User talk:Slp1/Archive 7

Olivia Dearest

The truly weird thing is that I don't actually care about religion. I'm a writer and photographer, possibly with too much time on my hands. I like literature, art, history and the humanities in general. Religion isn't my thing. So why do I edit it? I'm not sure. But yes, I'd love to look up Olivia's skirts again. PiCo (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say that Olivia wouldn't be too keen on what you suggest, but on second thoughts I'm not sure! I can totally relate on the "why do I edit it?" question. I have been sucked into men's, fathers', alimony rights etc in which I have zero (0) personal, family or professional interest. For me, I think it is part of a core need for fairness and for both sides of a story to be told. And of course some of the editors in these areas are more focussed on getting word of "The Truth" out there.

I'm feeling somewhat discouraged since last night I reread the further improvements at the Good Article review [1], and I see that the literary summing up section still needs a lot of work. If you have any suggestions about how best to organize things I would love it, since I am a bit stuck with this I've asked User:Cailil too. There's a bit more material on this subpage, and I'm sure I can find some more info about the short stories, if that is the way we decide to go, though not sure there's much about the poetry, but I can look.--Slp1 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Williamson (bishop)

Collapse somewhat unproductive discussion

I will stop reverting edits as soon as the information presented on Msgr. Williamson's page reflects truth and not libel. This article should be locked, bottom line. The allegations of friendships with notorious anti-semites is unfounded. The quotes I added are easily found on his Grace's own blog. To ignore them constitutes a deliberate, ideological assault on the bishop's character which--I think we can agree--is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Best, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.202.74 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Sadly that's not the way it works around here. We don't go for "truth" but rather for verifiability. If you believe that that article is biased you need to find sources for your contentions. This means reliable sources, not blogs which have you have been including to date. Ironically, in the past I have removed very large sections of quote mined negative quotes from him, to much protest from the other "side" [2] Understand that editors who attempt to use selected quotes that attempt to prove the contrary are subject to the same approach. --Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Sadly, very few of the existing hype "sources" are verifiable. The Janzen interview is from 2003. Absolutely verifiable. Listen to it! The Heiner interview is from 2006 transcribed in Angelus Magazine from August 2006, go buy a copy! Both verifiable. These are the Bishop's own words. Shame on you! P.S. I don't care how it works here, and I'm not convinced that you're such a good and unbiased Samaritan when it comes to this issue. Libel is illegal. Aultaforte (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) p.p.s I included the blog as a source only as a courtesy since material unavailable on the internet--which is generally more credible by the way--is, well, unavailable on the internet. The "perfidious enemies"--if you'll allow me to style them--of Msgr. Williamson aren't going to actually go verify a source that they can't find on the internet; they'll just undo the revision and question its "verifiability" while having no qualms about citing, I don't know, a questionable article by the Catholic Times in Britain that decontextualizes a scene in a lecture by the bishop where he is railing against modernism and recaption it as if he were bitterly lambasting jewry. I admit that I am angry right now, but I hope you will seriously consider what I am saying nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultaforte (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not exactly clear what you mean by "hype" sources; but assuming you mean the books and newspapers currently sourced, I think you'll find that they are verifiable, one way or the other, using Factiva, LexisNexis and/or a trip to the library. I can't myself see a link to any sound file for the Janzen interview but anyway, how would anybody know if it was genuine or had been tampered with? That's why editors on WP are required to privilege secondary sources, such as books or newspapers. As I said, you might be glad of such injunctions since aspects of the Janzen blog are fairly inflammatory, wouldn't you say, and could easily be misused by somebody who feels negatively towards the man. BTW: assuming good faith are part of the rules around here, and unless you have real evidence about "perfidious enemies", the above comments about the edits of WP editors not welcomed by WP (nor, frankly, from my understanding of it, by the Catholic faith). If you really feel there is a problem with me or the article, consider posting here WP:AN, WP:BLP, or here WP:RSN depending on what the issue is. Admitting you are angry is helpful. I would suggest it's probably time to take a break, and when you feel calmer and rested starting off by reading our policies and guidelines (I'll put a list on your talkpage). The community here has, over the years, developed rules and policies about the sources we use and how we use them. Maybe if you read them you will see that there is sense to them, because they attempt to stop people who are either pro or anti any subject from inserting their own opinion into articles. The article about Williamson is very well sourced, deliberately so. If you have other reliable sources to offer, please discuss them on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I am afraid you do not understand what is at stake, many of the sources are disreputable; many of the sources plainly mischaracterize the truth. Abraham Foxman and his cronies have no authority within the Church, and their understanding of what the aims and intentions have no bearing on what it means to be Catholic. The fact that I do happen to be Catholic is irrelevant, I realize, as far as the content of this article is concerned. That said, the perspective is offensively stilted. I have no issue with any of the content of the Janzen interview; the bishop's attitude is not anti-semitic insomuch as it is not directed at the Jews as an ethnicity. The Janzen interview perfectly reflects the Catholic attitude that those who profess and prosyletize Judaism are enemies of the Church and that they should be converted. People can interpret that through whatever lens they want, but until his actual disposition is accurately and truthfully, a word that you are free to chafe at, conveyed then the judgment that anyone reaches about him is bound to be biased. It is regretful that his blog is no longer available--since it is his blog, I think it qualifies as a verifiable and relevant source--but