell me where you copied that from, and I'll follow the lead from there. Thanks in advance! Harald88 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy of Mind

You are welcome to join the newly-created WikiProject Philosophy of Mind. Porcher 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Senses...

Well, some of your senses. Had you regained all of them I wouldn't like you quite as much. :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood

Hi SlimVirgin. Say, I was a little bit disappointed that you suggested that I was in violation of proper conduct (WP:POINT at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia, by seconding the nomination). I try to follow the codes as well as I can, and although like all I do fail from time to time, in this case I think I might have been misunderstood. No big deal, but I just wanted to explain that, Herostratus 16:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche sock

Northmeister (talk · contribs) has been pushing the LaRouche line in the usual articles. In some cases he's been resurrecting text originally added by Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) a long time ago. [3]/[4], [5]/[6], etc (WP is too slow right now to search for everything). Despite the chatter between them I think there is a high chance that this new account is a sock puppet of HK. There's no rush, but if you thave a chance to take a look I'd be interested in your input. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"queer"?

Hi SlimVirgin: I came across this: List of Jewish American social and political scientists, and I noticed that a couple of people on it are marked as "queer theorist" ... what's that all about? There may be more of this, as someone has created a whole slew of small "lists of American Jews" which I'm now looking over. Is it the way the British refer to homosexuals? I dunno. Is it "politically correct" to call people "queer anything" on Wikipedia ? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)

Queer theory. Jkelly 15:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New users

A couple of days ago, I clicked on "Recent Changes", and noticed a cluster of new users having been created within 1 minute, all in a row. Statistically, clustering is expected, but I made a note of the names and checked back to see what edits they'd made. Answer: none at all, even 2-1/2 days later. So now I'm REALLY suspicsious. Is this normal, creating an account and not editing immediately or even days later?

The list: 00:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Manalsaud (talk · contribs)
• Jfdude (talk · contribs)
• Rob@acidflyers.com (talk · contribs)
• Aliomar (talk · contribs)
• Bullknap (talk · contribs)
• Logan3515 (talk · contribs)
• Fishey (talk · contribs)
• Hmnunn1 (talk · contribs)
• Douglascronk (talk · contribs)
• Llamagirl (talk · contribs)

There might be others in the same cluster, so if these are suspicious, check other accounts created around 00:32 9 February 2006 (UTC).

Criticism of Wikipedia edit conflict

rv it is not a "leading link," hardly has anyone posting to it, and is full of libelous, childish, embarassing material I don't want to get into any dispute over the inclusion or non-inclusion of the link (I've already stated that I will not add it, due to my conflict of interest), but I would like to state that we are working on a solution to the "libelous, childish, and embarassing material", which will now be kept off of the main forum and confined solely to a seperate forum, viewable only be logged-in users and with a hefty disclaimer. Just a brief note on the subject. I don't object to the link's inclusion or removal. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania

I'm curious - are you planning to attend Wikimania 2006 (in Boston)? Raul654 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Three weeks of admin tools

Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:

• Protections and unprotections: 1
• Blocks and unblocks: 4
• Deletions and restorations: 69
• Rollbacks: 246

I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.

As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.

I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick Cohen

Hi there. I'm responsible for the edits of the last couple of days on the Nick Cohen page. I don't particularly want to have an argument with you, but don't you think 'misconstrued' counts as POV in the context of that sentence? The sentence structure does not indicate this is solely the view of his supporters; 'have been misconstrued...' etc appears to be being presented as fact, where in fact it's highly arguable, or at the very least question-begging, statement. Could 'misconstrued' not be replaced with 'interpreted'? It probably shifts the balance a bit in the other direction, but at least it isn't a pejorative word in itself.

--Simon

-- I'd agree with that edit with the caveat that the sentence beginning 'as such...' is now a bit of a run-on sentence, so I'd put a stop after 'Camus', remove the 'and' and begin the next sentence 'As with Orwell...' - in fact I *will* make that edit now, unless you particularly object.

(My reversions weren't intended to be aggressive, btw; I did genuinely think my correction gave the paragraph a better balance and removed possible POV, though I'll happily concede your new redraft is better than my version!)

80.47.135.78 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Boston

I was checking Raul's talk page for something and I saw that you might be coming to Wikimania this summer, and if so, please let me know, my next door neighbor has season tickets to the Red Sox. Oh yeah, I always thought you were British, but I heard someone say the other day you're from Canada, I was curious which nation was the right one. Also, I was wondering if you had heard of my situation and what you thought.

Thanks again for your friendship in the past, please let me know if I can assist with something. Karmafist 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Philosophy

You might be interested in joing in. I'm trying to get some consensus on improving the Philosophy article. Everyone seems to agree that it's a mess, but no-one seems prepared to get together to improve it; they either tweak it here and there or dive in and start making unilateral wholesale rewrites. I've asked editors to add to and discuss a list of what's wrong with the article now, and another list of suggested improvements. I've made no suggestions myself yet, as I wanted to act as a facilitator. If you can think of other editors knowledgeable about philosophy and geared towards consensus-editing, could you spread the word? Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-offer of assistance

Thanks for your non-offer of assistance; it was very much non-appreciated. :-P Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)