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 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Sent an e-mail

Dear Slimvirgin, nice to meet you. I sent you an e-mail today, seeking your help and guidance. Thanks and cheers. Fusion is the future (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll put the article on my watchlist. Best way to deal with these things is just stick very closely to the content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. WP:COI is always worth checking too where there's a personal interest. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Well, I did not really understand your point about this: WP:COI is always worth checking too where there's a personal interest.

With all due respect, what has to do with me? This suggestion you made, because you know something about me and my motive concerning that particular article and its subject?

Would you please be kind explaining this? Thanks and cheers. Fusion is the future (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Six days passed by, and I am profoundly offended by your silence. Have a nice day.Fusion is the future (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@Slim Virgin: Regarding your recent e-mail exchange with User:Fusion is the future, which I presume – but do not, of course, know – was about this subject, please see this comment on my talk page from this editor. It seems to me very far-fetched at this point, that this behavior is simply from a casual user upset at being mistaken for someone else; I find it quite supportive of the supposition that Fusion is another sock- or meatpuppet of the indef-blocked User: Arnold Reisman, upset because he is not being allowed to edit the article Arnold Reisman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Very sorry for the delay in responding. Fusion, the best thing is for you to suggest any changes on the article's talk page along with reliable sources, but if you're making legal threats you're placing yourself in violation of our WP:NLT policy. I'll take a closer look. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank/Focus

I think you restored my removal of Focus as a link in the article. Could you please explain it relevance to the case? I understand antisemitism is a feature of both the book and the Leo Frank article, but there are so many other books that have antisemitism as a theme that it seems would be more closely related. I have indeed read Focus.--Jrm2007 (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

They're well known fiction works about antisemitism in the U.S., so I thought they'd be interesting as See alsos. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But I feel it is an extremely arbitrary choice. There are literally dozens of films/books dealing with not only antisemitism; and there are works much closer to the Leo Frank case than Focus. The Fixer comes to mind for one. I really feel it is a poor choice. You want to restore it, I will not get into an edit war with you but my sense is that you are unfamilar with the field.--Jrm2007 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daydream (Mariah Carey album)/archive1

Hi Slim, I left some comments for you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions and comments. I did some work on the lead, I think you'll find it much better. Please check back :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the lead. I corrected that line and did some more. If the lead looks okay can you see what you think about the rest of the article? Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, can you check back to the nomination page? Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RE Roger Scruton's article

Hi, I have commented on your recent Scruton edit, I would be grateful if you could respond. 129.234.156.152 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

HIV

Hi there. Current debate at WT:FAC reminded me about a long-range (ie. not now!) project I have had in mind, to try and get HIV to FA standard. My intention was (and is) to ask whether you would be interested in collaborating on it. I haven't been a main content contributor there - I am probably the article's current main vandal and POV patroller. You will see some issues with the article got a bit torrid of late but things have settled down (in part since the blocking of an editor). The article hasn't had a very happy history at FAC: archive 1 and archive 2. There are a couple of other active editors who seem to have some content knowledge: User:Scray and User:Mastcell who I was also going to approach when the time came. I'm not sure how you choose your articles to work on, but I have noticed that controversial content in need of neutral treatment and sound referencing is a bit of a theme, and HIV may fit that bill. This is probably an early-next-year thing for me, but thought I'd drop a note and see what you think. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be a challenge. I'll read it through and look at the previous FACs, and let you know. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Quest for the historic Jesus

Hi SlimVirgin,

I noticed that you merged the Quest for historic Jesus article without any discussion. Presumably all Wikipedians have to play by the rules--even Admins! :-) Let's talk about this.

Webbbbbbber (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My recollection is that it was discussed on the Historicity of Jesus talk page, W, but it was several months ago so I can't be sure. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See discussion here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I was having a hard time finding the discussion. Looks like you were having a hard time reaching consensus; maybe you could put one of those "See main article here" at the top of the segment you want to add to the HoJ article? BTW, may I ask why there was no notification made on the Quest... page? I wasn't even aware that the HoJ article existed until I got redirected there. Webbbbbbber (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your FAs

Run a few of them through the peer reviewer if you need something to do.

