User talk:SlimVirgin

File:Animalibrí.gif

File:SV age 3.jpg

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Voorts 127 10 3 93 21:06, 8 November 2024 3 days, 9 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 11:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Images

Slim, for some reason the microscopic images issue has passed me by. Perhaps this is another issue where WPians can set preferences that blind them to how our readers see the pages. In any case, I've written a proposal here, which I'd appreciate your feedback on. Please note that I'm no expert on images, even though it's plain to me that we have a serious problem in the current MoS text. Tony (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rorschach

I appreciate your comments, but sorry, but I disagree. I specifically said I do not think anyone should "go after this doctor". I am simply discussing his professional conduct and ethics without advocating that anyone take any "off wiki" action. If you will carefully read the comments on the talk page it is apparent that others have raised the issue of off-wiki action, but I haven't. If you think I have specifically have suggested off-wiki action, please give me the diffs in which I have done so, and please not my responses to others who have suggest off-wiki action. I do not consider discussion his professional conduct (without reference to off-wiki action) to be "over the line". This doctor decided voluntarily to go public and identify himself by name in the New York Times, a newspaper that is read worldwide. I have no control over his decison to "out" himself very publicly, nor do I have any control over other editors' raising the issue of making complaints about him to his professional licensing agency. I have not done so. If you think I have engaged in these behavior (and I mean specifically about suggesting complaints to his licensing board) please give me the diffs in which I have done so. Otherwise, please direct those comments to the appropriate editors. Essentially, he has made claims that are not true, he has identified himself publicly, and now he is upset because others are challenging him as a public figure, not simply as a Wikipedia editor. So please be very, very careful in your assessment of who exactly is suggesting off-wiki action. I have not done so; I have only responded to those who have. As for the issue of my stating that this doctor has claimed expertise that he does not have, I have provided a link to his comment "Actually I am an expert" regarding the Rorschach, and he, in fact, as an emergency room physician has little if any expertise on this test. If you think he does, please explain this to me. Note that other editors also have commented that he has claimed expertise that he does not have. Being a "doctor" does not give him any expertise in psychological testing. He also has by his own admission denigrated psychologists ("I have not denigrated your profession. Only certain members of it."), so that is not a false accusation by me. Thank you again. I don't mean to minimize your comments; but I do think you incorrectly assessed this situation and need to read very carefully about who is saying what. Thanks, and have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have terribly misinterpreted. First, this issue has moved beyond the images; the images will remain in the article. But more importantly, I fail to see how asking a question about a licensing board, or asking an editor to confine his comments to the issues being discussed, or simply discussing professional ethics and conduct is "coming close to the line" of suggesting off-wiki action. The section in question was created by another user who made suggestion of off-wiki action. I simply sought information about issues unrelated to off-wiki action. SlimVirgin, with all due respect, I have to wonder why you targeted me in your comments when someone else made the suggestion of off-wiki action. I have to wonder why you did not make such comments to anyone else. On the one hand, I can believe that you have Wikipedia's best interest and my best interest in mind. On the other hand, given that I did not "come close to the line", and (by your definition) another editor did cross the line, and given that the doctor in question voluntarily chose to reveal his identify and thus make himself a public figure subject to action by anyone in the world ... I have to wonder if you have another motivation (perhaps unconscious). Could you be trying to protect an editor (the doctor) who gave Wikipedia lots of publicity in the New York Times? I think you have not taken a good look at this situation. If you see your role as simply a Wikipedia editor trying to discuss these matters with me, your motivations really are not very relevant, and you and I can continue this disucssion. If, however, you see your role as an admin who possibly might intervene with administrative action, I wonder if I need to raise this issue at WP:ANI. That's not a threat. I'm simply trying to maintain a productive discussion between you and me. But if you are considering targeting me for a block or some type of complaint when I have not really suggested off-wiki action and another editor has done so, I question your judgment. I hope you don't take offense because I don't intend it, and I apologize if I have misinterpreted. I simply want to be treated fairly as an editor, not be accused of something I have not done, and not take the blame for things this doctor and another editor have done. Please try to understand. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this with me. Ward3001 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I would have preferred that this be a discussion of one editor with another editor, not editor an admin. But that's your choice; it may limit how well we can communicate, but I appreciate your efforts. The IP is the main editor who made the suggestion of off-wiki action, followed by Fremte (who later claimed someone was using his/her username without permission). You may feel that there's no point in messaging the IP, but I fail to see how an anon IPs action should implicate me in anything. I disagee with your police officer scenario under two circumstances. First, if someone else made the suggestion of off-wiki action but you then asked questions, I wouldn't consider you to have stepped over the line. Secondly, if I voluntarily identified myself by name to the world, then I (not you) would have placed myself in a position to be examined by anyone, not just Wikipedia editors. If you disagree, I respect that, but I ask you to afford me the same respect. If I as an editor am told that I should not ask questions about an issue, I think we are on a very slippery slope. Thanks. (I'll be offline for most of the day in case you respond but get nothing from me any time soon.) Ward3001 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(Well, I haven't quite gone offline yet). I understand your point about the images. As I said, the images are only a distant secondary issue now. I do think, however, that an editor falsely claiming expertise and using that to try to affect the content of an article, and then to publicly reveal himself as not having that expertise, is fair game for discussion on the talk page (without suggesting off-wiki action) because it directly relates to the content and quality of the article. The doctor has made many comments about the contents of the article and the quality of the Rorschach in general, irrelevant to the images. In that context, not only can his claims of expertise be discussed, they should be discussed. If I claimed to be a leading expert in astrophysics, made sweeping changes to the article, then publicly revealed that I have no expertise, that is very relevant for discussion on the talk page. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss. Ward3001 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"If someone seems to have claimed an expertise that wasn't quite what it sounded like, point that out once and leave it there, or AGF and assume they made a mistake, or that there was somehow a misunderstanding". Respectfully, you really need to read the talk page and archives in detail. I understand your point, except this doctor has repeatedly presented himself as an expert (including suggestions that he has reviewed the exisiting scientific literature on the topic), has repeatedly been challenged on this, and has never corrected that false impression. Yet he continues to make many unfounded comments that fly in the face of the evidence that exists. If he made a claim of expertise one time, then acknowledged that he is not an expert when challenged, you would have a very good point. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If he continues to suggest that he is an expert, continues not to respond to challenges to his bogus expertise, publicly identifies himself in a way that his non-expertisie is apparent, yet he continues to challenge others (including a leading expert who was identified via email as such by admin Xeno), then that doctor should be challenged every time he misleads, not just the first time.

