User talk:SlimVirgin

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Worm That Turned 2 242 3 4 99 09:47, 18 November 2024 3 days, 12 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 20:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Talkback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy notice

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

plagiarism

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone care?

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

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

Montague Ullman and Elizabeth Rauscher

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

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

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

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

User:Mugginsx

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

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

Removal of something from WP:MOSLINK

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

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

Female genital mutilation

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Comfort Momoh

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

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

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

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

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

FGM talk

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

WP:Verifiability

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

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

Please join discussion at Template:Violence against women

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

Assistance with Wikipedia Deletion of BLP Article

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

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