• Death of Ian Tomlinson has 4 dead links, and numerous issues with WP:MOS
• Muhammad al-Durrah incident has numerous WP:MOS issues
• Marshalsea has many, many MoS issues and deadlinks
• Stanley Green uses a gallery, which MoS discourages
• Abu Nidal has DABs and Dead Links, and uses weasel words, and needs to be made consistent with either American or British spelling

— GabeMc (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As this is a response to my review of the Roger Walters FAC, I'm going to copy it over there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, I was trying to spare you, but you're right, everyone should see how you are not as picky about your own FAs. — GabeMc (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very picky about how my FAs, Gabe. If you don't want your work to be reviewed, don't submit it to FAC. And don't post here again about this, please. You need to respond on the FAC page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Brown Dog affair has numerous MoS issues and dead links
• Rudolf Vrba has MoS issues, deadlinks, DAB links, and weasel words
• Night (book) has many MoS issues and needs to be made consistent with either American or British spelling
• Joel Brand has MoS issues and a redirect that needs to be fixed
• Bernard Williams has many MoS issues and needs to be made consistent with either American or British spelling

SlimVirgin, is case you didn't know, Waters changed the film in his show, and the star of David is no longer juxtaposed with a dollar sign. — GabeMc (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not pretty, GabeMc; without reviewers, we don't have FAs, and MOS issues are easily fixed and won't break the 'pedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I periodically check my FAs to fix any dead links; I'm quite happy to do another round of checking. But the Star of David comment is odd, and I'm not happy that a source request, or a suggestion for fixing the writing, has triggered this response. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you really seemed to have it our for me, or the article, and I noticed your interest in the subject, and since Waters was accused of anti-semitism by Foxman last month, I made an unsupported assumption. I apologize. You did question Blake 43, and you were wrong. You questioned 1965 as a date for the Pink Floyd name, you wee wrong. You rode me on a bad day, and I apologize if I insulted you. — GabeMc (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Slim, you can install {{featured article tools}} on article talk pages to check for dead and dab links periodically. I hope this is settled now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ps, if you remind when I have some free time-- oh, say, about 2011-- I will MOS check your articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I'll also start a round of checking myself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you got what you wanted. I lost my cool and the Roger Waters FAC is over, not because it's not a good article, but because Wiki is a popularity contest and you and SG are buds. Well, that's fine with me. I would rather the article is good, and accurate than a FA. Why did you have to push my buttons? I ma having a very, very bad day, and you helped make it bad, so thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

SV...I didn't read every detail here but I think Gabe should understand that FAC and FAR are two different things...anyway, I just redid much of the Glacier National Park (U.S.) article this past spring and already (though I haven't verified it) the tool Sandy mentions above says there are more than 5 dead links...so even a revamped FA doesn't stay completely current or can't be improved, even after peer review, FAC and even FAR....this is Wikipedia, afterall. Not sure if Gabe clarified but the Star of David issue at the Roger Waters concert The Wall was due to a complaint by the ADL about visual effects where the Star of David and dollar signs were being dropped (amoung other things) from bombers...Waters took a bit of heat for this ADL complaint...Rolling Stone story...I saw the concert in Omaha, Nebraska last week but do not remember seeing any of this stuff...I wasn't on booze or dope either, so maybe I missed it.--MONGO 03:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, MONGO. I hope you enjoyed the concert! I was hoping to see it myself, but I think I've missed all the dates I could have managed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody cut some video from the concert at Omaha...[1]...[2]....--MONGO 04:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Today's_featured article/requests#December 8. If anything else comes to light, it may be time for WP:WQA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tech support

Hey Slim,

I tried uploading File:ABDmay2005.JPG but for some reason the thumbnail image generated does not seem to work. Any chance you could help me or point me in the direction of some help.

