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 02:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

RFC - if you care to comment. If not, please ignore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#User_Name:_ThisLaughingGuyRightHere

Mugginsx (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

You are really the Defender of the new and the underrepresented editors.

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak.
Message added 04:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned you in a discussion here [1]. Writegeist (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

plagiarism

I don't think this user quite understands what it is due to the language barriers, and what might be law in their own country. So they need to understand the law before we can ask them to stop doing it, yanno? I agree that it needs to stop obviously, but I think we should try to help them understand what it is and how not to do it. (Even if it's not really our responsibility.)--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a question of law, though, Henrietta. Plagiarism is intellectual theft. It's of particular concern that we just had a long discussion about copyright, yet he didn't remove or try to rewrite that passage. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No I get it completely. I as a student who has done considerable with research and will continue with my grad studies, I understand completely. If he continues to do it, he has to be called out for it. I just mean let's try to help him understand it too. I have complete respect for other researchers and writers, and I am always of the opinion that it all has to be attributed. I may do a little of over-attribution because of the fact. So yeah, he's making it harder because we have to go back and check for several reasons. I just want to try to help him get copyright law and plaigairsm in the US too. And if he keeps doing it even after all these convos we've had (even admins) to help him get it, we report him of course. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is the same thing in Germany as in the U.S. or anywhere else. What concerns me is that we just went through that huge discussion about it. But anyway, I'm into fixing things, rather than reporting, so I agree with you there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I saw what you wrote and I will make sure to make in-text attributions too, since this article has had issues. Though after a point explaining this to someone over and over gets old. After that whole convo and he still doesn't get it, then we need to take action, I agree. Also there are differences in copyright laws in Germany I believe, but yes plagiarism is still plagiarism. I think the laws may be stricter in Germany in fact, but again I dunno. It doesn't really matter since WMF follows US laws.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care?

I just read the the latest Signpost: apparently fewer than 36,000 registered editors contributed last month, and of those, 3% accounted for 85% of the edits. Wikipedia is surely close to a catastrophic collapse unless something changes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me, and I think it's been like this for longer than the stats have suggested. The irritating thing is that it's the 3% who are blamed (ownership, vested contributors, etc), whereas a lot of us feel like leaving too, for the same reasons others aren't arriving. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Montague Ullman and Elizabeth Rauscher

Dear Slim - I hope all is OK with you (and that I haven't annoyed you and our past run ins are forgiven). I have been looking over the Rauscher stuff - and you state Montague Ullman is clearly not a parapsychologist. But I was having a look at him - and he seems, surprisingly, to have been a president of the Parapsychological Association![2][3] (I have added a little note to that effect on his page) - I have also added this ref The Parapsychology review: Volumes 19-20 (1988) which lists Elizabeth Rauscher as the Research Director of The Parapsychology Research Group of San Francisco, California - to the Elizabeth Rauscher Talk Page. Would you know if it mentions this group in Kaiser's book? Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, this is interesting. I'll look through the Kaiser book and let you know. I've been trying to find an email address for Rauscher so we can ask her whether she sees herself as a parapsychologist, but no luck so far. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

bvr1001 @ msn.com is listed here [4] which is 2006 so is possible. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)) PS and here [5] 2009!

Brilliant, thank you, because her view might settle it, plus I'd like to ask her for a photograph of herself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mugginsx

Based on your past interactions with the user, I thought you may be interested in the ANI discussion here. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of something from WP:MOSLINK

I see that you removed the advice, "Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers" from WP:MOSLINK back on 12 December 2010. Was this intentional or just an oversight on your part (since you made many changes in that edit)? The reason I ask is, that page is being used as justification for removing many links that I (and some others) feel are entirely reasonable (especially in lead sections), simply because the guideline seems to discourage links that aren't directly related to the subject of an article. I would like to add (/restore) something to the guideline suggesting that link usefulness should be a major concern — as opposed to other considerations like "too many links distract" or [the ridiculous, IMHO] "don't link to common things". See, in this regard, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking vs. overpolicing. I don't know what side of this issue your views fall on, but I was wondering about that particular edit... - dcljr (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't recall that edit, but I probably did remove that sentence on purpose, because overlinking is a big issue in my view. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation

I just wanted to personally thank you for all of the good work you've done and are in the processing of doing on the FGM page. I am without doubt that you have singlehandedly put this page in a better state than it was and most importantly, avoided a return to any of the gridlock which has plagued it before. Many thanks. Vietminh (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's very much appreciated, Vietminh, thank you! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Comfort Momoh

This nomination was apparently not created following the instructions, which are detailed at the top of T:TDYK. Could you please re-post it following the instructions (and then copy the review comments and discussion over to the new page)? (I think you will have to delete this one first.) Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, I followed the instructions as best I could, created a page for the nom as instructed, and posted a link under September 6. Did I miss something out? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you create the page using the form at the top of T:TDYK? If so, it should have preloaded a template for you to fill out.

