User talk:SlimVirgin

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Asilvering 0 0 0 09:15, 6 September 2024 5 days, 10 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 22:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

J.G. Quintel

Since you semi-protected J.G. Quintel you might also wanna take a look at List of Regular Show episodes. It's getting hit with equal levels of vandalism and fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Closing_time.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another comment on that page for you! NickCT (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

edit summary request

small favor for my convenience, if it's ok. when you make an edit summary like '+', could you leave the section reference at the beginning of the summary so that a section link shows up in the watchlist? in other words rather than deleting everything and writing your summary, leave the /* section name */ bit on the front. It makes me crazy trying to figure out where comment is located on the talk page from the diff. --Ludwigs2 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, will do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Credo account?

I never got an email about my Credo account (User talk:Jrcla2#Credo accounts for our previous discussion). Should I have gotten it by now? Jrcla2 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The company gave a rough estimate of end of the first week in May, so I'm hoping it will happen very soon. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh herro

I wondered if you wouldn't mind having a look at this thread, and offering some advice? Parrot of Doom 23:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Veganism talk archives

Hi SlimVirgin, I've consolidated the talk archives at Talk:Veganism. You may want to double-check my work for accuracy. The current archive is #6 with 7 through 15 being empty now (suggest deleting as housekeeping). The sizes range from #1 at 220K being the lowest to the others between 250K & 350K approximately. Both Miszabot & the indexing bot functioned correctly. The current index would be wrong until the bot makes its way around again, so I've blanked it to prevent reader confusion. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's brilliant, BH, thank you so much for doing that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Commendation

I just want to commend you for your efforts at the Lara Logan article. As a feminist I am disgusted by the attempts to trivialize what happened to her - without trying to diminish her other work as a journalist. Thankyou. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave a note on your talk page about it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article status?

SlimVirgin, I know you put much work in Muhammad al-Durrah incident. I wrote an article about less known but in some ways similar case about false accusations against Israel Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls. I believe this article has a great potentials to get a "good article" status. Are you interested in working on it? Thanks. Broccolo (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Broccolo, I don't edit I/P articles anymore as a rule, because they're very hard to work on. I help to maintain three that I've written, but that's about it. Good luck with it though! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Yes, indeed, thank you. I've been waiting for some "head space" to try it out before thanking you, but it has arrived and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks again --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

re your question

After the SPI closed, I found this IP's contribs in which they are answering on Mindbunny's talk page as Mindbunny...but if you go back to July 27, you will see that Noloop is answering in his Historicity of Jesus conflict. Consequently, Mindbunny filed an ANI on me here and tried to claim that my edit summary which stated that both users had used that address was a form of outing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, it's clearly him. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability of leads

Many thanks for bringing a note of reasonableness to the exchange that I started about the verifiability of the lede to Determinant. I continued discussion on User talk:North8000#Policy question. I intend to continue on a wider front, in due course. I have no illusion that this will make any impact on WK. However, I do still write papers for peer reviewed journals and I think that there is an increasing need for the proactive dangers of WK to be reported widely, particularly with the fund raising in progress.

The Determinant example is the tip of an iceberg. An editor can put a statement A that is unverifiable (and wrong, which would not matter in the view of many wiki-legalists if it was "verifiable") ANYWHERE in an article, then claim that it is equivalent to a statement B, somewhere else in the article, that has a valid citation, even though A and B are not equivalent, but have some commonality. Then trying to get A removed could develop into an edit battle over what is equivalent and what is synthesis and original thought. The situation is worse when the reference for B is to a lengthy book, without page number. It is even possible to get away with putting a citation to the same book about a statement C, in the article, which concerns a matter totally different from A, and then remove the statement B.

When I started to practice editing, I turned to articles about places where I lived. One referred to a particular artist as a Notable Person. The WK article about him had just three links, all to dead websites. When I sought verifiability of his notability, I was told this was membership of FRSA verifiable in a Google search. FRSA told me membership just requires payment of a fee. When I questioned further, I was told the extent of Google hits showed notability. When I was informed this not a criterion, I was batted down with a statement to the effect that an experienced editor would be able to find verifiability if they looked and it would be a wasting the time of an editor to do this.