Many thanks, NickCT (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see it, so I'm not sure I've understood what's not working. Is it when you add it to an article that there's a problem? You do need to add a source too. I'm a funny person to come to for tech support, given that I barely know which side of the computer is up. I will treasure this header. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I just noticed on the Foundation mailing list that there's a thread about images loading slowly for some people today, or not at all, so if you're having problems seeing an image that could be it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey SV - Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, without having changed anything, all of a sudden I can see it. Perhaps it was some kind of bug. Sorry for bothering you. Best, NickCT (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lynching of Laura and Lawrence Nelson

Can I ask why you keep removing the country from the beginning of this article? If someone isn't familiar with US geography, most non North Americans, they won't know Oklahoma is in the US unless they click on it. The only clear indication it takes place in the US is found in the fourth paragraph of the lead. In fact a reader may even think it's in Canada based on the third paragraph, which mentions North Canadian River, if the country hasn't previously been mentioned. The country should be mentioned when the location is initially brought up. Also them being listed as African-American doesn't do it either as people can travel. Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury, I'd be amazed to find any Wikipedia reader who doesn't know Oklahoma is in the United States. I don't think we should always have to add "Paris, France," or "Rome, Italy." Should the lead of Marshalsea be forced to say: " ... a prison on the south bank of the River Thames in Southwark, now part of London, England"?

In addition, the first sentence of the lead says they were African-Americans (and to imagine them going on holiday during that period, and somehow getting lynched elsewhere is stretching things), and the last sentence of the lead says they were among 4,743 people lynched in the United States during a certain period. And in case there are people who still don't understand this is in the U.S., I've added United States to the infobox. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The example you illustrate, yes the country should be added. I know US is mentioned in the last paragraph, but people shouldn't be expected to read right to the very end of the lead to figure out what country the location is in. And yes you'll get Wikipedia readers who don't know Oklahoma is in the US. Strangely enough not everyone outside the US knows all the US states, just like people in the US aren't expected to know all the Cantons in Switzerland, the counties in England or the provinces in China. Canterbury Tail talk 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree. That Oklahoma is in the United States is common knowledge. We can't get into a situation where we're having to write: "The 7 July 2005 London bombings ... were a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon London, England's public transport system ..." Or "The World Trade Center ... was a complex of seven buildings in Lower Manhattan in New York City, United States, that were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." We have to assume some basic common knowledge of readers. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, SV, for butting in, but I think you may be mistaken. Comparing world-wide English readers' knowledge of London to the same readers' knowledge of Oklahoma is like comparing oranges to, um, cherimoyas (custard apples). Yes, we can assume all will recognize London, Paris, Rome... but not Oklahoma, Chiapas, and St. Gallen. --Yopienso (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have concerns about any adult reading Wikipedia who didn't know that Oklahoma was in the United States. But if they don't they can click on the link, or look at the infobox. There's no need to overegg the pudding.

The written has to be factored in too, and in my view the lead looks odd adding "United States" when it's already made obvious in several ways. This is an article I'm half-thinking of submitting for FA status if I can ever pin down the sourcing, so I'd like the writing not to be too laboured. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who would have to look on a map to work out whether Saskatchewan (which I can't spell either) is in the US or Canada, I think we need to be careful not to make assumptions of a worldwide readership. Do you know (without looking) whether Berwick is currently in England or Scotland? That said, putting the information in the infobox should be adequate I would think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Master stroke, Elen. And although I would not think ill of the intellectual level of a Scot (or Australian or a Russian who learned English in school, etc.) who didn't know Oklahoma is a U.S. state, I can see including the fact in the first sentence could be overkill. Bottom line: I concede the point in this case to SV. --Yopienso (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the comparison between Berwick and Oklahoma. The latter is well-known, if for no other reason because of the song, the musical, the film, and the bombing. The bombing article doesn't tell us it's in the United States, just as the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack doesn't tell us it's in Scotland in the first sentence, though it does soon after. Same with the Nelson article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

courtesy note

User:Eugeneacurry is requesting unblock and there is a thread at ANI here regards - Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Night (book)

Hello. I think placing (1960 in English) immediately after the book title, aside from being somewhat inelegant, is slightly misleading, or at least inexact, since the book was first published in 1955 in Yiddish and later in French, as more fully explained further on in the lede. Is there a better way to word this? Station1 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not ideal. For most of the article's existence, I had no date there, but it started to look like a significant omission. Giving a year helps the reader to orient himself. I'd normally give the first date of publication (1955), and maybe we should do that here. It's just that it was a significantly different book that was published in 1955; it's not just that it was translated into different languages, it was completely rewritten. So I don't know how to handle it. Perhaps we could discuss it on the article talk page, in case others have some ideas. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll transfer this to the talk page, slightly refactored, and reply there. Station1 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