the Janzen interview is definitely more conclusive in articulating his personal opinions than the hearsay present in a majority of the other sources. I encourage you to listen to it, and if you find a damning statement, then I also encourage you by all means to use it. What I mean by "hype" is that the article as it stands now might as well be ADL propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultaforte (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) p.s. As for the alleged incendiary nature of other things said in the Janzen interview, a word from Jerome: If an offence come out of the truth, far better it is that the offence come than the truth be concealed. Aultaforte (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC) The problem is, of course, that your interpretation of Williamson's words and indeed the exact nature "The Truth™" will be different from those of who oppose him. That's why WPs uses secondary sources such as books, newspapers: it avoids individual editors asserting the Truth or otherwise, and adding their own interpretation and bias to articles. Re your PS. e.g. "True universities are for ideas. True girls are not for ideas. True girls are not for true universities." (Williamson). Offence and Jerome does not come into it; to my mind his statements say far more about the man and his prejudices than any "Truth" that I recognize. Which is precisely my point here."The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Appealing to the truth as you interpret it just does not fly. --Slp1 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Your responses surprise me. You must think I'm some backwards fool. If I were trying to promote an ideological interpretation, as you are accusing me, then it follows that I would want to remove everything that conflicts with that interpretation. I have not done that--paraphrasing the words of the Pope and pretending like its a direct quotation is just not reliable journalism. I don't think you are grasping what I mean by "truth," and I think if you did then you'd realize that it does not conflict with the wikipedia project. If that quote, which is directed at Catholic girls, were properly contextualized (i.e. if his words are made to reflect the audience he is speaking to), I would have no issue with it. The article that is up now is written by the Bishop's enemies--enemies refers not only to the ADL but secularism as a whole; it's like if the wikipedia entry on Reverend Wright (which I also have qualms with) were written entirely by Fox News. This is the very reason Scalia is opposed to cameras in the courtroom. Article's that label the bishop blankly as a "holocaust denier," perhaps the most ignominious label possible in our culture, are just not true. These articles are written with agendas and use extremely inflammatory language--the word "sacked" connotes a sense of disgrace with his seminary far beyond the actual motives. No one in the seminary said it, and it wasn't an inference but an attack. That's what I mean by truth. Why is it right for a wikipedia article to falsify direct quotations and to infer malicious intent where even the secondary sources, if read neutrally, you call it the NPV if I'm not mistaken, suggest none?Aultaforte (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Surely you can see that allowing editors to decide how or how not to "properly contextualize" his quotes is opening an impossibly large can of worms? How dangerous it is for editors determine what the proper contextualization is if it isn't given in the text? Does that quote really refer to Catholic girls, or all girls? Who knows? It's impossible to say because it is not given in the text. Guessing and suppositions are original research and we don't and can't do it here. It's also why we avoid primary sources such as quotes as much of possible, because it is so easy to quote them out of context. WP aims to summarize the reliable secondary sources about a given topic, and mainstream media/scholarly sources support the notion that he "has been accused of being a holocaust denier" over and over again. In fact, they often go further and actually call him a holocaust denier, which you'll note the article doesn't actually say. Do you have other reliable sources that say that he isn't? If you do we can include them; but you'll understand that we can't accept your personal opinion that it is "not true". Ditto with "sacked"; Newspapers such as the Times [3], The Irish Times [4], the Canberra Times [5] (and there are more) have specifically used the word to describe this event. Once again, do you have reliable sources describing this event differently? Otherwise we are, per verifiability stuck with the perspective in the sources we have. Neutral of point of view means summarizing the highest quality mainstream sources on the subject, not having no point of view at all. However, if you see instances of falsification of quotations and use of non-neutral language when it is not in the source, then there is a problem. To date, however, other editors have found that your claims are not borne up by examination of the sources. If you have further specific concerns, I suggest that you bring them up at the talkpage of the article for consideration by other interested editors. These discussions are better held there. --Slp1 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC) You aren't getting it. This is the last example. The following text would be patently untruthful: Booth killed Lincoln because he was a racist. Booth was a racist, but it doesn't mean that he killed Lincoln for that reason. A broader biography would not impose that reductivistic interpretation on the reader. If you listen to the interview, the context is provided. When the context is available, it should be used, and when it is not then malicious inferrence should be avoided even if a secondary source (which is original research) comes to that conclusion. Because a secondary source is generally biased, I do no think that means that a wikipedia article should be permitted to echo that bias. Bias should be omitted wherever possible. If that means that an article is only a paragraph long, so be it. 64.77.202.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC). All likely excellent and logical principles if you wish to write and publish articles in your personal capacity. Unfortunately, this is WP which has its own definitions and policies about what constitutes original research and whether primary or secondary sources should be preferred and why. These appear to differ significantly from your own. Which is fine, except that if you want to contribute here then you need to follow the WP way. It is (somewhat ironically) a case of when in Rome.... I agree we are getting nowhere fast, so let's close the discussion here. If you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the various core policies, or propose changes to them, you can do that at the talkpages attached to WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. --Slp1 (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move

