User talk:SlimVirgin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Derkovits, Gyula - Sleeping Woman.jpg

The Signpost
19 November 2014


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at The FGM article's's talk page.
Message added 05:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not to mention the requests here for responses, which you've just deleted. Elvey(tc) 05:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap Strategy: Join us for a call![edit]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.


Dyk25CE.svg The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
I admire the variety of subjects you have donated which cover many worthy and under reported subjects. You are doing your bit for trying to reduce our systemic bias - thanks. Can I thank you on behalf of the DYK project and the wiki for 25 of the articles. Hopefully we will see many more. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the award and kind words, Victuallers. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the recognition at FAC. I'm heading to the main campus library on Wednesday and I think I might be able to find one more article ("A day in the life of ... a female genital mutilation/public health specialist" in your July request) in print. Do you still want that article? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi OhanaUnited, you're very welcome. If it's no trouble for you, I would like to see that article, but I'm unlikely to be adding much at this stage, so it would be background reading only. Therefore, if it's a nuisance at all, please don't trouble yourself, but thank you very much for asking me. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right. There's not a lot of content and I highly doubt it provides any additional value that can be added to the article. But please have a look.[1] OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I didn't realize it was such a basic kind of thing, so no content there that we can use. But it's really very kind of you to find it for me and upload the image. Thank you again! SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanx for[edit]

this but it seems I cannot recall when I helped you, directly or indrectly, or locate any of my supposed contributions. I have a vague recollection of searching in ancient sources about circumcision (male? female? don't recall when or what for exactly), but I cannot find any relevant edits etc..
So it seems to me that either I'm losing my memory and wikisearch skills, that I'm getting very old, or that I don't deserve the credit, that there has been some mistake... Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thanatos, there was a very helpful discussion on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome some time ago about references to FGM in Ancient Greek texts. I thanked everyone who took part, including you. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh this! Egad, I'm really getting old... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi SlimVirgin--when you have a moment, can you peruse your extensive holdings on (trans)gender and sexuality literature and see if Sulka pops up anywhere in the index? I found a thing or two but I'm sure there's more. Thanks, and don't tell Mrs. Drmies I was editing this article, Drmies (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, sorry, I don't have any additional sources on something like that. Sorry I can't help. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.


I've found a free version here. It's really not very good at all; I've tried sharpening it and I'll email the result to you. If you can't use the one in the article, then at least it's good to know that others exist. I'll keep searching too. Also the photography lab might be able to do something with this. It's from 1916. Victoria (tk) 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, you are an absolute genius! I've been looking for one for ages. That's a much more interesting one too, especially if we can sharpen it. Thank you so much for looking. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It needs work, but it's good to know that other photos of her exist. Also good to know she was published in photographs as early as 1916. Victoria (tk) 22:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminists Engage Wikipedia[edit]

Few logo.jpg The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
If Adrianne Wadewitz were here, she'd give you this award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Djembayz, that's very kind of you. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminist/Skeptical stuff[edit]

Hi SV, this is User:Sticky Parkin I'm back and somewhat ready for action:) How've you been? Anything you feel needs helping with in the above areas? Gamergate Controversy has been a strange nebulous thing. Article been through some biased (inc feminist) versions, that's for sure.SatansFeminist (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi SP, nice to see you again. I hope you're well! The best thing is for you to head over to WP:GGTF, sign up and park yourself on the talk page, where you'll soon be brought up to date. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification[edit]

This is to inform you that Abu Nidal, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 27 November 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: As a result of this, the TFA appeaance of this article has been deferred.


This news item may interest you.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kablammo, that is, indeed, very interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lemmons[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lemmons you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bruce1ee -- Bruce1ee (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for bringing the FGM article to FAC, and congratulations on a successful nomination! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Rationalobserver, and thank you also for your support during the FAC! SlimVirgin (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I second the congratulations. The promotion came with rather less hassle and strain than I think you thought might be the case – that is the consequence of your very careful preparation for the nomination, which made it hard for would-be opposers to gain any purchase. A remarkable article, truly an example of Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That is so kind, Brian, thank you. And thank you for everything you did, during the peer reviews, the FAC, and your general support. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Huge congrats SV to a well-deserved promotion! I was truly inspired watching as you worked on the article, preparing it FAC. I have to echo Brian (again) in saying that it's an example of Wikipedia's best work. Beyond that, I have huge admiration for your fortitude in doing such a wonderful job on a subject that's immensely important, yet at times had to have been very difficult. Job well done! Victoria (tk) 22:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Victoria, thank you! I've just left a note on your talk page thanking you for your support throughout the process. It made all the difference to me, it really did. And congratulations for getting Nativity (Christus) up to FA. It will make an excellent TFA. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That's funny that we're posting on each other's pages. As though we're happy or something! The support felt inadequate to be honest, giving all the heavy lifting you were doing. All I can say is that it was nice to log in this evening! Very exciting, all around. Thanks to you, too, for the support on the Nativity - now in the TFA queue. Victoria (tk) 23:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Your TFA looks great; I've added a support. I've added mine to the pending queue: just being able to do that felt really good! SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@SV: Congratulations, fantastic work! After all my predictions of doom and gloom, the POV pushers never even whimpered, so from the comfort of my armchair you certainly make FAC look easy! Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, John. As I said, I couldn't have done it without you. It has been so nice to watch real collaboration at work, with everyone willing to pitch in, including people who supplied sources, advice about the medical aspects, hieroglyphs, Ancient Greek texts. I was really flagging at several points throughout the process, but kept being buoyed up by you all. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all the above. Such perseverance, a huge achievement, of which ye can be very proud. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Ceoil, that's very kind. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I just read FGM. Thank you, and your collaborators, for a brilliant article. It's, deservedly, at the top of Google, Yahoo and Bing web search results for "FGM", "female genital mutilation" and "female circumcision" in Australia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor Retention[edit]