FARC

Hey Slim, noticed your edit here. While I agree that the article is still problematic, if you look at the main FAR page you'll notice that under FAR "The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates YellowMonkey and Dana boomer, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or... the nomination should be moved to the second stage". Just as a procedural point, I think you should consider reverting your edit and leaving the decision to proceed to FARC to the director and delegates. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do, sorry. I've not been involved in FAR much, so I don't know the procedure. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Email sent...

The articles should be to you shortly. If they don't arrive, let me know because sometimes gmail don't like lots of attachments. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorsements

Hi. I'll try to find new sources for the endorsements sourced to the campaign page, but the ones sources to blogs maintained by reporters for Politico, the New York Daily News, and Capitol Tonight should fall within the WP:BLPSPS self-published exception for news organizations that have blogs maintained by reporters and subject to a newspapers editorial control.--96.57.62.106 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

... for being a voice of sanity at that horrid AN/I thread. FWIW, I agree with you (about all roles being needed) and that any editor looking down any other is an evil that needs to be hack to pieces, ground and then burned. — Coren ^(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the thrust of your comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing this pop on my watchlist, I just reviewed your comments there, and they look spot on. I'm staying out, since Wehwalt is in there adding to the peanut gallery, and I don't need more of that when I haven't yet read FAC, and will be seriously dismayed if I don't find reviewers indicating they have actually checked sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I had been mulling over some sort of posting like this but not properly conceptualized it as you have. Nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'm still hopeful for a positive outcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Muriel Gray

Hi, just a note/reminder about the Muriel Gray BLP which you protected. I got a question from the user that was adding the disputed content asking about reinserting it again, the article is now unprotected, there has been no attempt to re add the content just what amounts to a good faith question on my talkpage which I have now moved to the users talkpage and answered here, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You're right, unless something has changed (i.e. a reliable source has written about it), we can't include it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-08/Features and admins

Thank you for the mention. That was very good of you, and is very much appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I enjoyed reading your article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Slim, could you please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Close_paraphrasing#Feist_v._Rural. Hans Adler and Moonriddengirl are in my view close to promulgating a principle whereby Wikipedians would be prohibited from reporting facts only available in a single source, based on a substantial similarity argument.

This is nonsense, because bare facts are not copyrightable, even if you are the first and only person to have researched and reported them; only their creative expression and arrangement is. Hans and MRG have a point in their biography example, where the selection and sequential arrangement of facts may amount to a creative narrative, but not in the other example of gangsters exchanging their car for another one. I am thinking of articles like Death of Jeremiah Duggan here; IIRC, there were crucial details in that article which were only available in a single source.

I firmly expect (and would welcome) WP:Close paraphrasing becoming a guideline eventually; but such failings should be ironed out before it does. --JN466 18:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Helmuth von Moltke

Dear SlimVirgin, I note that you removed a citation from a paragraph in Helmuth von Moltke and substituted . Next you removed the whole paragraph. I don't see any discussion leading to these actions. Please help me understand why. Otherwise, I'm inclined to restore what was deleted. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hopson, you'd have to show me a diff to remind me, but it was probably because that material (largely self-published by Arnold Reisman) had been spammed into various articles, whether appropriate or not, by the subject or someone connected to him. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, SlimVirgin. I think that you can see the point in the revision history here [3]. I looked at the citations and asked a subject-matter expert and found the paragraph in the article to be factual and properly cited. So, I have restored the passage, pending better insights on how to source that episode in von Moltke's life. I'd prefer any further deletion of that segment come after a discussion. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hopson, that source is self-published and so can't be used, per policy. See WP:SPS. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the policy is not absolute, but represents a means to avoid citing sources that are not authoritative. I would judge that many authors are published, based on the commercial prospects for their books, not the verifiably, thereof. In this case, the publisher states that its books are "peer-review[ed] to ensure high standards." Furthermore, the publisher has included review summaries. Since I have authoritatively confirmed the information to be correct, I feel that the citation may be flawed, but no worse than other frequently cited sources, including web pages, newspaper articles, conference papers, etc. If you agree, I'd ask you to provisionally reinstate the reference. Either way, I'll look for a different citation. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a self-published book, vanity publishing. These are only allowed on the rare occasions that the author is a recognized authority in the field, but in this case he is an engineer. If the material is widely known to be correct, there will be other sources for it. I'm sorry to inconvenience you so you have to search for other ones, but I'd be happy to help if you let me know what you're looking for. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I have found a more acceptable citation. User:HopsonRoad 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