Hi Slp1. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever do you mean, "In this case, we are talking about the consequences on a living, breathing human of the actions of a family member/friend who now recognizes his/her mistake. There is nothing in wikipedia that establishes if a presumed family member/friend writes and article, other editors should presume they are the writer/owner. Your responses are just confusing, and I have no idea what is going on. You appear to be speaking from some extra knowledge about the identity of the author. Please don't. Outing is not part of the wikipedia process. If they've revealed their identity somewhere, please link to it. Otherwise, don't discuss it. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my comment a follow up to my previous comment "In addition, the creator, Hoolio9690, who based on the documents s/he has access to is someone very close to the subject", and show a little mature compassion to this person. Accusations of outing, part of the harassment policy are grossly inaccurate and inappropriate, as a quick read of the policy will show you, since I have revealed no personal information at all, not that I have any to give. If you don't mind me saying so, I notice you have a history of making intemperate remarks to and about other editors. I suggest a little more assume good faith in 2010 would not go amiss. --Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just assume what's here. You don't know who the editor is. Don't ask me to honor policies that are interpreted based upon your assumption of who the editor is. In fact, the editor is not asking that the article be deleted based upon that. There's enough outing going on on wikipedia to be concerned about the practice, and when I see users making assumptions about editor identities and using these assumptions to support policies, I'm going to call it, whatsoever you want to call my history. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I ask you to honour any policy based on my guess? No, I did not. Instead, I suggested showing some human compassion and consideration to a new editor had made a mistake s/he regrets. Please check your facts more carefully in future, and if you don't mind, perhaps we can consider this conversation closed?--Slp1 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Deleting of the Link The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer

Comrades I am writing to express my outrage that the link to the blog The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer was deleted from the Robert Latimer article. I notice that RobertLatimer.net is included as a link that I really don't think this is any less partisan than The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer (although they stand on opposite extremes of the issue). I have not included any information from the blog in this Wikipedia article. I just put the link at the bottom. This blog is POV, but has links to opposing views. RobertLatimer.net doesn't even have links to opposing views. The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer has an 'about me' section. Robert Latimer does not. I am not convinced that this is anything other than a grotesque double-standard and an act of political censorship and demand that whoever keeps deleting this link desist from their actions.

Trotskyist Greetings, M.G.

Leon Trotsky 16:26, 5 January 2009

P.S. Robert Latimer was convicted of murder and his site is included as a link. Censoring something highly criticle of him I think is a grotesque double standard.

Leon Trotsky 16:30, 5 January 2009

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Latimer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Trotsky (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonsoir, Leon. Thanks for the message. I've answered on the talkpage of the article.--Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Salomon Isacovici

An article that you have been involved in editing, Salomon Isacovici, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Isacovici. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I left my message to you over there, i.e. PISA on the discussion page. Thanks! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't think Georg Hurtig will explain anything over there on the discussion page. You are I both were cheated on by him. His tables were basically fake. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make attacks like that on other editors. If there is anything improper about the tables (and I agree that tables can be problematic if they are inappropriately sourced etc), then identify the problem, calmly point out the issue, and seek help from others if required. --Slp1 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I promised that I'd come back here to edit the article PISA. I think that the league table covering OECD nations is generally okay and that is why I simply re-added the table coverning non-OECD nations without removing the league table that Georg Hurtig had made. Do you have any opinion for my edit? thanks! 65.95.0.190 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

okay! so would you please help me to add up to 5 non-OECD nations on that table? I don't know how to insert on that table without mistake. I am waiting! 65.95.0.190 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. I've made a sandbox here User:Slp1/draft5 with the table where you can edit and make mistakes without having to worry about it. Here is a sample edit, where I added a fake entry for Mexico [6]. You can see that I copy and pasted some lines of text, and changed a country name to Mexico. You would need to change the score too of course. Remember to add the five top and bottom non OECD countries for each column. Have a go and see how you get on. --Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your sandbox but I don't have any information for five bottom non OECD countries on my hands. So what should I do? 65.95.0.190 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the sources listed in the article in this section [7]. These are the page numbers to check OECD (2001) p. 53; OECD (2004a) p. 92; OECD (2007) p. 56. based on what Georg added.--Slp1 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the above information you gave me but such information didn't help me much. Anyway! I've already added some non-OECD nations on that table. Please see User:Slp1/draft5. If you have no objection, would you allow this table replace the one in the current version of PISA? 65.95.0.190 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have figured out how to make the table, but I'm sorry that the references I gave you weren't helpful. Can you explain why? I see that some of the links don't work, which may be it. Perhaps you could ask Georg for updated links to the documents with the data. In the meantime, no, I think the table needs to stay in the sandbox. The current version is not what you agreed with Georg. Once it is, there should be no problem. --Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a hard copy for the year of 2000 (i.e. OECD 2001). But anyway! I've changed my mind now. I prefer the current version of PISA. Me too! I personally don't like the table showing the data of Hong Kong or Taiwan. I do like Canada appearing almost at the top of the table. So I am not going to change anyway. Thanks for your help and assistance. 65.95.0.190 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Lautner