I have concluded that your motivations here are sincere, and I do apologize for any earlier suggestion of ulterior motives. But I do think that in some ways you are operating without full knowledge of the issues, especially the behavior of the doctor in question. I hope you'll read the archives, but I certainly understand that it is a massive amount of information.

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to follow these comments and any that occur later. The doctor's comments could help bring this issue to a close, or (if he is vague) make it clearer that he does not wish to deny expertise on the Rorschach. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

re:

Wow, didn't think that would attract any attention once I realized Radiant! had left. Sometimes I need to remind myself that no matter what our emotions get us into, at our best we're here for purpose that benefits society writ large and for that deserve at the very least a shared respect between us. Since I'm of a mood to shower earnest goodwill tonight, I suppose I can take this opportunity to let you know that you've always been an inspiration to me Slim, and are an amazing asset to the project. Have a great night :) -M^ask? 09:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI - courtesy notice

Your name has been mentioned in a report at WP:ANI. --Philcha (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Improving WP writing

Hi SlimVirgin,

After reading your comments on Talk:NPOV I am extremely glad to find someone else who cares about good writing. I left some comments on Wikipedia Talk:Areas for Reform#Possible suggestions about improving WP writing, mainly on the structure that an encyclopedia should use, and thought you might be able to provide some helpful insight. Zaereth (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Slim, it appears that you are trying to whip up sentiments to block an otherwise good editor who has had a problem with difficult communications. It is our job to try to approach problems calmly, and avoid stirring up "drama". Please, I have moved the thread to a more appropriate forum, WP:WQA, where the matter can be discussed fully. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Brain Gym Department for Children, Schools and Families

Hi I have put back the Brain Gym thing you deleted in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I think you might have deleted it with the other unrelated thing. Hope is OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

You might want to take a look at Michael Jackson

I believe you've done a lot of work there, and it's not under attack from a particularly dedicated POV pusher. I've disengaged, as it's just becoming more frustration than it's worth to me, but I thought you might like to have a look. UnitAnode 18:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in FAs

Thanks for the note, and I appreciate the fact that your goal is to avoid needless work by article writers. I support efforts to make FAs (and indeed all articles) easier to write. Although we may disagree on the costs and benefits of alt text, perhaps we could find another area in the FA criteria where the cost to editors more obviously outweighs benefits to readers, and work on improving the criteria in that area. Eubulides (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I reverted your edit to WP:NOT. I looked up the original discussion from 2008 that led to the present wording: [1]. I was surprised that you made this change, which any experienced policy editor would know is controversial, without discussion, when you have been arguing very recently at Template:Policy that policy pages should not be edited unless there is clear consensus for the change being made. The lack of edit summary for your change also caught my eye: [2]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just want to thank you for being civil to me at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Yes, I know WP:CIVIL is policy, but it is nice when somebody follow it. Sincerely, Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg

File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Augusta, Lady Gregory

Thanks for so nicely fixing the problems outstanding at Augusta, Lady Gregory. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for your work on this. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hey

Thanks for your comments. I hope you also messaged Chillum, who accused me of telling someone they are laughable when, in fact, another editor told me I was laughable. It's in the edit histories, as are many other false accusations and misrepresentations by Chillum. Either way, though, thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

Hi there - i've made some comments at the FARC, currently in favour of delisting - you may wish to check them out and respond. Thanks for your work to date. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your comment

Without regard to whether the warning for me is justified, did you warn Mirafra, who first called the editor a troll? Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I understand your intentions. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Thank you

Well aw shucks, I meant it. :P Cirt (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

Hi there - thanks for your excellent and swift responses on this FARC. I have responded at the FARC discussion to your queries on my initial points, and am happy to discuss further if needed. I am optimistic that I will be switching to 'keep' soon :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

so my post won't obscure a direct question to you...

• question from Philcha Ling.Nut (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mamet

I think the Mamet photo holds up well when reused. --WatchingWhales (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why deleting Analysis of the term intrinsic value in the article on Animal ethics?

It is the core of the article and it is sourced:

• Edward van der Tuuk: Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Animals, APS, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1999; ISBN 90 232 3469 3
  

So can I put it back up there?

Analysis of the term intrinsic value

The cause of much confusion in the discussion over intrinsic value in relation to the moral status of animals, is the diversity of meanings and connotations associated with intrinsic value. Broadly speaking there are 4 main positions in this debate defining intrinsic value. One can adhere to a meaning of intrinsic value of animals in a sense that is:[3]

• behaviouristic, as a morally neutral value (like in parameter) that the animal's own species-specific behaviour seeks to satisfy (see also ethology)
  
• utilitarian, as a formal basis to grant animals specific rights, based upon the idea of sentience and interests, defined by ethological knowledge, and defines corresponding human obligations (see also animal welfare)
  
• deontological, as respect for the animal's telos or striving and consequential fundamental rights (see also animal rights)
  
• attitudinal, as prima facie respect for all living beings, regardless of qualities like sentience (see also Reverence for Life)
  

Mirrormundo (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Intrinsic value / Animal ethics

Animals want to exercise their species specific behaviour. If they can't they develop stress and in the long run trauma's. So they have an interest, they are stakeholders. If the term intrinsic value refers (according to someone) to the animal's urge of exercising its species specific behaviour, then that urge is a value. The animal 'measures' the difference between the actual situation, and the desired situation, and seeks to minimize this discrepancy (satify its needs). That is a behaviouristic, a morally neutral meaning of the term. It doesn't presuppose a moral actor, just the animal by itself...

intrinsic value

the source is an academic book about the subject:

• Edward van der Tuuk: Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Animals, APS, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1999; ISBN 90 232 3469 3
  

Mirrormundo (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

chapter 2: Intrinsic value & the struggle against anthropocentrism (page 29 to 37)

Categories

But I am not recategorizing (and I don't wanted to do that) all articles from "Animal rights movement", only the articles that I see belongs of a organization. I think "Animal rights movement" have so much articles and is a little ambiguous and would be great specify a little more with categories "Animal rights organizations" (the same that "Animal welfare" has subcategory "Animal welfare organizations") and a future "Animal rights activists" (if Hip-hop or Cannabis have their own category for that I think is more than suitable create a new category for A.r. activists). In any case I think that categorizing by "Animal rights organizations" is really necessary so I will doing with the time. If you don't want I will not remove more "Animal rights movement" category, but I think that in that situations keeping that is having redundant categories.

And Great Ape Project is also an organization, so I think it must be also categorized in this way.

Greetings. Akhran (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not removing any category. I know that "Animal rights movement" cat. is necessarily so I don't want to remove it, but in some situations in necessary to categorize more deeply.

I am really sure about one thing: Vegans are Vegetarians. All of them. Are vegetarians in addition to another things. But his diets is strict vegetarianism.

In any case, do what you want. I will not spent more time in a thing that for me is a no sense. For me is obvious that organizations must be too categorized as organizations. Akhran (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Intrinsic value (animal ethics)

you wrote:
Can you tell me what it says exactly that was the basis of -- "One can adhere to a meaning of intrinsic value of animals in a sense that is ... behaviouristic, as a morally neutral value (like in parameter) that the animal's own species-specific behaviour seeks to satisfy ..."? And the exact page number. If I have a page number, I can perhaps look it up.