COI report

You had voiced concerns at T:TDYK regarding this issue, so please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Christopher_Connor. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Connor

Surely, he needs to explain himself, and this DYK will never go through without out, but this is hardly a diplomatic approach to the problem. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. If you think not, I don't mind removing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would remove, to be on a safer side - some sensitive souls might think of it as a direct accusation. Materialscientist (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style (words to watch)

You wrote: "When two regular editors of a guideline object to your removal of material from it (in this case WP:W2W), I can't see the point of continuing to revert. Please discuss your proposal on the talk page."

I presume that you are not saying that they own it? If we we the number of edits to the page and the talk pages:

• DCGeist project page ~283 talk page ~175
• PBS talk project page 25 talk page ~124
• DocKino project 27 talk page ~34

I would seem to me that I must be a regular editor that page as well! You say "I can't see the point of continuing to revert." They are not the ones reverting my edit, It is you who did so apparently without reading the talk page before doing so if your comments in the history are to be explained "please discuss on talk!" and "(two people have objected, so pls discuss further)" with no explanation in the section were it has been discussed before you made the reverts. To date of the three editors who have reverted my edit there has been one response in the relevant talk page section, and no follow up to the questions I asked. I have waited 3 1/2 days for DocKino to respond on the talk page in the appropriate section, but having reverted with the comment "the edit summary makes clear that you do not understand what a euphemism is." there has been no further comment. To date the majority of the people who have spoken in the section have not objected to the change, so please do me the curtsey to read what I have written in the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Ethnic cleansing -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If three of the page's regular editors have reverted you—and they are people who fully understand the issuesw—it seems obvious that there's no consensus, and therefore you shouldn't keep inserting the change. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If they are regular editors and as as you say "people who fully understand the issues" then they need to explain their POV on the talk page. I have waited 3 1/2 days for DocKino to respond on the talk page in the appropriate section reverting DK's revert after such a wait is not unreasonab le. From your first revert it was clear that you reverted without bothering to look at the talk page. If you had put a comment there after reverting then I would have responded to it, but you did not. I think you need to consider very carefully what you are saying here, as it seems to imply that you would never reinsert an edit that was reverted when a regular editor to a page reverts it and does not justify the revert on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip, you revert too much, particularly on content and style guidelines, where you have somewhat fixed ideas not shared by many. I really urge you to reconsider your approach. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy/Guideline distinction at MEDRS

At WP:RS, you added this. It's still there. Recently, the same was removed from WP:MEDRS. I replaced it. It was removed. There's a discussion. Care to comment? Ocaasi (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the whole discussion was moot, since [4] which WhatamIdoing explained here. This quickly wrapped up the discussion, but I'm still not quite sure what happened. Sometime in September, Guidelines stopped being subordinate to Policies. I didn't know. Maybe that one didn't get as much attention as was thought. Ocaasi (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that's not true. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Existing Policy on Deletion of User Talk Pages

As Per WP:DELTALk] Clearly States that a User Talk Page can be deleted when only when it meets the Criteria for WP:CSD or when a User is Permanently leaving Wikipedia.Can you Clarify whether my understanding is wrong here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that user talk pages should only rarely be deleted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

An edit you made

Please see here. Thanks.166.137.138.205 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied there. Not sure if you've got it watchlisted.166.137.136.210 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If 3RR blocks are appropriate even when the fourth revert occurs after 24 hours, then the policy should not call 3RR a "bright line rule" (unless the purpose is to be deceitful and trap unsuspecting editors). Will you object if I come out of retirement to clarify in the policy that 3RR is not a "bright line rule"?166.137.139.184 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you Anythingyouwant? You're very welcome to come out of retirement and help with the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tis I.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I look forward to your policy edits. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank

You are the only person that I know on wikipedia who kept the Leo Frank article neutral and unbiased as possible. Please dont give up on it. Dont let those jokers scare you away and bully you. You are a hero amongst legions of activists editors, especially on the Leo Frank article. You're a rare gem on wikipedia and dont forget that. Machnnn (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Favor

My user page and user talk page are protected. I'd like them to stay that way. Would you please edit them to change "retired" to instead say "semi-retired"? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They already say retired. Did you mean the other way round? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please just insert "semi-" so I can make some edits as a named editor. Thanks.166.137.138.25 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gracias, Slim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If Anythingyouwant is editing Wikipedia, then his talk page should be unprotected to allow communication about his edits. Because I have a history, I'm not going to do this myself, but I feel pretty strongly that an active editor's talk page should not be protected. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. If I drop the "semi" then the user talk page will be locked up. I believe that one of the prerogatives of a user is to exclude particular editors from his talk page, and I may invoke that privilege in the future, MC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at PL290's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ILT

I'm going to be traveling Thursday, preparing tomorrow, but I've started:

• User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC; feel free to use that page. I've pinged MRG and Laser.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Request Indefinite Block of Account User:Pfagerburg

This user has been repeatedly warned to stop posting materials about Jeff Merkey on Wikipedia. He has been involved in Court proceedings he initiated and lost against Merkey. His contributions shows he continues his pattern of harassing postings. This user was banned and has been blocked for this conduct numerous times. Unfortunately, he is not going to stop until someone stops him. Please indef block this user for violating his last unblock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.131.234 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wanda Gág

Hi Slim, why don't we just delete the copyvio material leaving the article in the state it was in back in September 2006: [5]? We can work on it from that point...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me, Modernist. There are some copyright rules that I'm not familiar with, whereby versions with the violation are supposed to be deleted, but we can always do that afterwards. So go ahead and revert if you'd like to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Animal Right Militia

Hi. I just realised that you have been restoring the contents sourced to number of animal right advocacy site. Since you are contesting my edit, i will stop deleting any further. Since this is a contentious issue and you seem quite vocal, not to mention being wiki famous, on this matter, I will see if I can find an arbitrator. Feel free to restore my edit but I appreciate if you can state why these source fall into the category of reliable or verifiable source. Cheers Vapour (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Gabe. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Narrative voice

Hello SlimVirgin and many thanks for the welcome to your talk page.

I respect your wise move to open an RfC at WP:WTW. Your many excellent contributions to WP:WTW and other MoS pages are much appreciated. I would be happy to try to clarify what PBS means (and his perspective) if his explanations continue to be unclear. I have also provided examples which illustrate that the phrase is used in a problematic way in existing articles. Geometry guy 02:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Geometry Guy, I just saw this. Many thanks for your examples on that page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

AE discussion

I'm concerned with your attitude in the Dershowitz article, and I'm about to file an WP:AE report given that you tagged the page with {{ARBPIA}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Filed at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SlimVirgin. Sorry for the double post on this, but WP:AE instructions have an chicken and egg problem: one must give a diff for a notification of a discussion that does yet exist in order to start the discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla

Hi SV, you never answered me in details about the reasons why you have finally thought this article required improvement. (I don't blame you !! Our time is limited and we are not computers !).
When you have time or the opportunity for this, could you give me more input about what you consider require improvement ? (feel free to answer here - I will follow-up your page). Thx. Noisetier (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember your question, Noisetier, and I've not looked at this article for a long time. Was there a specific issue? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

To summary : I wonder why it is not FA-nominated.

You answered me there remain issues that required much work but you was not specific about which ones ?

Could you give more details ?

Noisetier (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to bring this up to FA status, but people with strong views on both sides were making it difficult. What you need on an article like this are good writers and researchers who aren't focused on making political points.