Hi there. Did you intend to fully protect the page until October? I added a tag to let people know what was going on, but I thought that you might have meant to semi? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was semi protected till October previously (not by me). I had to up the protection level because confirmed editors were including the info too, but decided to leave the expiry the same for simplicity'ssake. I was planning to downgrade back to the regular semi status after about 24 hours, but I'm certainly open to the suggestions of others about the timing of this. --Slp1 (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, if you're watching the article, no problem from me. I sometimes leave the expiry date vague when I think that the vandals might simply wait out the protection, and certainly /b/'ers have been known to do that. I'm happy to leave things in your hands. Take care. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The talk page seems to be protected as well. I think we should just reduce to semi. Connormah (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the plan was always to reduce or remove the protection tonight, and I have. I wanted to make sure that I was around for a while to check how things were going, and it seems the rush is over, thank goodness. --Slp1 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Award

		The Mediation Award
		For your excellent work at Talk:Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#Debate_about_December_2009_edits:_selection_and_presentation_of_country_mean_scores TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! --Slp1 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U

How broad were you thinking? I'm thinking at least PAS, PA and FRM, as well as related pages where his POV-pushing has been a problem.

Also, it's not a policy but WP:CPUSH might be worth thinking about. It's a general problem that's getting worse in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thinking about. I suspect it is important to focus on the behaviours rather than the specifics of content. The question is how to organize these clearly and find up to date relevant evidence. Some CPUSH stuff will be good for this, also WP:TEND and WP:DISRUPT --Slp1 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you can't block/ban someone for having a perspective, only for pushing an unsupported one. That's the issue here - complete failure to accept that the POV that is being pushed is inadequately supported, that the policies do not support the edits based on the sources for and against. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I left a note for you about some interesting info on WLU's talk page--Cailil ^talk 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. I responded there!--Slp1 (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven't got to RFC/U yet - am swamped in RL. Will post in the next 24 hours though--Cailil ^talk 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn that's good work. I haven't looked into the diffs yet, but I have faith that they're good. The only thing that could be added would perhaps be a reference to wikilawyering. The obvious place would be [[8]], but it's debatable, as it's a bit of a loaded term methinks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Durova about waiting/going ahead and this is her reply--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cailil. It is really difficult to know what to do. I wish we'd had some answers at AN. Perhaps it is worth waiting a bit longer to see? --Slp1 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, give 24 hours someone will see it--Cailil ^talk 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the WP:AN thread has been archived. Perhaps we should go ahead with the RFC/U?--Cailil ^talk 16:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to answer at WLU's page, I think.--Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Given they probably aren't paying attention to my talk page and there has been no activity on the pages they were involved in, is it a WP:CANVAS issue to alert say, User:Jack-A-Roe, User:2over0 and User:WhatamIdoing about the RFC/U? They were involved with MH34 on talk:parental alienation syndrome. I believe a brief talk page pointer to the RFC/U would be within the "friendly notice" limits on CANVAS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the old vandalism on my user page. I hadn't even noticed it, and apparently neither did the user who attempted to revert the vandalism before (but didn't go far back enough). I haven't been paying very close attention to Wikipedia for a while, so it's nice to see other people fixing my user page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I agree it's amazing (and shocking) how long it lasted! Ah well, gone now!--Slp1 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Block-evading IP

Could you please semi-protect Heat (1995 film) and The Godfather? A block-evading IP, 201.68.110.70 (talk · contribs), keeps making changes to these film articles. Erik (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus left by that Heat is a action CRIME drama, Heat isn't just a crime movie, dude. It's also an action and a drama, I gave reference why it should be listed as action crime drama. 201.68.110.70 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Heat is now protected. I commented about the genre issue here. Erik (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't about to do anything about this at the time. --Slp1 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sidney Glazier

On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sidney Glazier, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks so much for your help on User:Slp1/draft4, and I have CC'ed you on an e-mail. ---kilbad (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I have been very busy with real-life stuff recently. I have now tweaked the bolded passages some more, and hope you can now get the general drift. I never got an email however. Maybe you can try to send again? --Slp1 (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Howard Gardner at WP:CP

Hi,

Just a quick note to tell you that I have undone your removal from the listing: at WP:CP, we like to keep track of every investigation and what actions have been taken rather than removing items once cleared. This serves also to verify if further investigation is required, for instance in the case we're dealing with a multiple violator - or in case the same user keeps reinserting the stuff you removed, as he appears to have done several times already :)

Best, MLauba (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I thought I was being helpful, but obviously not!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you were helpful, you merely got caught in one of our many noticeboard's specific peculiarities. Thanks for your help :) MLauba (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops ...