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Overdue

		The Featured Article Medal
		SlimVirgin, given the number of featured articles that you have authored, this appears to be overdue. Keep up the good work! MrMedal (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, MrMedal, that's very kind and much appreciated! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Writing essays to develop policy changes

15-May-2011: This is a suggestion. After years of writing talk-page suggestions, I have switched to writing more WP essays (and revising them months later) to develop long-term changes in WP policies, or practices. You seem to write a lot of talk-page ideas, which drop away, so perhaps essays would be a better investment of your time. Much of WP culture is essay-based, rather than guidelines, so the results can come quickly. For example, after getting tired of "WP:POVFORK" as a limitation, I wrote essay WP:POVFUNNEL ("WP:Avoiding POV funnels") to emphasize when to create content forks (or to avoid POV words). Last year, when fighting claims of WP:SNOW, I wrote "WP:MELT" because some "snowballs" have rocks inside, which do not melt, upon further examination of the situation. As another example, I think BLP bio-pages should have a protected upper section, to restrict most edits there (because vandals often write junk near the top), and using protected templates could control what is displayed at the top of a bio-page; however, unless suggestions like that are placed in a essay, they will be forgotten. Anyway, long story short, consider writing WP essay pages to describe, and later improve, your ideas about better policies and practices. Talk-page entries are fleeting. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I should start doing that. I despair when I find myself typing up the same points on talk for the 100th time, so being able to link to something instead makes eminent sense. I think what stops me is a sense that an essay would have to be carefully constructed, whereas talk-page posts I can just dash off, but I should ignore that feeling, and just do it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I formerly worried that essays had to be "literary essays" (of high quality), but then I saw many 5-line essays which others had written. Because "no one" reads new essays (until linked in navboxes), they can be copied sections from talk-page posts (revised later), but the hard part is deciding the essay title (so expect to move/rename an essay later). When anyone really hates the quality of an essay I wrote, they typically debate issues on the Wikipedia_talk:<essay> page, or in rare cases, they adamantly rewrite whole sections of the essay, but that is very, very rare. You can't really "un-impress" people with a poor essay, they always have coping mechanisms to "overcome" what you write (or think!). Essays provide much more freedom than articles, and only rarely will people put^{"citation needed"} in an essay page. Start copying your talk-page entries into essays, then rename or merge later. A lot of changes need to be made to help with the 300,000 articles being added this year. -Wikid77 14:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

1rr

Was not aware of 1RR, but it is indeed there. Now, why did you remove McIntyre's defense of Logan and citations regarding her attack on Hasting's valor.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I will revert, and discuss content (how ironic). Now, would you please remove the LL Talk dupe message to me or allow me to do so. If you feel strongly, restore it after I have removed it. It really serves no purpose there. So howzabout back to the content? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Category

How ironic. I came here first. Read your page notice, and per the instructions went to his talk page. Anyway, I'm back where I started from...Lionel (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that! It's just that it feels inappropriate for the talk page, BLP-wise. The point is that the cat is a sledgehammer. It's not fair or accurate to categorize someone who had sex with teenagers—and who believe he had their consent at the time (but they were too young to give it)—alongside someone who actually murdered children, and people who preyed on children (not teenagers). So it's a cat that should be deleted in my view, but in the meantime should definitely not be added to living people on the margins of it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. But I don't think it has any basis in policy. Am I mistaken? Lionel (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy is BLP generally, in that we have to get things right and err on the side of caution. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, specifically, WP:BLPCAT says "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." What's-his-name passes. I don't mean to be a nag, but it sounds like the crux of your argument is WP:CENSOR/DONTLIKE. Tell you what: if you feel the cat should be deleted, put it up. I'll table this pending the outcome. But if the cat is kept, we'll add it to what's-his-face. Deal? Lionel (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added to that article, no matter what happens to the cat, and it has no relevance to his notability. Not that that's the issue, but it's an additional factor. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we at WP:3O? Lionel (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No matter what a third opinion said, it would still be a BLP violation. That's the problem with applying these cats; there's no room for nuance. There used to be general advice (I think) in BLP that, when in doubt about a cat, remove it. If that advice has been removed, it ought to be restored, because this is the kind of situation it leads to. You could try the BLP noticeboard if you like, but I hope you won't. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we just have a honest disagreement. I've considered your position. I just don't think there is any issue with the cat, and additionally, that it improves the article. Lionel (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to ask for other input on WP:BLPN. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

J King

Hi, fyi - it you would like to comment - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan King - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"publisher" parameter in cite news

Hello, have you been dissuaded from removing that parameter? If so, how do you think we should proceed? I would really like to see this problem fixed. -- Alarics (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)