User talk:SlimVirgin

War on Bad Writing 1. There is no such word as "incivil." You can be uncivil, and you can be accused of incivility, but you cannot be incivil. 2. There is definitely no such word as "definately."

Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. Many thanks.

File:Animalibrí.gif

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 22:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Roger Yates

Hey SV. Are you familiar with this chap? Not much going on, notability wise, academically, but there is a claim on the talk page that he may have some notability as a jailed activist in the past. Rockpocket 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RP, I've e-mailed you, as it's not yet clear what the sources are saying or whether it's the same person. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ALF

Please do not revert without stated reason. The fact that the ALF is a designated terrorist group deserves more paramount treatment than, say, the actions of this group. Please try to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregondesert (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad

[1] Zeq (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP discussion

Hi Slim. You might be interested in this discussion. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo wales' talk page

Please take a look at the message left regarding your actions, cheers. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

fyi

[2] --Zeq (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought

Please read User_talk:Nandesuka#Merge-and-delete_violates_the_GFDL.

This sounds ridiculous to me. But I'm willing to believe that once again best practices have passed me by. Is he correct? Nandesuka (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot thickens: [3]. Not only is he making that claim, but he's using his admin tools to restore "his" article history. I've asked Danny for clarification. Nandesuka (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL. Note that in the past I've done restoration of other merge-and-deleted material similar to this, I'm not doing this solely because I happen to be the one who wrote the material. My attention happened to be on it since I got a notice on my talk page. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PETAlogo2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PETAlogo2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

AN/I comments

SV, our dispute has concerned me for some time, although I have remained unsure what to do about it. As I guess you are aware, the issue I raised with ArbCom was a concern that this account and Crum375 are operated at least in part by the same person. My concern regarding this was based initially on Crum375’s arrivals to support you in ways that suggested at least a very close off-Wikipedia friend, despite posing as a neutral outsider. This was first as laid out, when you falsely alleged that I had “stalked” Jayjg and yourself (despite recently having followed me to numerous articles),[4] and Crum stepped in,[5] but then refused to address whether a section entitled “Mackan’s stalking” on an article talk page was appropriate.[6][7] The second issue arose amidst a long-standing editorial dispute in which you had insisted that you would not participate in mediation with either G-Dett or myself, saying among other reasons that neither of us were historically among the most frequent editors of the page (compared to others who had been involved only months earlier).[8] That dispute had begun after many days of your silence as multiple editors worked to refine the article’s lead,[9] and then after you blocked its implementation twice, with Crum's arrival to protect the page.[10] Following your continuing refusal to participate, and immediately after G-Dett clarified that she would take the issue to arbitration,[11] Crum then suddenly arrived with a list of sorted page contributions, “in case it helps.”[12] After another long term editor questioned this analysis,[13] and following much other fractious discussion on the page, of course you know it was then following my statement[14] and G-Dett’s confirmation[15] in support of arbitration that Jayjg said you had relented by email.[16]

These did not indicate sockpuppetry, merely that you appeared you'd had a friend come in to act as an outsider. I’ve left out the extent to which this accompanied a larger effort to marginalize editors on the page, therefore making this use of a friend particularly offensive. Based on these events, however, I admit I was interested to see the subsequent dispute on Factory farming, where the extent of your editing similarities with Crum became apparent. Even then, I don’t believe I looked closely at any of this until I saw editors on that page raise the issue.[17] But it was at this point that I started looking into it, finding a very large number of oddities including Crum’s having added an edit counting scrip to their monobook within a week of registering, encountering and editing with you extensively within a month, showing extensive knowledge of many unrelated topics on which you’d edited, making very strongly supportive statements of you, showing up to revert for you on policy pages before becoming acquainted with them, hardly interacting with any other editors etc., all including much more specific issues that I don't list here.

Nor did I say anything about that. However, then in August, it became apparent that in fact you had used a sockpuppet in the past. Moreover, while this was then dismissed and WordBomb again marginalized for having raised it, I saw that it wasn’t quite as you had suggested, considering you had specifically spoken out very strongly against the use of socks even before the Sweet blue water incident, specifically noting the corrupting effect in featured articles nominations.[18][19][20][21] Of course you had also built somewhat of a reputation on opposition to sockpuppetry since then,[22] while I’d observed in the Factory Farming discussions your and Crum’s use of extreme hyperbole in accusing other users of sockpuppetry,[23][24] after having blanked Nathanlee’s comments about the two of you as disruptive[25] (Crum also responded by archiving their entire page)[26].

So, I could present the specific evidence to all of this; the one reason I haven’t is because of what a hard time you have received from off-site. However, I think the real question is: will you acknowledge an offwiki relationship with Crum375? If so, did this precede or post date the registration of Crum’s account? Considering the widespread concern over this issue (see recently here), I think it needs an answer. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)