Anyway, for this one I think I can just go in and fix it manually (a bit later today); that will probably be easier than re-posting the whole nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I used the template, but I couldn't figure out what all the parameters meant, so I filled in some of the bits manually as best I could based on other people's nominations. If you could fix whatever I did wrong, that would be very helpful. I'm not a template person, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

FGM talk

I left a message for you at the FGM talk page. Vietminh (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability

I am still trying to find a way to reach compromise and consensus at WP:V (yes, we are still debating "verifiablility, not truth".) I have suggested a possible solution that a lot of people like... however, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on it. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, will take a look. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

At WP:Verifiability/First sentence... It's the one (now hidden) under the title "Poll V_FC_P_13 Blueboar's compromise - move discussion of truth/untruth out of lede and into new section" (the last poll on the page)... some of the (non-hidden) discussions that follow the polls relate to my proposal (but they do tend to wonder off into discussing the nature of truth instead of focusing on the proposal itself). I suppose I am more interested in how you feel about my proposal as a concept (ie not focused on specific language)... but if you have any thoughts on specific language that would be OK too. Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now (here). I have no problem with creating a new section to discuss V not T, so I'm fine with that part of it. But I can't see the benefit of removing "not truth" from the first sentence, especially given that we use the word "verifiability," which implies truth-seeking. So I feel it's important at that point, for all the reasons discussed, to explain that we don't mean "truth." And for the same reason I prefer "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Whatever is decided poll-wise, I hope there will be a wiki-wide RfC, and that one of the options offered will be no change, so that people don't feel railroaded into agreeing to a change. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't see a huge benefit either... but moving it out of the lede seems to be the only way to compromise between those of us who prefer to keep the phrase where and as is, and those who insist on removing the phrase entirely. That said... I completely agree that, once we have a final proposal, there must be a wiki-wide RfC on it (with lots of notice and the village pump and similar venues) I will insist on that. Nothing gets changed without a broad consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saying you'll insist on a wiki-wide RfC. I hope it will have a clear "no change" option—i.e. two sections: "Proposal for change: sentence X" (based on whatever the people on Wikipedia:Verifiability/First_sentence agree they want to put forward for wider consensus); then a separate section saying, "Proposal for no change: sentence Y," containing the long-standing version. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please join discussion at Template:Violence against women

You have repeatedly added items to {{Violence against women}} the appropriateness and neutrality of which has been questioned by various editors including myself. Rather than just putting the items back, please participate in the discussion at Template talk:Violence against women so we can work toward a mutually agreeable solution. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Assistance with Wikipedia Deletion of BLP Article

I'd like to take you up on the offer to assist with the Wikipedia article deletion of Edward E. Kramer. It has been 10 months, and the article remains as libelous as before for a BLP. Please assist in this effort to remove the entry, as there are one or more editors that refuse to allow an encyclopedic style entry from a NBPOV to exist. Thank you, in advance.

--NYlegal1 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've deleted this under this section of our policy on living persons. I'll alert the team of volunteers who work on these issues for the Foundation, and ask one of the admins there to check the deletion for me, to make sure it's appropriate. I've also protected it against recreation, so hopefully that will be the end of the issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this was the right thing to do. It is appreciated.

--NYlegal1 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)--NYlegal1 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Comfort Momoh

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection on Anya Ayoung Chee article

Hi, hope I'm doing this right, if not could you please move it to the right spot?

I saw you did this: Protected Anya Ayoung-Chee: BLP issues that appear likely to continue ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

I'm curious as to why you did it. As far as I can tell the last incidence of outright vandalism by an IP was close to a month ago and done here, and reverted by the same IP a minute later, here. (That's really strange if you ask me.)

The only other BLP issue involving IP's having taken place during that time as far as I can see is the attempt to include, remove, revert and re-remove some content, regarding a well reported scandal that the subject was involved in, which does include CNNGO as a reference. That took place over a period of about 10 days. The inclusions seem to be good faith edits made by IPs who are not involved on the talk page where we've been discussing the inclusion/exclusion of a version of the information for some time on the talk page, but the RfC has lapsed without consensus or any apparent hope thereof, and I'm currently trying to find out what the next step in getting a resolution would be. Maybe you could advise me on that as well?

Information about the scandal has been excluded for close to two years. What vandalism the page has had over the years, appears to be mostly linked to some crude attempt to include information on the sex tapes that spawned the widely reported scandal.