Good catch that the article was a Pipes opinion column (actually, the same one). Missed that. Tx for fixing it.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As to Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, I don't believe an credible reason for deletion has been advanced. All we have is 2 people (one who has followed me from another discussion where he edit warred with me, and given me a "warning" for putting a header on a comment) saying that the comments by the Chair of a Poli Sci Dept at a major university and a notable human rights activist in an op ed that appears in RSs on two different continents should not be reflected because their view is a minority view (without any evidence that there is a majority view at odds with their view). Comments that are baseless don't, I've been told, count in such discussions as being weighty enough to "block" consensus. Otherwise, we devolve to wikihounders stopping proper editing with nonsense comments. How would you suggest we elevate this? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand you don't see credible reasons, but that's not really the point at this stage. While this is not a vote, there are currently 5 editors who have expressed concerns on the BLPN about this material, for a variety of policy based reasons. Some of them may well be involved, for all I know, but then so are you of course! At least one (not including me) obviously isn't, and is a regular commentator on the BLPN noticeboard. (And BTW, if this is the warning that you are talking about [9], then Ridernyc hasn't even participated in the BLPN discussion.)

The onus is on the editors who wish to include material to convince others of the merits of its inclusion, and frankly claiming those other editors are involved in censorship, or making I-don't-hear-that type/nonsense comments,[10][11] is rather a poor strategy in this regard. As I said, to me there appears to be a strong consensus against inclusion; if you wish to overturn it, the ball is in your court. If you want to include yet more editors you could consider an request for comment I suppose, though personally I don't think a different outcome is likely.

A final comment with regard to your "thank you" above. First, you're welcome, of course. Second, I strongly urge you to be more careful in your editing with regards to verifiability and sourcing. You have said elsewhere that you edit too quickly at times, and I would agree, based on the number of times that I have found errors in material that has turned out to be added by you. This is particularly serious in BLP articles, as you know. Please slow down and consider the impact that mistakes of this sort can have not only on the article subjects but also on your reputation as a WP editor. Sorry for being blunt, but it seems important to express my concerns clearly and directly. --Slp1 (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Slp1/Archive 7 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SPAs

Hello. I just edited the WP:SPA essay, and I want to make sure it reads neutral. Basically the Identifying SPAs section had almost nothing to do with identifying SPAs. I added a paragraph and a "common misuses of the SPA label" to this section to make things more explicit, and left the old section, but made it a subsection called "other considerations". I think nothing I added is controversial because no one seemed to disagree in the 2009 discussion on the talk page. But I want to make sure that everyone who has contributed to the article knows about the changes. Its not a huge revision, but it certainly isn't minor, so I would like you to take a look. I tried to incorporate the misuse concerns on the talk page while still leaving room for judgment calls and context when labeling SPAs. The reason for adding this new misuses section is to have something to point to when when an established diversified editor gets improperly labeled as an SPA. If you think these "misuses" are too strong, feel free to edit them, discuss them on the talk page, or respond to me. Thanks MATThematical (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaroslaw Kaczynski

Thanks for your very relevant note of caution. But it seems WP:BLPSPS is the chapter of the law relevant here, i.e. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...").."

Gazeta.pl is Poland's top news site, and it seems we can quote Mr Palikot from that. Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And I've removed it again per BLP. Firstly this is not an online column by a newspaper professional, but a recording of an interview, so SPS does not come into it at all. We can't and don't include primary sourced rumours and allegations of this sort (especially from political opponents) without some evidence that Palikot's views are notable/significant, per WP:UNDUE as well as BLP. This specific sentence also contains obvious original research and commentary, and written to lead readers to a conclusion based on this. Please don't restore it without getting consensus, which is so far lacking based on previous discussions on similar issues on various talk and project pages.[12][13] --Slp1 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

John Thomas Idlet

Hi! SandyGeorgia sent me this way.

Could you please review User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch64#John Thomas Idlet and then Talk:John Thomas Idlet#Editors with conflicts of interest? Afterwords, I'd appreciate some advice (if you care to give it), and a watch on the John Thomas Idlet article. This is currently at most a brewing tempest in a teapot, but I'd like someone with more experience at this to watch over my shoulder. Thanks for any help! --Paul (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to have responded to this before. You posted when I was on something of a wikibreak, and I then I forgot it, I'm afraid to say. I see that nothing much has happened in the interim. I will try to get to it asap. --Slp1 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome

Hi Slp1,

The CSAAS reminds me very much of the parental alienation syndrome article - the same enthusiasm from the clinical crowd, the same skepticism from the empirical crowd, and the same (mis)use in courtrooms. Thought you might be interested in the topic, I think it's fascinating because of its relation to satanic ritual abuse, but I'm a bit weird that way I suppose. There's a TON of sources and it just needs time - which I don't have right now. Feel free to edit if you're interested, but if you're not then that's cool. Just thought it might tickle your intrigue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. You are right. Some of those refs look eerily familiar. Maybe I'll have a go at it when I have time. --Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate your chipping in here. Sooner this is put to bed, the better! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's quite interesting actually. I've done another batch, but will take a break for now and come back to it later.--Slp1 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Things are moving along quite well, I think. :) I'll also take a look a bit later with the limited source I have to see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your amazing and rapid assistance at the DSM copyright cluster. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! You rock! :D Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Gee, what a pretty star, thanks :-). It was fun. Ping me again if something like that occurs again, or maybe I'll swing by every so often myself.--Slp1 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd be very welcome. :D Some days I find myself thinking I've seen enough of copyvios on Wikipedia to last a lifetime. :P Anyway, Mike Godwin asked me to convey his thanks as well. I let him know where things stand now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Slp1, you know I think you're the awesome-ist person ever ! I was dreading the idea of pitching in there, and was saved by the bell when the bad storm here knocked out power and cable modem. Thanks for all you did there ! You do know I want you to run for ArbCom this year, don't you? I may mount a campaign to draft you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, though as regards the last part of Sandy's post, imagine me with my fingers implanted in my ears, my eyes firmly closed, and my mouth going "lalalalalalala". --Slp1 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Could I get your input regarding a thread I started at the medicine page? See: Wikipedia_talk:MED#Are_these_terms_synonymous.3F Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and research at WT:MED. I replied there again. ---kilbad (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Parental alienation syndrome changes

