User talk:SlimVirgin

File:Animalibrí.gif

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 65 0 1 100 22:18, 21 September 2024 6 days, 2 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 19:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Caught between languages I recently finished writing a biography of Sebastien Rale, an early Maine Jesuit priest, but due to pre-existing French accentuation in his page's title (you know, those funny little marks over certain letters), nobody without the accentuation on their keyboard (i. e. Americans) can access it. See? Even here the name appears in red, as if his page didn't exist. Would you or somebody else please arrange it so that typing Sebastien Rale, in addition to Sebastian Rasle (a common alternate spelling) is directed to his page? I would be ever so grateful. Thank you.--Hugh Manatee 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I redirected one. Now you do the other:-) Tom Harrison Talk 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC) RickK? who was RickK and why did he leave? --MKnight9989 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Zoos I disagree with the stance that PETA is a valid source for information regarding zoos. That's like saying that McDonald's Corporation is a good source for an article called "Beef: Is it Tasty?" That aside, I'm very concerned with the article about zoos. I feel that it should be entirely factual with no boasting or criticism from either side. Other people don't feel this way, apparently. It makes me very sad to see that Wikipedia is slipping into the hands of partisans and opinion-peddlers. I don't know how to go about my goal of neutralizing the article without all the hippies, PETAphiles, etc. feeling like I've marginalized them. Thoughts? Suggestions? I mean... I'm not a champion of zoos or anything, I just think that the article should be about things like "what is a zoo?" "where are zoos located?" "when was the first zoo established" instead of things like "zoos are great because they display man's domination of the animals" or "zoos suck because Paul McCartney says so!" I'm just so frustrated... sorry for writing such a long rant. Pygmypony 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC) wikiproject biography I saw your name on wikiproject biography. If you have any advice to improve the article to prevent Lansing Bennett from deletion, let me know. Thanks. Mrs.EasterBunny 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 45,000 edits Congratulations on an impressive milestone. LaraLove♥ 13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Just kidding. Congrats on your much more than 45,000 edits. Learn something new everyday. LaraLove 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Request for mediation A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) You are missed Where are you, SlimVirgin? I hope that you won't let bastards grind you down. Your intelligent presence and contributions are very much missed in Wikipedia. All the best, Ghirla-трёп- 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I second that...hope all is well with you!--MONGO 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I agree with the above two messages, SlimVirgin; you are an excellent editor and a nice person; we don't want you to leave. Acalamari 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC) It's hardly necessary for me to post this, as I've been emailing you, but I agree as well. ElinorD (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Ditto. You are indeed missed... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Good to see you back, if perhaps only for a moment. Whatever you decide, good luck, and try not to take even hard travails more seriously than they merit.John Z 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC) I endorse the above comments. God knows as editors (in general) we dont have to see eye to eye all the time to appreciate a good editor. Hoping this is just a wiki-break as your presence makes for a better encyclopedia, SqueakBox 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC) You probably don't know me, but I have grown to truly respect and admire you. I hope you are able to come back and help us with this project, soon. Cheers, Ursasapien (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC) You're not only missed, you're sorely needed on Wikipedia. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Please consider coming back; your presence here is certainly beneficial. >Radiant< 11:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC) User has run out of warnings, continues to vanadlise. Hi Slim, The user Craig48 has had his "final warning", and perpetrated the following: diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 I guess it's time for a temporary block? --Slashme 07:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I have blocked this account indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Crum375 10:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Request for Mediation A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel Please take a serious look at the above. Thanks. Smallbones 14:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Attribution I agree that this page is not historical, but please refrain from ticking the "minor edit" checkbox when performing edits of this nature. Keep in mind that "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." "If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor." If you accidentally tick the checkbox and realize this after saving the changes, please perform a dummy edit to indicate your error in the summary. Thank you! —David Levy 12:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Their vs. their An editor is attempting to address the Their vs. their issue in the named article On the Jews and Their Lies. You appear to have dealt with this. See this post. I can't figure out what is going on. Ludvikus blanked On the Jews and their Lies and listed it for speedy deletion. I posted a page blanking warning on his talk page, received a message on my talk page, and now am here. Please look into whether On the Jews and their Lies (small "t" on "their") is the correct name of the article or whether On the Jews and Their Lies (big "T" on "Their") is the correct name of the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) On the Jews and their Lies vs. On the Jews and Their Lies How are you? Are you still Slim? Are you still a ... just kidding! Anyway, I tried to change in the above the "t" into a "T." I couldn't do it because you had occuppied that page with a REDIRECT. So I tried doing a Cut & Paste (not knowing it violates Wiki rules (it seemed to preserve this history because I also cut & pasted the Talk page. Anyway, I think it would be useful to have you input there. It does not seem a controversial issue. But one never knows. I think it's not because the "l" in" Lies" is