User talk:SlimVirgin

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report HouseBlaster 33 1 1 97 00:50, 23 June 2024 4 days, 18 hours yes report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 02:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisting holocaustresearchproject.org?

(I was not quite sure if I should bother you with this issue, but I now see that you have commented on this earlier.)

I have started a discussion on the current spam blacklisting of holocaustresearchproject.org and deathcamps.org here: Talk:The Holocaust#Spam filtering Holocaust sites. I am not going to ask for whitelisting without a clear consensus, as previous experience has led me to totally distrust the blacklisting / whitelisting process. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

pic

Hi SV, the pic at Gillian_McKeith seems to have become a shadow of a pic? - never mind, it is ok now, some kind of wiki glitch. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I undeleted the one I originally uploaded, because the Commons one seems discoloured. And it was when I did that that the shadow appeared. No idea how that happened. I'll take a look at the original, and if it's any better, I'll re-upload. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, at least I am happy that I wasn't imagining it. Its good you are tweaking that bio up a bit, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Slightly curious

Just wondering about your refusal of semi-protection for Stephen Lee, as it seemed a pretty clear one to me. Over the last couple of months this lasted for 2 days, this a day, this a day, along with other vandalism that has been picked up more quickly. Of the last 50 edits, most have been vandalism or reverting said vandalism. It doesn't seem to be a very highly watched page, so sometimes the vandalism can stick for a while. I realise it's not prolific but I thought for BLPs we erred on the side of caution. Quantpole (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added semi-protection for a month, but we can't indefinitely protect it based on so few edits and no previous protection history, and the accounts causing the problem have been blocked. So really the best thing is just to keep a close eye on it and revert quickly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood FAR

Hi SV - If you could revisit your comments at the Grace Sherwood FAR (review page located at WP:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1) it would be much appreciated. After the push to get it to FARC early, there has been no activity on the FAR page since the day it was moved. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fat Man

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your time, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights template

Answered on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Hospital lists

I saw you removed the list, but then reverted it back in. FWIW, I find it useful and would like to see it expanded for Canadian provinces, rather than deleted. Ng.j (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in contributing more to articles about hospitals you may want to join WikiProject Hospitals (signup here).

Hi, I only removed it because I was having difficulty figuring out how to use it on one infobox, but I reverted myself in case I had messed the box up. And someone else figured out the problem I was having, so I won't be fiddling with it again. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wales Talk page - your response needed

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Talk:Jimmy Wales.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please scroll down to "Everyone loves a poll," then Rob's comment about you, then my comment about you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous! Canvassing!..... (chuckle) joking...... NickCT (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh PR points

I have replied to your final PR points if you'd care to take a look. I am doing a final copyedit run, and will probably nominate on Friday. On the image issue, I've still not decided what to do, but I think the old man will probably have to go. (I hope I don't get to look like that at 60!) Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he's not bad at 60, actually, at least in that photo. He could have used some strength training, and some more tofu and spinach, but couldn't we all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

QG ban discussion

I know you've had recent involvement with this editor. I thought you might want to comment on the ban discussion going on at AN. I've notified editors who had recent engagement with QG, and in equal numbers for those I presume would be sympathetic as critical. Ocaasi (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		SlimVirgin, I hereby award this barnstar in recognition of your vigilance, effort and professionalism improving the Gillian McKeith article. You've done an excellent job! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, Deacon! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh now at FAC

For information. I have deleted the "elderly Waugh" image, left his younger self in the infobox on the basis of Jappalang's reasoning. I hope that this will not become an issue at FAC, but we shall see. Thanks for the time you took to review this article; I should now have a little more time, and am looking forward to tackling the Lydda-Ramle review very soon now - sorry it's been so long, but Evelyn has been a demanding taskmaster. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Brian. As for Lydda, there's no rush. Assuming you're still willing, the last text I can vouch for is at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda3; with some of the fair-use images removed because it's in userspace. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		Thanks ever so much for responding to my blunder in such a patient and courteous manner. Your friendly, non-confrontational note genuinely eased my anxiety. It's nice to know that cynical accusations haven't completely replaced constructive criticism at Wikipedia. —David Levy 05:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, David, and thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hand written citations

Hi. We haven't dealt with each other since you bailed me out at ANI a few months back, for which I shall be eternally grateful. Can I ask you something? I once saw you ask BruceGrubb to hand write the citations for an article the two of you were working on, because it was a slow-loading page and hand-writing the cites would speed loading. I've been hand writing all the cites at pain since then, and find the page loads 50% faster as a result. An editor has objected and is insisting use of citation templates is de rigeur. I think I can mount a reasonable argument based on access and usability grounds, but can you point me to any policies or guidelines that that might support my position, or undermine it for that matter, off the top of your head? Anthony (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, the guidelines are clear that citation templates should not be added over objections because they can be contentious:

• See Wikipedia:Citing sources "... templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style." And "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

• Also see Wikipedia:Citation templates: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus."