Don't panic, they're not by MH34! Just thought I'd ask what you thought [14]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I can. --Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate your keen eye but I don't think I butchered it too badly :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Williamson languages

It's not there. I looked and even read through all the AP releases of the same story, none of them list the languages.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes it is ;-) "He is a literary scholar with a Cambridge degree who speaks perfect French, German and Spanish"[15] --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good find, would you mind changing the link in the article, then?--22:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The link is there, to the correct article. You just need to go to page two. --Slp1 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I realize that there was problem with the ref name (two ABC articles) so the link was pointing to the wrong article. That's where the confusion about this arose. I've fixed it now.--Slp1 (talk)

Apologies if you thought that was directed toward you. There's another editor on there with whom I've had history on another site. You're someone I prefer working with, I'll even forward the email where he told me I wasn't a "real Catholic" for working on this article if you like.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but it isn't a great idea to express it in such a way, whatever the history. And certainly whoever it is seems very judgemental. But in this case, the comment was directed at me, because I did delete the quote, and I explained why in the edit summary. Either calmer edit summaries, or increased checking, or preferably both, is all I am suggesting. --Slp1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

Re your recent edit, are you aware of the discussion about this fact, and that the subject of the article would rather that it did not exist at all. Your comments are invited on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sedgehill School

I've removed a lot of the material from the above article, including your source added. Coverage of the suicide should be significant, and in multiple reliable sources, to warrant a mention in the school's article. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I was pretty dubious about whether it should be included myself. But I figured any decision about inclusion should be based on consideration of the highest quality sources available, which the other one wasn't!! --Slp1 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Your source was indeed of higher quality, however multiple sources are generally preferred. Regards, Aditya Ex Machina 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted content

Hi Slp1, when I saw your revert on the article Mar Aprem Mooken, I was about to send you an angry message because I was horrified with what you where doing there, but I though it twice and assumed good faith, maybe the guidelines here where just not the ones I was used to on the french project? As the discussions I had previously with others admins didn't give me a clear idea of the guidelines here, I decided to raise the issue on the admin board, not because I wanted the others admins to throw stones at you, but just because I was so confused and wanted to understand what the hell was going on on en:wiki. I have to say that the answers I received surprised me a lot, but I have to accept them, and I have no angry message to send you after understanding that, following the guidelines of en:wiki, your action was apropriate. Though it is true that I should have warned you of this message on the admins board, and I offer my deepest apology for that. Regards --Kimdime (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pas de problème. Je peux comprendre qu'il y a d'autres façons de régler les problèmes des copyvios ailleurs. --Slp1 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Slp1. You have new messages at Stillwaterising's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposal to replace current alt-text guidance

I would very much appreciate your comments on the proposal here. Regards, Colin°^Talk 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

message

I'm sorry if I'm violating Wiki code by contacting you here and in this way, but I'm not an experienced user & I've had a hard time figuring out how to get in touch. I'm writing because I've helped edit the reprints of a few Olivia Manning books at NYRB Classics in the US. I was thrilled to see that you've nominated her article to be a featured article. If there's anything we can do to help you, please let us know. Again, it may be against the rules for me to help, as I'm not unbiased, but I may be able to provide you with a few articles that would help your citations. Mottstreetsara (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If you want to get in touch, or let me know if I can be of help, please leave a message on my talk page (it looks so much nicer know that there's a plate of cookies on it!)Mottstreetsara (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being in touch. I'm glad to meet you. Here is fine to post, though I've moved it down to the bottom of the page, which is where new messages should go! You would be more than welcome to make any improvements you can to the article directly (the help of a professional editor would be a marvellous bonus!!) or make comments/suggestions for improvements to Olivia Manning talkpage or to the featured article review, which you have probably seen here.Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olivia Manning/archive1. I'd also be very glad to know of any other material you have to hand. If you are associated with NYRB, you need to be a bit careful about a conflict of interest around them, (see this page for info WP:COI), but there should be no problem with you editing about Manning if you don't try to sell their books for them!. In fact, like I said, I would be delighted to have input from a knowledgeable editor!! --Slp1 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