I've been told, on the talk page There is no chance of the stolen private video being mentioned in this article. The article has been indefinitely semiprotected by one of Wikipedia's most experienced and knowledgeable administrators because of "BLP issues that appear likely to continue." You have been told that the content is not noteworthy or relevant by another highly experienced and knowledgeable administrator. Take their advice. I believe the first part of that to be untrue, as semi-protection doesn't and isn't meant to prevent information from being added in any way. I believe that the second part to be untrue as you have not actually voiced any clear statement about the noteworthiness or relevance of the content.

Could you please explain why the semi-protection was placed on the article? I've checked the rough guide to semi-protection and it seems to be at odds with what's actually been going on at the article. There's been little apparent vandalism over the last month. The content added by the IP's has been sourced, NPOV, V, NOR material in line with the BLP policy, though the specific version added may have an issue with the weaselly word "claimed". Shouldn't those be considered good faith edits? It would have been better if they'd stopped by the talk page to express themselves before making their edits, but I notice that even administrators don't always do that. With so little actual vandalism recently, the use of the semi-protection serves only to stifle the input of IP's, many of whom appear to be trying to improve the article.186.45.65.85 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I semi-protected the article because people have been repeatedly adding material that's arguably a violation of our BLP policy. I see it's being discussed on the talk page, so it's best to take part in that discussion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Clitoridotomy

dear SlimVirgin, Clitoridotomy is not the same as Clitoridectomy, i wonder is it cencored @ wiki? while Clitoridectomy not cencored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanegara (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Markanegara, the best thing is to stick to what the source says in the footnote after the sentence. Our policy is that we publish what reliable sources have published. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Clitoridotomy redirect

Markanegara reverted your changes again, I undid the reversion and put the page back to a re-direct. I checked the sourcing in the stub article that was created. There's one webpage that doesn't appear to have been significantly updated in the last 10 years, a blog which in addition to being a blog says that "While FGM is oppressive in nature, female circumcision (a form of FGC) is liberating." (which speaks to the confusion of the writer on the subject). The last is one of those e-health websites which are a dime a dozen and not something I think is a very authoritative source. Most importantly, all of the information was plagiarized from the sources. I and another user have left detailed explanations and links to relevant policy on their talk page, so hopefully the user reads up on policy before they continue editing. Vietminh (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found the article quite disturbing for the reasons you mentioned, so thank you for reverting. In fact, thank all round for sticking with this issue. The more I look into it—including its representation in various forms on Wikipedia, and how to represent it well without adding to the weirdness of this site around sexual issues—the more uncomfortable I feel. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Edward E. Kramer????

I'm rather startled, to put it mildly. What on earth is the justification for the deletion of this article? As creator and owner of Dragon Con, he's been an incredibly powerful influence on science fiction culture; and now he's in the news again! I fear you are being manipulated to keep full facts about this guy from being easily discovered in Wikipedia. WP:BLPDELETE should not become a gimmick to keep unflattering information out of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick glance at User:NYlegal1's edits will prove that he/she is an s.p.a. (possibly a lawyer or lawyer-wannabe) devoted to protecting the reputation of Kramer, in part by ad hominem attacks on myself (complete with bogus assertions of sockpuppetry whenever anybody in the whole of Wikipedia shows any signs of agreeing with me) for trying to make the article NPOV. I do not deny my repeatedly-stated contempt for Dragon*Con, a for-profit venture which sucks the life out of all not-for-profit fannish activity in the Atlanta region; but that does not mean I cannot make NPOV edits on articles such as this. I'd be delighted if somebody like yourself were to be doing the work, except that you are not (to the best of my knowledge) very knowledgeable in the intricacies of science fiction culture and history. There are many Wikipedia editors who are, though, including at least three Hugo winners I can think of off the top of my head. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, the BLP was inherently problematic. I didn't know about the latest story, so thank you for alerting me to it, but I think it underlines what a difficult situation this is. And yet to leave that material out of the article entirely would obviously not work. Because there was no version of the article I could revert to that would not have these problems, and because the subject requested deletion and is borderline notable, I decided that it was appropriate to apply WP:BLPDELETE. I notified OTRS of the deletion.

It's open to you, of course, to take it to DRV, but I wonder whether it's worth it, especially as we have the Dragon Con article, which is his main or sole claim to notability. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiJaguaring here: I second the BLP1E issues here, I have not been able to find a single source that establishes notability independent of DragonCon - and while this might be enough in itself for an article, this has to be weighted by the very difficult issues reported. I never saw the article, but if I am understanding correctly, the issue is that there is so little information on anything other than his criminal allegations, that the article would essentially read like a crime blotter - WP:BLPDELETE reasons, not to mention WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION. I will, however, turn this into a redirect into DragonCon, because that is a plausible use.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

oh its salted, can you please redirect?--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A DRV or an AfD might be a good way to go. I've watched this article for years, and have seen a series of SPA accounts come through and regularly delete references and try to manipulate the article, often with threats of legal action at anyone who "vandalizes" the page by restoring citations. In my opinion, Kramer is notable enough for an article, though it's also true that much of the notability is because of legal troubles. It might be worth opening this up to a wider discussion. --Elonka 17:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see any notability apart from Dragon Con, so most of the article would be about the legal troubles, increasingly so as the years wore on, because as I understand it they recently got worse. So I think the article would always be COATRACK-ish, would always attract complaints, would always risk having too much positive or too much negative added to it, in vain attempts to balance things out.