For more information about why they slow down loadtime, see this discussion. Hope this helps! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably be interested in this related discussion too: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Page load time as argument in discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, what editor is giving you a hard time (based on incorrect info)? Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo has had a hard time on this with editor Jack Merridew, and I now also have him and an editor running a bot trying to force me to use citation templates at Intrusive thoughts. See here; it's really interesting that two editors who have never edited an article written almost entirely by me forced me to alter the citation style from manual to templates, and want to use templates in a manner that is inconsistent with the Diberri style in other medical articles. When Gimme has had this problem with Jack Merridew, some aspersions were always cast in Gimme's direction, yet this editor came to an article mostly created by me, never touched by him, to advocate for a forced style and citation templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The conversation about this instance is at Talk:Pain#Cite_ref. The conversation about the principle of using handwritten rather than template citations for the loading time advantage is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Page load time as argument in discussion (as mentioned by Jayjg). Anthony (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Icke

If you wrote that wonderful line about Boxcar Willie, then you deserve much more than a barnstar. Every time I read that line I burst out laughing.  :) Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I do too, but I can't take credit for it. It was Jon Ronson who first came up with Boxcar Willie's inclusion in the list of lizards. Ronson's full list is "Bob Hope, George Bush, George Bush Jr, Ted Heath, the Rothschild family, Boxcar Willie, the Queen of England, the Queen Mother, Prince Philip, Kris Kristofferson, Al Gore and the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group." [1] :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ronson, no way! Thanks, Slim, you really made my day. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Keep your chin up Sarah and don't give up the struggle and battle in the leo frank domain trying to keep it honest.Goldenali (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarah. You are up against a cabal of editors who will never stop cherry pick facts on behalf of rehabilitating and benefiting Leo Max Frank, that also includes deleting relevant facts which tend to incriminate him. The Leo Frank domain here will forever be plagued with editors like IronDuke and Tom North Shoreman who will stop at nothing, rewriting the article until it leaves the average reader with the conclusion Leo Frank was not only innocent, but framed. Thank you for being a light in the darkness and never giving up. You are a heroic editor.Goldenali (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein article

Hello. You removed, without discussion, a citation to Dr. Sara Ellenbogen's dissertation and published book on Wittgenstein in the Ludwig Wittgenstein article in the Further Reading section.

• Ellenbogen, Sara, Wittgenstein's Account of Truth: A Novel Perspective on the Semantic Realist/Antirealist Debate, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1998. (published by State University of New York Press, 2003)

I don't see exactly why you did so. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I removed it because its an unpublished PhD thesis. Even if it had been published, there's so much out there about Wittgenstein that we can only include the old faithfuls, or material that sheds a new light on some interesting aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. It actually was published by SUNY Press.

Wittgenstein's Account of Truth

Sara Ellenbogen

SUNY Series in Philosophy

Release Date: January 2003

ISBN10: 0-7914-5625-0

ISBN13: 978-0-7914-5625-5

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-3707-wittgensteins-account-of-truth.aspx

I personally thought both the thesis and book (which was a revision of the thesis) were quite interesting. But I take your points. Thanks and bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I saw you reverted some more edits on the article. The editor made some earlier contributions which I reverted for being uncited, though at least partly they were true. But verifiability is another matter, of course. What one cannot verify, darüber muß man schweigen. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. And given that it's Christmas, did you know that "wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" can be sung to the tune of Good King Wenceslas? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm such a heathen--thanks for teaching me a new song. Merry Christmas! Drmies (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I only ever made two edits to the Wittgenstein article, both on December 12, 2010 and to add Dr. Ellenbogen's book. "The editor made some earlier contributions ..." doesn't refer to me. Also, I might add, I do think it was not willy-nilly: Dr. Ellenbogen's book does shed some new light on Wittgenstein's work and I thought it was pertinent to add. But I took your points in the interest of Wikipedian Community, and it wasn't worth a hassle or arbitration. Bests and Happy Holidays. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Wiki, it was another editor being referred to there. If you're very keen on adding the Ellenbogen book, I won't stand in your way; my initial concern was that it looked like an unpublished thesis. Bear in mind, though, that that section could quickly become very long. I suggested on talk that maybe we could create a Ludwig Wittgenstein bibliography page, then we could add whatever we wanted. But in the meantime if you want to restore Ellenbogen to the FR section, please go right ahead. Happy Holidays to you and Drmies. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks very much for your kindness and understanding. Bests Ever and indeed Happy Holidays. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson block

