User talk:SlimVirgin

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

File:Animalibrí.gif

Request for Unprotection

Hi...here is a copy-paste of the message that I was going to post at WP:RFPP. I figured that I should speak first to the "locking admin" so here I am.

Daniel Razon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Unprotection or Reduction of Protection Term - Seems to me that the BLP issues of the article are quite minor and there are many vigilant users watching the article. Also, the issues happened many months ago and I think its time to give the article a change. Trust me, it's notable (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been a troubled article for some time, so I'd be reluctant to lift the protection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten commandments

When you have a moment, please read the two bottom-most sections of the talk page. Or do I have to go to RfPP? Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection is over very shortly, so it's not worth lifting it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

Little mistake, Slim. It is not semi protected, it is fully protected. WP:RFPP on Novak Djokovic. All best --Tadija^speaks 23:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is not too hard for you, write few words on talk page to calm down people, and invite then to agreement. Just explain that article is protected while they agree. Thanks in advance. All best! --Tadija^speaks 23:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Broughton Anglican College

You blanked information that had been previously verified by noted contributors AND an administrator during the deletion period. In fact, the first link in that information you removed explicitly stated that Bailey formerly worked at Broughton, I take this exerpt as example:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/brave-girls-pay-high-price-for-exposing-evil-20090418-aarx.html She said that within a month of his appointment, Bailey, who had taught at Broughton Anglican College at Campbelltown, abolished the school's "no touch" policy.

The information you removed was verified months ago, it is the school's representative that seeks to remove it and suppress any suggested that Frank Bailey was a former headmaster who employed questionable administrative tactics during his tenure. I'll be restoring this information, however, I agree that it does need a re-write in that the references supplied as shoddily stuffed on the end of the paragraph rather then properly noted.

- Count23 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Count. I'm going to copy this to the talk page so we can discuss it there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If required, this can also be supplied, but the first article is sufficient in my opinion. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/10/1022982821071.html

- Count23 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What the?

Slim, this is bullshit. The other admin declined my request citing a guideline without even reading it, because the guideline stated that I could have an indefinitely semi-protected talk page if I kept a talk subpage specifically for anons which I did create (User talk:Feedback/Anons). Declining me should have a reason. I would like to know the given reason, because up to now, the guideline agrees with me. This is completely disrespectful and if not corrected, I will appeal this elsewhere because it seemed like you didn't even read my request where I explained it all. Feedback ^☎ 06:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, FB, I don't recall which userpage you want protected and why. All I recall doing is noting that another admin had just turned down the request. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted my user page User:Feedback and my user talk page User talk:Feedback protected and anons to all post on User talk:Feedback/Anons. Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages, I can do that. Can you please carry that out? Feedback ^☎ 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to check with the admin who declined the request, FB. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Anastasi: why?

I strongly oppose the deletion of Andrea Anastasi! he is the coach of current Italian volleyball national team, so saying you've to delete it just for lack of sources is tendentious! What's the reason of that proposal? It looks like a casual placement of that template just to spend a little time to disurb the other editors' work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Our BLPs need sources. I'm glad you were able to find one. Thanks for adding it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of my userspace

Hi I requested semi protection of my user and talk pages at: WP:RFPP. Thanks Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanation?

Can you explain this edit [1]? What is meant by "for a number of years" and what value dxoes it add to the article? Also, why do we need to say that he has had a varied career and what does that mean? Is it just a reiteration of what's stated in the same sentence that he's worked in various areas? Why do we need to say that twice? Freakshownerd (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hello. I noticed that you are PRODing several uBLPs simply because they are unreferenced (because that apparently negates a claim to notability). This one is a professional football player, so I think a claim to notability existed before the PROD. If you plan to PROD dozens (or more) uBLPs at once, I think it would be courteous to leave a notice at WT:BLP so interested editors (I primarily edit football BLPs) can be made aware of these PRODs and have a chance to contest them. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jogorney, the best thing is just to make sure that all the football BLPs have reliable secondary sources. Some of the ones I'm prodding have been without sources since 2005 and thereabouts, so there's no way to tell whether they're notable or not. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind response. I agree of course that football BLPs ought to have reliable sources (the football Wikiproject has been working on clearing the backlog of football uBLPs for over two years now). My concern is that articles not be PRODed when they simply lack sources if it's clear from the text that the article is about a professional football player (and a quick google search would verify their existence and career details). If you plan to give a reasonable amount of consideration to each PROD, I wouldn't have a concern, but it appeared that you PRODed dozens of uBLPs at once simply because they were unreferenced. Again, if no one was working to clear the uBLP backlog, your actions would make more sense. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also noticed these proposed deletions and wanted to comment on them. Being unsourced is not in and of itself a reason for deletion except for BLP articles created after March 18, 2010. Articles are deleted if sources cannot be found, not because the current version of the article happens to have no sources. Articles often go unsourced for years just because no one bothered to work on them, so it isn't reasonable to assume these articles can't be sourced just because they haven't yet been sourced. It seems to me that you are tagging these articles without putting any thought or work into each one, which essentially forces others to do the work you should have done. I've noticed a couple articles that you tagged that were ineligable for proposed deletion due to a previous prod or AFD, and some others on people that clearly meet the notability guidelines. If you are going to continue this effort, please check the article history or talk page for previous prods/AFDs, and please do at least a cursory Google search to see if sources can be found. Calathan (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