I've added you to the list [2] as there were no objections. I was a bit surprised and very pleased you are interested in helping out. I think your extensive experience in content creation and well, virtually everything else at Wikipedia, will be a huge asset. My hope for coordinators is to be the guiding hands, the people with answers, the ones that can come in with calm logic during heated discussions, and of course, provide leadership by example rather than rank. I think the idea of me simply "declaring" coordinators caught some off guard, but WER does need change to stay relevant, as well as continue the good works that we have already started. This was the most effective way to achieve that goal. We've only touched the surface of what we can do, but WER was and is a long term project, constantly changing as we learn and as needs change. Thanks again for volunteering, on a personal level, it means a lot that you are willing to help out. Dennis - 23:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis, I'll probably lurk for a bit to make sure I know what's needed, so if you don't see me jump in right away, it won't be because I'm not paying attention. I want to get a feel for what people have been doing and what would be helpful in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a roller coaster. Sometimes nothing for three months, then three editors in one week with bad experiences with admin (we aren't a board, but it is helpful to calmly talk to them about policy and such, lend an ear, etc.). Then someone has an idea, or saw and article, and we just talk about it. As I said there, most of the work is done in private. Often it is reminding people on different pages that policy changes might affect retention: planting seeds. WER is still "new" in many respects, even with some great people and projects, but there is much than can be molded, much more that is possible, limited only by the willingness of others to lend a helping hand. We have to be careful and never take an "official" stand on any policy, but we will point people to where discussions are happening. We have to stay politics-free there, it would be too easy to turn it into something bad otherwise. Your experience and judgement at drawing the line and knowing when to say "You know, this really should be discussed at that policy page, or at ANI, or at Arb" will be helpful, as we tend to allow heated debate (short of NPA of course), but some might like to come as if it is an admin board, and it is not. Nothing major or overly active, but it is a challenge at times. And sometimes, someone comes in confused, the Teahouse didn't help, they just don't understand, and you can clear it up, help mentor them, and they turn around and create great articles, and all you can do is smile. Those days make the rest worth the while. Dennis - 00:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Dennis. It sounds very constructive. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And now I have a favor to ask ;) Actually, I've looked at a user, Contaldo80 , who might be perfect for eotw. I did a bunch of research, but want another set of eyes as I'm busy IRL. 75% article edits, most of the rest article talk, 32 created, quietly builds consensus and content. Not super active, not flashy, but rock solid work in difficult areas and a very calm demeanor that seems to encourage cooperation. No rush. Your last pick was great, btw. I couldn't help but dig a little and she's a perfect choice, exactly the kind of editor we want to recognize and encourage to stick around. Dennis - 20:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I'll take a look, though it might be a couple of days before I can get to it. There's a bit of content work I have to get through first. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing which I have thought for some time, although it is completely beyond my capacity to implement myself, which I think might be a way of to a limited extent increasing the number of women editors, would be some way to maybe start some sort of collaborative effort at WikiNews or WikiBooks or somewhere else which might be able to produce some works like the Greenwood Press "At Issue" books or maybe like some of the old books in the series "Why I am a (Catholic, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc.)," with maybe expansion into broad philosophical topics like "Why I am a Objectivist" or "Why I am a Animal Rights Supporter" or similar are some examples. If something could be worked out with the GLAM project or some other effort to maybe see if there would be any way to maybe start one, that might help a lot. But, being who I am, I don't think I could ever do it on my own. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, it's an interesting idea. Are you thinking that editors would seek people out to interview, or write something like that about themselves? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
For the "Why I Am a" type works, which I figure would probably be best at WikiBooks, although it could I suppose be assembled from "columns" at WikiNews, if people wanted to do it that way, have one person who is associated with whatever group write most of the material to be included, and maybe at the end be a part of a broader discussion "panel" which would include people of different opinions. This second section would allow for the "proponent" to respond to some of the criticisms of the group from such outsiders, and I suppose in some cases allow the outsiders to point out the weakness of some of the proponent's arguments (such as maybe for "Why I Am a Christian Scientist" or "Why I Am a Raelian"). For "At Issue" type works, trying to find editors around here who can put forward the various positions on a disputed issue, get them to write the equivalent of "position papers" reflecting a given stance on an issue, and maybe again at the end have some sort of basically civil discussion between them where they could discuss the perceived merits and weaknesses of the various positions. I remember ScienceApologist and someone else used to do that sort of "Point/Counterpoint" discussion on the Wikipedia Review, and I think for a lot of the more contentious or disputed topics that sort of content would be more useful than what we can get in our shorter articles here. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a very interesting suggestion. It could even be done on dedicated talk pages attached to the article about the topic. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lemmons[edit]

The article Lemmons you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Lemmons for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bruce1ee -- Bruce1ee (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've listed this under Architecture. I hope that is the right place. I couldn't find anywhere for it under Language and literature. —Bruce1eetalk 08:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bruce, that's fine, and thank you again for the thorough review. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy article[edit]

Hi. Following the recent promotion to FA of the FGM article, I wondered if you might be interested in contributing to the short sections on FGM in the Wiki Vagina anatomy article, which is one of the top 1000 most popular Wiki pages. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snowman, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)