To bring it to FA status, the text would have to be tightened considerably; all the sources checked; text-source integrity checked; image licences checked, and I recall there were problems with the images because they're free in their countries of origin but not in the U.S.; and then edited for flow. And all that would have to happen within a context of minimal reverting, because of the I/P ArbCom ruling, and the need in general for stability for FAs.

The article has been stable for a long time, so I'm not saying it couldn't be done. But I would hate to put a lot of work into it only to have people arrive to start reverting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

Thank you for your answer. Step by step, I want to translate this article from English to French and bring this to AdQ ( equivalent of FA ).

• For that I have to check all quotes per WP:V. I can take care of that part of the job. I could do this in a talk page.
• I understand there is no (blatant) NPoV issue ; that is already great.
• About images, it is funny that peope never wondered if images that are free in the USA are free in the other countries. That is not at all the case. ;-) Anyway, per my understanding, if pictures are free in the country where they were developed and published first time, they are free all over the world.
• For the edit wars, I cannot do anything and even less thinking about this. What would you think of finalizing the work on one of your own "personal pages" on which you would have the full editorial control and where you could ask everybody's mind (pro- contra- warriors- peacekeepers- povpushers- frenchies- ...) and then replace the current version when the best consensual version is reached there ?

Noisetier (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've started tidying it a little to bring it to FA standard, but I can't promise to keep on doing it, because it will be a fair bit of work. But I will do some as and when I'm able to. We had more images in earlier versions if you want to grab them, but there were so many we would have had to claim fair use for that I removed some. See this version, for example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A kind reminder

You just deleted my good-faith edit which was a legitimite source supported the subject's claim. This source was already discussed and accepted here The subject is Lecturer at the Özyeğin University by a senior editor.

By deleting my edit, you also disregarded another editor's decision.

• Please do revert yourself. It will be a right thing to do. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 20:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus

In September 2009, you edited this article.[6] Among other changes, you altered a reference from "Morris 2004, p. 575" to "Morris2006p578". This reference has been challenged and removed by an editor who points out that "Morris 2006" is not in the bibliography. Was your alteration an error, or were you using a different source or edition than previously cited? In any case, please look at the discussion, and help resolve this issue. Thanks. RolandR (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protection Question - President Warren Harding

I have been doing alot of editing of Abraham Lincoln in the recent past and I noticed you had long ago put semi protection on it. My edit of Lincoln was concurrent with my reading of a major biography of him. I am about to do the same thing with Warren Harding and wondered if it would be appropriate to put the semi protection on Harding in light of the amount of work envolved. (This is my fourth such edit, the first two being James Buchanan and John Kennedy.) Cheers. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing enough to justify protection yet, but if it gets worse please let me know, or ask on WP:RfPP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

REFPUNC Discussion

Dear SV: You might want to check out this discussion regarding issues concerning WP:PAIC and MOS:REFPUNC. I know your contribution to the discussion would be welcomed. See also here; here; and here. The newest proposal seems to be to update the MOS and REFPUNC to reflect the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. Best regards. Saebvn (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Assange

I'm pretty disappointed to see that reverted so quickly... as it is "in parallel" is really bad wording, the grammar has problems and listing the different charges is way overkill for a lead. I'd strongly encourage you to self revert. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as bad wording, and there's consensus on talk to include the charges, in the interests of precision. Where are the grammar problems exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence is a bit wordy, doesn't matter too much. The listing of the charges seems pointy to me, that's all. As in; what need is there to list them again? As a comparison; it would strike me as undue etc. to relist his awards in the lead. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have to be clear what the charges are exactly in the interests of accuracy. No point in using our own words instead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is dealt with properly in the article section. It just strikes me as too much from a BLP perspective, kinda like pushing the point etc. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it someone is accused of rape, and the prosecuting authority has used that term in an arrest warrant, we should not do anything to make it sound like something else. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not what I'm saying though. It already (correctly) mentions sexual assault in the lead, I see no reason to be overly detailed. In fact such detail (whether controversial or not) is discouraged in the lead --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say detail is discouraged? LEAD says to describe notable controversies. This is one. No reason not to describe it accurately. Best to continue this on article talk so that others can join in. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In point of fact it says summarize not describe - hence my point. The notable controversy point is irrelevant; it is being mentioned, just in too much detail. Doesn't matter, it will figure out in the wash at some point --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