long discussions

We seem to be (not just the two of us) getting mired in an overly long wiki-drama-ish discussion that IMHO is threatening to distract from the main issue. And which is certainly way too long for others to follow. I've therefore sent you an off-wiki note.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Though as you know I agree w/the others who have suggested it may well not be necessary, I have belt-and-suspendered most of the primary source refs w other refs that say what the primary refs say. Are there any of the remaining ones that still unduly trouble you?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's better, for sure. Thank you. I've just spent two hours going through some of the article, and you will see from my edits the sorts of thing that need to be done in terms of checking the sources, making sure that the information is actually in the citations given, attributing claims etc. There is a lot of work to be done, unfortunately. --Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question – if a person is convicted of something, don't we report it as fact?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. But if you want to do that then you need different sources from the ones you had, per WP:V. Ones that talk about the trial and what sequence of events was presented at the trial. This one would do, but it doesn't have many details, unfortunately. [16] --Slp1 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We know she was charged with shooting at the US personnel, and that she was convicted of that, but you hedged the description – Instead of saying she shot at the US personnel, you said she was indicted for having shot at them. I added and convicted, but since we know she was convicted we should be able to report as fact that she shot at them, without attenuating "according to her indictment (and conviction)" language, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't go beyond your sources. The current citations you have given are all pretrial allegations, so needed to be stated as such. They are probably the sequence of events given in court, and what she was convicted of, but probably isn't good enough. Find some different sources, about the trial, from which you can baldly state " She was convicted of shooting xxxxx". --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As to whether either of those Pakistani sources are RSs – in my view, not for facts. But yes for reflecting what Pakistani Press said (which is how it was being used—for these purposes, it doesn't matter if they themselves are not reliable for fact-checking, or have typos, etc.). I think the sources I had supported the text I had – the Pakistani press reporting a blanket statement by the sister that the girl was not hers ... rather than the way you changed it. Apart from this (minor) issue, I'm ok w/all your changes.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend against this approach. Like it or not these are "facts" and facts about living people, no less. You need to use the highest quality sources out there, and that would include better Pakistani sources, of course. Saying you are reflecting what the Pakistani press says does not get away from the need to use the best sources available, especially when a poorer source seems to be contradicted by a better one e.g. this one [17]

Let's take further conversation about the article to the talkpage, shall we? --Slp1 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the talkpage needs a breather, unless there is a need for it, and this issue is larger than the talkpage. It's basically a question of whether if I think the Washington Times is a non-RS, can I say the WT took position x ... and use the WT non-RS as a ref. The answer, I believe, is a resounding yes. If you wish to discuss it, I would suggest doing so on a guideline page. But I'm fairly certain what the answer will be. Anyway, other than that (minor) issue, have we resolved your concerns at this point? Tx for the editing, btw.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. If an unreliable source says that Prince Charles has had an affair with the Pope, then it does not matter if you attribute it to as "Unreliable source X reported that Prince Charles.....", it simply can't be included. This is particularly obvious and important in BLP cases, such as this one, but is also the case everywhere else too. Otherwise you'd have "According to blog X, the earth is made of green cheese", "According to website Y, smearing peanut butter on your face cures acne." Articles need to be based on reliable sources.

I may have misunderstood you, but if it is posed as a general question, no, my overall concerns about this article are not resolved. As I mentioned above, I made some edits to show you what needs to be done to get the article into shape. Unfortunately, there are many problems with verifiability, in that the text is not supported by the citation given. Every sentence and every reference will need to be checked and any corrections made to increase accuracy (and unsure that there is no copyvio-paraphrasing going on). Allegations need to be attributed where these have not. Further secondary sources need to be found to support/replace the primary sources. The references and their formatting need lots of work. If you are willing to work on it, I will certainly keep an eye out and help out where I can. I would certainly like to be able to support it as FA, but there is an awful lot of work to do before that. --Slp1 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to raise that issue in the proper place, and let me know if you do.

As to the more immediate issue, let's start with the issues one by one. First—I do not see any consensus support for your view and suggestion here that primary sources have to be deleted anywhere in the article. Please let me know where you see that as necessary.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did I ever say that the primary sources have to be deleted? --Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• In your immediately prior posting. Where you say: "...replace the primary sources".

"Support/replace the primary sources", which is a trifle different from your deleting claim, isn't it? The article, like all WP articles, and especially BLP articles, should be based on high quality secondary sources. Using the primary refs to support secondary ones is fine as a general principle, but on some occasions, you may find the article strengthened by replacing a primary source with a secondary one that makes the same or better point. For example, in this edit [18], I replaced a primary source with an independent, mainstream, secondary one. Since the indictment didn't actually support the topic of the sentence (that she was convicted and what of), this was an improvement both from a reliable sourcing and a verifiability perspective. --Slp1 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, your view appears to be a non-consensus understanding of the rule. In any event, I'm not sure what "replace" means, if not "delete and insert x in its stead". The edit you indicate actually hurt the article, as she was convicted of all charges – and as we well know, the charges are reflected in the indictment. So your improvement was to the distinct detriment of the article. It was also incorrect in that it used a date format that should not have been used, another backward step for the article – if you wanted to use secondary sources, there were ones in the body of the article, with the correct date format, that could have been used instead. Where else do you think deletions would be helpful. Lets discuss those as a first step to seeing if we can't address all your issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be much point. I obviously have nothing to offer you in terms of advice, recommendations about featured article writing, or policy knowledge and experience. Good luck. --Slp1 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

They why, out of all of the gin joints in Paris, do you continue to end up at ones where I am editing? Are you following me?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editing, especially BLP editing, with no sign of a learning curve is always a cause of concern. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't follow me around

This follows up on the above two exchanges. Since we are discussing a new issue, I've given it a new header.