As I said, if someone wants to take it to DRV, they're free to do that, but personally I can't see how it would benefit anyone or the project. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, given the constant allegations that I've got a hate-on for this guy and his con, would you consider making a DRV motion, since you agree that he's notable enough? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are many reasons, personal and professional, why I probably shouldn't start a DRV either. --Elonka 20:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer redirect to DragonCon

Why is Ed Kramer redirecting to DragonCon?

I would think that due to his recent notoriety it would warrant a restoration of his deleted article.

Mr. Kramer has edited many anthologies with notable authors, he worked for Emory University with troubled youth, he's done other things of note besides DragonCon.

I think it is unfair to the DragonCon event that his negative notoriety (going on 10 plus years now) is constantly associated with that organization. I have notified the DragonCon folks that Mr. Kramer's entry is redirecting to them. Sirfracas (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I think that the article needs to be undeleted. SlimVirgin, would you rather undelete it yourself, or does it have to go through DRV? If there are BLP violations in it, we can of course undelete it with those sections removed, but I do think there needs to be an article on Kramer. --Elonka 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, my view is that it's an inherently problematic article about a borderline notable person who has requested deletion, so I would feel awkward restoring it. Sorry. But as I said I have no problem at all if someone wants to take it to DRV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I went ahead and started a DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 18. I tried to use very neutral wording on it, but if you'd like me to make any adjustments to the text, please let me know. Elonka 21:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary vs. To the contrary

Sadly, after I wrote that I sat there debating it for about 2 minutes including checking online resources for clarity on which phrase to use (and finding even more confusion and contradiction hahaha). Either or works, my methodology in choosing "to" was that she was speaking "to the contrary" of a position she had outlined, rather than her statement being "on the contrary" to that of another writer's. Vietminh (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've always used "on the contrary" at the start of a sentence that contradicts the previous sentence, and "to the contrary" or "contrary to" in sentences such as "there was no evidence to the contrary," or "contrary to your allegations, I did not steal that wine." When I saw your addition, I got befuddled and no longer knew what was right, so I looked it up. :)

For example, see Garner's Modern American Usage, p. 199. I can't link to the page because it's on Amazon. He writes that "on the contrary" marks a contrast with a statement just made, whereas "to the contrary" marks a contrast with a specific noun or noun phrase just used. And he gives examples. If you put "contrary" in the search box and go to p. 199, you'll see it. But thank you fixing the sentence either way! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When I googled for it I could only find old forum posts about the usage and each of them offered a different interpretation and supporting example! So I too was befuddled hahaha. Thank you for looking it up and clarifying, I doubt I will soon forget the correct usage. Vietminh (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Female Genital Mutilation

Thanks for asking me to look at the article. I will place a revised health paragraph into the article shortly. I did not address the issue of surgical repair - currently the last paragraph of that section. The recent review article by Abdulcadira has a good discussion on the subject making it clear that certain procedures (such as defibulation) have been available; I suggest that this should be addressed further (and I am not sure I have the time). The FMG article now just lists 2 specific physicians as dealing with the repair aspects and thus is too limited. Ekem (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It is an important article and I hope you will be able to renominate it with success. Best wishes.Ekem (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FGM repair

I've got some things to do this afternoon but I'll work on the subsection you mentioned on the featured article talk if I get a chance tonight. I also gotta give the article another one-over and check for typos and such. Vietminh (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thank you. The article Ekem suggested we use was this one (it has material about repair aspects under the section called "FGM/C patient care"), though you're welcome to use others too, of course. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FGM again

Thank you for your kind comments on my talk, and I can't say enough, thank you again for all the time and effort you put into the article. Vietminh (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD Policy - Nomination of articles with only unreliable sources

I have started an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Nominating_articles_with_unreliable_sources_for_BLPPROD asking if the BLPPROD policy should allow nomination of articles that contain only unreliable sources. Based on your edits to the policy page I thought you may be interested in commenting. Monty₈₄₅ 04:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please help

Hi,

I moved Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive_1 to Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls, but unfortunately, there was an unintended side effect that moved Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive_1 to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls.  Can you undo the side effect?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)