Another interpretation of intrinsic value however, rather views the animal from a scientific (biological and/or ethological) perspective. In this conception, certain (non-moral) standards can be formulated concerning the animal's bodily functions and its interaction with the environment. Suffering can be defined as a discrepancy between the animal's actual condition and these standards. The animal's natural behaviour basically aims at minimalizing this discrepancy. The greater the discrepancy, and the longer the animal remains incapable of reducing it, the more it suffers. Baerends (1973) calls these standards expectancy-values. In this sense intrinsic value is a descriptive, rather than an moral term, and as such has no ethical dimension to it. It refers to preferences and needs of animals which, if satisfied, contribute to the animal's welfare, and if frustrated, leave the animal suffering. The animal's mental state constitutes a balance between satisfaction and frustration. There is nothing beyond interests, needs, satisfaction and frustration. (page 35)

Mirrormundo (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sincere request

Dear SlimVirgin,
While I accept that I was edit warring, I feel that after I added the dubious tag and attempted a 2nd compromise, it was unnecessary to report me and get me blocked. While doing so was within your rights, and I admit that I was in the wrong for edit warring to begin with, I feel as though doing so without even being warned was not a very thoughtful thing to do. Throughout our disagreements, we have always maintained a level of civility, trust, and respect and I would hate to see those virtues shattered over a momentary lapse in both of our otherwise honorable behavior on Wikipedia. I welcome you to join me in vowing to try harder not to behave in the petty ways we both exhibited yesterday. --GHcool (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am proud that we came to a compromise. I am glad we were both able to overcome our more base emotions to do it. Well done and happy editing. --GHcool (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

redirecting Animal ethics to Animal rights

I'm sorry, but but this is just not correct. Animal ethics is the general study of moral concern for animals, Animal rights is a specifiec outlook on / school of thought in / approach to Animal ethics. And then referring to Animal liberation for other meanings is ridiculous! Animal liberation is also a specific outlook on / school of thought in / approach to Animal ethics. Why not make a simple disambiguation page for Animal ethics, referring to animal welfare, animal rights, animal liberation, vegetarianism, anti-vivisection, etc... Mirrormundo (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern?

Hey - I was just wondering what your main concerns were in this editing policy issue. My main concern at the moment is that policies should not give contradicting information, and that the best way to do this by having policies stay within scope (for example, wp:admin is directed to those doing admin tasks, which is why wheelwar was merged there and not 3rr etc.) I'm worried that such policy forks might lead to serious confusion, or even inappropriate policy changes. My other concern, not presently as important, is that our policy pages are in serious need of cleanup, and that discouraging editing in any way is one of the main reasons. I recall being very worried that I'd mess something up when I started doing policy cleanups, which actually prevented me from doing any work on policies for a long time. What sort of concerns do you have, and what sort of situations are you worried about that may result from the discussed changes?    M   20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Still looking for input here :) By the way, it's invisible because it was redundant with the section below.    M   20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a concern about my editing, such as:

M, you're doing the forest fire thing again.

please take it to the appropriate forum. If you'd like to formally accuse me of editing in bad faith, you are able to do so, and you have. This is inappropriate, and doesn't help with out discussion at all.    M   21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ian Stevenson article and a past RfC

Has there really been an RfC on that talk page? Isn't there a certain procedure that must be followed in order for a discussion to be called and RfC. Was that implemented on that page? __meco (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines

Hello! Still a question open for you there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Best Selling Artist

I was wondering if you could bring your input onto this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#elvis_and_beatles_sales_are_inflated_too . One editor changed record sales for one artist and didnt do it for otheres that are in the same boat as he. Its leading to harsh debates. Can you please lend a hand to what you believe? ITalkTheTruth (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seven Jewish Children

Now that you've edited the article, would you care to express your opinion in this long-running thread Talk:Seven_Jewish_Children#WP:LEAD_and_WP:UNDUE on the talk page?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One editor User:Kasaalan wants to highlight in the lead that the accusations of anti-Semitism against the play all came from Jews. Three other editors, User:Iron Duke, User:RolandR and myself think that this is sailing rather close to the edge of anti-Semitism in itself. The three objectors are all Jewish but we have rather different political views including on the Israel-Palestine dispute and the play itself. There are additional issues such as Kasaalan's not having produced an RS that makes this point. For that reason I believe that a summary saying that all accusations of anti-Semitism against 7JC come from Jews would be a violation of WP:OR and in particular WP:SYN. I am however having great troubel in getting Kasaalan to ackowledge of this. The intervention of an experienced person who has been an admin might be useful in pushing things along somehow whether or not you agree with me.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)