After you were found to have a non-consensus view on matters such as use of primary sources, and after I disagreed with you on issues of U.S. intellectual property law, where you took an unusual position at odds with 17 U.S.C. Section 105, your reaction has been to single me out and follow me around wikipedia. And then join discussions I am engaged in and pages I am editing, and repeatedly confront and inhibit my editing. Your edits and remarks have been tendentiousness and disruptive, and – as in your above comment and here – have included uncivil personal attacks. Frankly, Slp, this irritates and annoys me, and markedly disrupts my enjoyment editing. It also disrupts the project.

I request – politely and civilly, but firmly – that you stop. Please. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit within policy, and no scrutiny will be required. It's in your hands. And given the continuing misrepresentations above, a first step needs to be reading and truly understanding verifiability, BLP, NPOV, NOR and copyright policies. --Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I provided diffs supporting my statements. You responded by accusing me of misrepresentations, yet another uncivil personal attack. I ask you, once again, politely but firmly, to please stop following me around and engaging in this behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Read your own diffs: they simply prove my point about how you ignore copyvio/plagiarism from books and newspaper that have nothing to do with any US law, and that you argue that court records can be used unsupported in BLP articles, a misreading (at best) of the BLP policy. I am telling you, politely but firmly, that if you don't violate policy then we need never interact again. If you think I have been hounding you or making personal attacks then please report me to the Administrators noticeboard. --Slp1 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You admitted above that you are following me around. I'm choosing to take the civil step of asking you to stop; now for a third time. Just because, as in the above diffs, "your way" was not that agreed with by others, and your understanding of U.S. intellectual property law is at odds with that of one or more members of the bar in the U.S. (and you failed to answer half my questions in that regard), is no reason for you to follow me around and edit disruptively in a manner that – if you didn't know it before, you now certainly know – irritates and annoys me, and markedly disrupts my enjoyment editing. Even yet, you continue with your non-consensus misunderstanding of primary sources, and applicability of U.S. law to the intellectual property issues extant in the project. Please stop disruptively following me.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you feel I am being disruptive and hounding you in some way, please report me. As far as posting here, if you'd like to have last word, go ahead, but I won't be responding further. --Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer, if possible, to exhaust efforts to ask you politely to stop. In the hope that that might suffice, and spare wikidrama. I recognize that rather than say you would desist, you've tartly given me a less-civil "thataway" response. Still, I reiterate my request that you stop, in the hope that you will--even if for some reason you find it antithetical to commit to doing so. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just saw that Olivia Manning made FA, congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Terry Fox

Reading your user page, I begin to understand how you thought of the medical and pyschological legacy of Fox's story, lol! You raised an interesting point on his status as a "disabled hero". In retrospect, it seems obvious that his achievements as a disabled person should be held equal to his accomplishments as a cancer survivor. Yet even of all the sources you've given me, only two sources make mention of his being disabled, and then within the context of his legacy to cancer research. It is interesting that his losing a leg is viewed so casually and treated almost as an afterthought. It seems that since Fox simply overcame losing his leg, the media and world at large did too. I'm interested in reading the other journals you've turned up to see if any touch on this, as I am finding it rather challenging put into words the concept of his being a hero to the disabled as well. Thanks again for the sources! Resolute 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you may be right that there isn't much about the disability aspect. However, a googlebooks search does find some material that you might useful, at least in terms of the visibility of disability in society. [19]. --Slp1 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've cobbled together enough for a short paragraph on his legacy from a disabled perspective, and another on his legacy from a Canadian standpoint. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of some of these sources! Resolute 21:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

July 2009 Ürümqi riots

Hello, Slp1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/July 2009 Ürümqi riots/archive2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The FAC has now been closed because no one commented in over a week. If you still care to discuss any of the points you raised (which I would advise, unless you want them to look like unactionable drive-by comments), you may continue the discussion on the article's talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I'll comment on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Al-Awlaki

Hi Slp1 - re your edit here: I am not certain that there was consensus to make this change, at least not with the wording you have included. Would you please revert? Given the temperature of the various debates, it strikes me that any requests for edits should be made using the ?{{editprotected}} template so that an independent assessment of the consensus can be made. Risker (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Slp1's Day!

User:Slp1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Slp1's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Slp1! Peace, Rlevse 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey!!! What a nice surprise to cheer me up as I try to do my taxes. Thank you very much indeed!! --Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Network TwentyOne

Hi, I dropped you an email re the additional sources for this article but haven't heard back from you. Is it possible to get copies of the sources? Thanks! --Insider201283 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Silver Maple Leaf Award Awarded for your research and assistance in bringing Terry Fox to featured status. Resolute 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking my birthday off. :-) Asbruckman (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Olivia FA

I think I forgot to congratulate you on the FA for Olivia. Well deserved! PiCo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)