capitalized. So it seems a mere typo. What is you on the point? Ludvikus 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppet flag I mean to add the sockpuppet flag, chiefly with reference to what you have done as the puppeteer of User:Sweet Blue Water (blocked as your abusive sockpuppet here), on your User page. It was under protection, so I've put it at the top of this page on the understanding that you're able to transfer it to there, as is appropriate. From AboveTheClub 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I have reverted the insertion of this tag based on a two-year-old incident as unnecessary, inappropriate, and harassing. Do not reinsert it. Newyorkbrad 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I agree with Brad and I would have removed it myself had I happened upon it first. We use those tags to help us track people currently or recently abusing the sock policy, we don't use them to harass each other. Tagging a hardworking long term and good faith editor with a "sock master" tag based on unproven allegations about an account which has not been used for two years has no legitimate purpose. Please don't put that tag on this account again. Sarah 12:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I will quote from WP:SOCK to demonstrate the appropriateness of this tagging. The original or best-known account of a user that operates sock puppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}}. Note that this tag is intended for abusive sock puppets and should not be used on the pages of people whose legitimate multiple accounts have not been blocked. . It is an error to say that there is no evidence that this user has indulged abusive sockpuppeteering. Review again the edit summary comment accompanying the blocking of User:SweetBlueWater. It confirms this user has been sockpuppeting with it, and abusively so. If not, it never would have been blocked with such a comment. I've looked again at WP:SOCK and I can confirm that there is no 2-year or other limit against this sort of identification. It merely excludes the same where the secondary account has legitimacy and has not been blocked. I also confirm that the policy nowhere relates that abusively sockpuppeting users like this may escape being tagged with the sockpuppeteer flag because someone else says "she's hardworking etc etc". Because of the evidence and the action taken against this user's abusive sockpuppeting, I've resupplied the tag. Let's leave the discussion open longer. If it isn't settled in a day or two we'll go to mediation with it. AboveTheClub 23:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Let it go already. If you really think some community action needs to be taken, press on with it, but qI don't believe you're going to get much consensus. By the way, you seem really knowledgable about sockpuppetry and other Wikipedia policies and processes for someone who only registered with Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC) The insertion of this tag serves no purpose for the project and is harassing. You have at no time explained the point of doing so. The issue of the alternate account has already been discussed exhaustively in other forums. Pursuing mediation on the issue of tagging this page is not necessary as there is no substantive dispute to mediate. If you reinsert the tag on this page again, I will block you indefinitely until you agree to stop. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Need assistance Please see this and respond. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) ElinorD (talk) responded sensibly at 09:22, 24 September 2007. Seems to me that this has no urgency whatever. Glad to see you dipping in, under trying and disappointing circumstances re JzG, hope having a rest is doing you good. Keep well, .. dave souza, talk 09:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC) The link wasn't what I requested his response -- I wanted him to look at the content of the request and then respond to me, since I have also received e-mail complaint by nobs1 via a fellow arbitration clerk. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Talk:Brent Corrigan ... has been calm for a month now, and the article itself is not protected. Any objection to unprotecting the talk page? Will also ask User:Xaosflux. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Howdy! I believe you were going to contact me regarding the "anonymous admining" policy? GofG ||| Talk 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) re: An apology Thanks Slim, I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Welcome back ... Nice to see you around again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Hurrah! Good to see you, ... dave souza, talk 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC) NOR Hi. We don't know each other and I don't think any of our edits have ever crossed paths. However, myself and others are engaged in some discussions over at WT:NOR. Looking through the past archives, I saw that you had a similar opinion back in January 2005, as many currently seem to have. I'm not sure if you would want to re-enter the debates or not, but I thought I'd ask for your participation. You seem to be a well-respected editor here, so your opinions either way may help in the on-going discussions. If you would prefer not to participate, I can understand that as well. I have been involved in this for over a month myself, and at times I really feel like calling it quits. Thanks for your consideration. wbfergus Talk 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Hi, Slim, your opinion on this would be greatly valued. However it's a continuous rambling debate, and it took me ages to even get an idea of what the complaints were about, so no rush. .. dave souza, talk 20:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC) WP:CITE and WP:FN I imagine you are busy with other things, but are you still following this about ref tag placement? Is it worth dealing with? Your presence is missed. Gimmetrow 02:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Replaceable fair use Image:RobertaKalechofsky.jpg Replaceable fair use Thanks for uploading Image:RobertaKalechofsky.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please: Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Replaceable fair use Image:NathanShaham.jpg Replaceable fair use Thanks for uploading Image:NathanShaham.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please: Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Replaceable fair use Image:Rubinstein.jpg Replaceable fair use Thanks for uploading Image:Rubinstein.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please: Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Replaceable fair use Image:SimonArmitage.jpg Replaceable fair use Thanks for uploading Image:SimonArmitage.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please: Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)