An unsourced BLP means the notability can't easily be checked, and lack of notability is indeed a reason to delete. As I said above, the solution is for the editors who create or maintain these articles to add secondary sources to them. Many of them have languished without sources for years. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I know you mean well with these prods, but I think you are wrong about this. An article is only considered non-notable if no sources can be found to support notability after a thorough search. Some of these articles have claims to notablility that would allow them to pass notability guidelines such as WP:Athlete or WP:Politician. Such articles clearly aren't non-controversial to delete, and thus aren't appropriate for the proposed deletion process. By prodding articles with no reasonable claim to notability together with ones that have a strong claim to notability, you just create a lot of work for other editors to sort out which ones should actually be deleted and which ones shouldn't. Also, saying that notability can't easily be checked when it could be checked by spending five minutes using Google is somewhat disingenuous. Calathan (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to the concerns above. A hard-fought consensus was reached earlier this year that only unsourced articles about living people created after March 18 would be subjected to automatic prod tagging, to allow editors to work on the backlog of unsourced articles at a reasonable pace. Your actions are disrupting that consensus-agreed process. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Calathan, the articles are not obviously notable unless there are sources, so you can't expect the casual reader or editor to know whether they're notable in the absence of sources. Some have stood unsourced for years, so it's not as if people haven't had time. If there are editors who care about keeping them, that's great, but if it's easy enough to find sources, I'd expect them to do that. Phil, the BLP prod is a separate issue from the regular prod. Don't worry, I have no intention of doing hundreds all at once, but I also don't see why it's so hard to ask people who create or want to retain these articles to supply at least one secondary source that shows notability. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a bot that left notices like that on the editor's talk pages back in January 2010 (keep in mind that many thousands of uBLPs have been tagged since then). It's much a better process than simply PRODing these articles and I hope you'll push for another notice-bot run before you continue PRODing based on nothing other than lack of sources. Jogurney (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The PRODing does leave a note for the creators. But you shouldn't say "based on nothing other than lack of sources." That's a key issue, and not only for BLPs. We're close to ten years old as a project. It's time to stop the mindset that it's sometimes okay to create an article with no sources at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you were leaving notices on the creator's talk pages with your PRODs. That is helpful, but the notice-bot was ideal because it alerted those editors to the uBLPs they had created without an immediate threat of deletion. No one has a mind set that its okay to create articles with no sources at all (which is why BLPPROD exists), but it's troubling that you appear to believe the well-considered consensus about dealing with the backlog of uBLPs can be ignored. Jogurney (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that you "have no intention of doing hundreds all at once", but you did over a hundred on July 12, which is what caused several editors to raise these concerns. Can we take it that you will not repeat that performance? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I may repeat it, Phil, but I have no intention of doing it soon or systematically. PRODing because of questionable notability based on a long-term absence of sources is a legitimate thing to do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, keep in mind that prod is only supposed to be used when you do not expect anyone to object to deletion, even if those objections would be unreasonable. The mere fact that people have complained about these prods here makes futher prods of this sort inappropriate, as you would now have reason to believe that someone would object to the deletion of the artilces. This holds true even if you think our reasons for objecting to the prods are incorrect. If you wish to continue this effort in the future, then please use AFD instead of prod, at least for artilces with a claim to notability that if it were sourced would allow the articles to pass notability guidelines (I don't think anyone would complain if you prod articles that look like they would fail the notability guidelines even if sources were added). I would consider continuing to use prod when you know someone objects to be a disruptive misuse of the proposed deletion process. Calathan (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Most if not all of the articles I prodded had a doubtful or borderline claim to notability in WP's terms even if sourced, in my view. You also have to bear in mind that the claims in these articles may not be correct. It may not be true that Henry Ecclesford Smythe is a former Mr Universe and that he recently won the lottery. We have a responsibility to make sure it's sourced, and not say "well, if it were true, he would be notable, so let's not bother to check for another five years." :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not that you proposed articles for deletion, but that you did so many in one day. That is disruptive to the building of an encyclopedia, as it means that those of us who are actually prepared to collaborate on such building by finding sources are presented with an unreasonable workload. I regularly look at articles tagged for deletion (by whatever means) and when I find one which is notable I make an effort to source it as well as I can, rather than just add the one or two sources needed to avoid deletion - examples from the last few days are Habib Fida Ali and Nityananda Mohapatra. If I'm presented with over a hundred prod tags then I can only do just enough to save them from deletion rather than do a proper job. I've added sources to ten of your prodded articles today, but haven't been able to improve them as much as I would like. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Celia Cruz

Do you think pending changes would be appropriate here? This article was semi'd back in October for a small influx of vandalism lasting over about 3 days, for the duration of a year. Could we put it under PCP? Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd just as soon unprotect it entirely given the low number of edits. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RfA Protection