Hi SV. Your input would be appreciated at Pmanderson's talk page; is using a comment you made in an unblock request, and I think your input would be valuable there: User_talk:Pmanderson#Blocked_48_hrs_for_edit_warring_on_Marseilles. Thanks (no need to respond here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on getting involved in the block or unblock issues there, Magog, but you're welcome to quote me if you want to. What I suggested on AN/I and on the article talk page was to find additional sources (preferably secondary sources per WP:PSTS), and continue discussing on talk, but to refrain from tagging until all else had failed. Obviously, I didn't mean re-tag after a few hours. :) Tagging a developed article that people are working on should be reserved for the stickiest of cases, especially when uninvolved editors have objected to or reverted the tagging, and it's being discussed on AN/I. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your useful comments and help. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:Brumby. I see you've dealt with the other editor involved ( Kelly2357) before and that there is a pattern of drive by editing and removal of material without discussion or consensus. She went and got the article locked down after her last round of edits and is now blaming me. Need an independent review of the material at issue in the article and some thoughts. I'm too spitting mad at this drive-by editor to do more than review the sources and comment on what's in them. Issue appears to be the question of if the Brumby nothing but a worthless pest that should be exterminated, or are there are some positive aspects to the presence of a feral, non-native species in the ecosystem under certain circumstances. Any thoughts welcomed. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't offer a review as an admin, Montana (or any kind of independent review), because I've had dealings with that person as an editor. I've wondered whether he's editing on behalf of a lobby group, given the pattern of drive-by editing and reverting. He was particularly keen to remove all references to T. Colin Campbell's The China Study from several articles. His views seems to be that if it stands still for five minutes, kill it, skin it, wear it, and eat it, preferably with lots of salt and sugar, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a radical POV pusher whose views need to be removed. I was pleased to see that he was editing an article about Australian horses, because I thought it meant he had settled down, but of course he's declaring them pests. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that does make sense, I guess if you'd be so kind as to keep watchlisting in case I start getting unjustly attacked (if I screw up all by myself, I'm on my own, of course! LOL!) or if the POV-pushing gets out of hand. I was quite upset to see the article get blocked so quickly with such flimsy evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

in re ANI, another editor's allegation of SPI

Hey, I'd like to get your feedback on something -- here or at my talkpage, please. Another editor, User:Doc9871, just accused me of being the main account for User:Dylan_Flaherty at an ANI over the Palin article:

"If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[31] ... and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here." - Doc9871 [2]

My response is directly below his. [3] I probably made a mistake in mentioning the another editor who just resumed his snarky retorts from a few months ago, elsewhere, and who just replied at ANI too.

I wasn't directly involved in the dispute at the Palin article or at the ANI. But from our discussions at the SPLC & TPM articles, I considered Dylan to be a reasonable minded editor. I wasn't aware of his aruments at Palin. In the ANI, I posted a couple of small points to support his right to defend himself. I don't know how to read that wiki-stalk thing that Doc linked [4], other than noticing that the same list for him & Dylan [5] seems similar -- and it shows nothing more than overlapping interests. If and when a CU is performed, I expect an apology from him but I'm not about to write that at ANI as it sounds as petty as his post does. But his accusations seem too serious to just toss out there. Regards, -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• What is this, a canvassing[6]? AN/I is highly visible, and there's no need to assemble a legal team, PrBeacon. If you're not related to Dylan Flaherty: I am wrong and would apologize. I didn't bring up the sock allegations, but you two are "thick as thieves", and that is shown in the editing histories of your accounts. Cheers... Doc talk 07:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I should think that you would know the difference between asking for advice and canvassing. Do you always assume the worst of editors you don't know at all? And then actually voice those assumptions at not at just any old talkpage but the main public forum for grievances? For example what if someone accused you & every other editor fighting against Dylan to be secretly working for her -- and asked for a checkuser to see who matched her known staffers' locations? Surely you know that editors who have mutual interests are going to naturally run into each other at various articles. Yet you continue to cast aspersions so easily with phrases like "thick as thieves" -- again, if we knew each other i might be able to take this with a grain of salt. But sarcasm and innuendo are often lost here, and the result is just nasty bickering. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)