However vs but

I don't understand the point of your revert here.[7] 'However' and 'but' are synonyms, except that it not strictly correct to start a sentence with 'but'. The meaning remains unchanged, it only becomes more grammatically correct. So why revert? LK (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to start a sentence with "but," Lawrence. "However" introduces more of a disjunction than "but," a slight change in tone. And it really isn't needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. As can be seen from the dictionary definitions for however and but, they bear the same definitions, except that 'but' is used to connect phrases. LK (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

wikt:but#Conjunction is also worth a look. Most English speakers avoid using a coordinating conjunction at the beginning of a sentence, except when a particular emphasis is wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a myth that we shouldn't start sentences with "but". There's no rule against it, and good writers do it all the time, notwithstanding what's taught in some schools (my own included). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

LK (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For example, this SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who teaches English to foreigners, I have to add my thruppence ha'penny here. "Don't start a sentence with but" is an instruction given to schoolchildren and foreign students of English because it saves a lot of stylistic grief. But for adults fluent in the language, it's perfectly OK, and occurs not infrequently, even with the most stylish writers.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, thank you! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to interupt here, and digress, but is it OK to start a sentence with "But"? many moons ago, when I was being taught grammar, in both English and Italian it was considered very wrong to start a senence with "But" and "Ma." I know languages change, but is it OK in English to do so now? Just genunely interested?  Giacomo  15:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely okay. I was taught the same in school. I don't know why teachers do that, but it can be safely ignored (not only can be, should be). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's taught for a mix of two reasons. One is that ugly sentences starting with but really offend the eye; the other is that young or lower level foreign learners often use "but" at the beginning of sentences when it should be a conjunction between two clauses. For example: "My best friend plays football really well. But I am not a good player." One could replace "but" with "however" (which often happens with teachers hoping to teach supposedly higher level vocabulary), or one could join the sentences together with ", but" in the middle, which is more natural.

• Oh well, one learns something everyday; for the last God knows how many years I have been going out of my way to not start a "But" sentence, and all the time I could have written it. That makes me sick as a parrot.  Giacomo  17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • See [8] --JN466 17:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent link. Better late than never, Giano; at least you can relax now. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As a direct result of what I have learnt here, I have just posted my first ever sentence beginning "but" Good in't it?  Giacomo  13:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Hi, you put the Nancy Pelosi article under full protection indefinitely. Looking at the history, it seems that the recent activity there was from a single user editing against long-standing consensus. I fully understand that a cooling down period is often necessary, but it seems that dealing with it as a WP:3RR issue would be more appropriate as there isn't really any chance of this getting worked out in discussion (consensus has existed on this issue for years). Under the current situation, I'm not really sure what would need to happen for the page to be unprotected. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi LM, I protected it for three days, which means it runs out on Nov 27. It's just the move protection that's indefinite. If the issue is definitely settled, I can unprotect early, but from the talk page it doesn't look as though there's agreement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

I don't know if it's your way of doing things, but you might find it easier to revamp the article in a sandbox first, then history merge the two (or I'll do it if you want) and request input on the talk page and deal with with objections as they come up. Just a thought. I don't envy you. There aren't many editors willing to make the improvements necessary to take a controversial article like that to PR and FAC. There are plenty of good editors who maintain articles on a day-to-day basis, but there are enough POV pushers and edit warriors that it and people accusing others being such things that it quickly becomes a tiresome area to work in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ, that would be very helpful. I've started working on it at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda3. I was thinking I would "decant" this into the mainspace article from time to time, so that it doesn't get too far out of sync. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred Singer

If you do not want the section on Climategate removed from his page then you should discuss it on the talk page.67.176.220.219 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

Hi SV, I'm going to be slammed this weekend with work, but I'm hoping my schedule will free up a bit mid-next week. Will try to take a look at the article then. Cheers. ← George ^talk 09:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Fusion/Arnold Reisman

I have brought the Fusion is the future/Arnold Reisman matter to AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail

You have some. Gatoclass (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)