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for the protection. If possible, could you add an editnotice (or put it in a new protection summary), saying something along the lines of 'If you cannot edit, please post on the talk page and asked to have your "!vote" moved to the main page', incase any IP/new account wants to comment? Thanks! Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This should do it. [2] Good luck. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for advice

Hiyas SlimVirgin, a few weeks ago you deleted and protected a copyvio at Farouq Abdul-Aziz (which I had already deleted previously back in April, for the same reason). Since that time, the author of the page has attempted to recreate it without copyvio (tho he maintains that he is the owner of the copyvio source, just doesn't want to / hasn't take the advice on how to donate the text) at User:Mblegacy/Farouq Abdul-Aziz. He asked my help in reviewing it, and I don't even know where to begin other than to try and advise him on finding reliable sources for information and starting with that. He claims that alaan.cc should be a reliable source, as it is a newspaper with 'an elite readership'. The article he points to, when using Google Translate, doesn't seem to support anything in the wiki article. I looked for the Arabic-speaking wikiproject (to perhaps review Arabic sources), but it doesn't seem to have any activity.

I haven't had much luck in getting across to him how we build articles, and since you hold the protection on the eventual destination I figured I'd check and see if you had any advice. Syrthiss (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the subpage, but fixing it would be a lot of work, Syrthiss. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thats pretty much my take. Oh well. Syrthiss (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Talibanbeating.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Talibanbeating.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vssun (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...For protecting that article I requested. I mostly came here for a question. Since you're a faithful admin I figured maybe I should ask of this. Do you think it's a good idea to let the protection off of the Suicide Silence article and add a pender? (Take a look at it) Yes it is a heavily vandalized article due to the band's popularity, but I was certain that it could be adequate for at least something like this could happen due to its protection already going as far a year in length. If you agree go right ahead and do it. • GunMetal Angel 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to ask the protecting admin, GA. It was Ged UK. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He did, and I've done it. GedUK  11:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pablo Barrera

Go to espndeportes.com and you'll see that it's official and Pablo Barrera already signed a contract with West Ham United. In fact he has already gone to England to begin training camp, I've got links so please don't change anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isra 6 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Minister-President vote

Josh Gorand insist putting "Note: There is a discussion ongoing and no consensus on having a vote now" at the top of the voting section. I think it's just manipulation on his part and it should be deleted. What do you think? Kingjeff (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's best discussed by the editors on the page, KJ. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

About BJP

Hello, SlimVirgin

Thanks for unprotected this article Bharatiya Janata Party as per request but u missed something, you forgot do Pending changes please make it as soon as possible. I hope your getting what am I trying to say.Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to leave it to see how editing went. If there's no problematic editing, there's no need for PC protection, and if there's a lot of problematic editing, semi-protection would make more sense. PC is appropriate for vandalism that we definitely want to catch quickly (e.g. BLP vandalism), but where there isn't enough of it to justify locking out all IPs and new users. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I got it your right let see few days how IPs do make valuable edits. Then decision could be make.Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 18:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive page size

About this. I don't agree. You may be intrested in this discussion about archive page size, where you could write your reasoning. --Kslotte (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi, there is an ongoing IP distortion of verifiable references in Karabakh Khanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), could you temporarily semi-protect it? Thanks. Twilightchill t 19:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to tell whether it's disruptive editing or a genuine content dispute. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. By looking at the history of the article, I think it can be determined that there is nothing genuine here. It's a couple of registered users which revert and then to avoid being punished for repetitive reverts, anon IPs are used. It's no mystery that last few IPs are from the same area, perhaps a university or something, a place of "abundant IPs". Sometimes, they go extra mile and register their accounts to make it possible to revert in semi-protected articles, such as this guy in this [3] and other cases (see here [4]. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories

Hi, there.

Re: your edit, just making sure you read my original edit summary referring to this arbcom amendment.

Feel free to join in the discussion, but it seem nobody is objecting to this being removed and instead people are looking for better examples: Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Time_Cube.

Best. GDallimore (Talk) 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter

Hi, do you grant access to WikiAlerter? If not do you know which admin does? Thanks in advance, Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 04:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This might help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Debrahlee Lorenzana

Hi SV. Would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_15#Debrahlee_Lorenzana? I have seen you making some quick good contributions using newspaper/online journalism for sourcing. In this case I am not sure if it is possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert the clerk

Go talk to him if you want to William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic "reliable sources or not"

Hi!

I saw that you have locked the article about Novak Djokovic, so I am kindly asking you if you could answer my questions on Novak Djokovic talk page. Thank you. With regards,--Eversman (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Taft Law School protection

Dear SV, the policy protection states

Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.

You have fully protected the article, thus disabling my ability to improve it. It seems your protection may be contrary to the protection policy. I advocate you block the WP:SPAs and unprotect the article. Basket of Puppies 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll copy this to the talk page in case others want to join in. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification

SlimVirgin, I have tried very hard to work constructively with you, but regrettably it appears that this has not worked out. You are now the subject of an inquiry at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: User:SlimVirgin. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)