User talk:SlimVirgin

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 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Edit summary of the week

When you say "Restored some key material", what you mean is "revert to extraordinarily POV text that actually says the precise opposite of the real problem with activist editors" :-) Guy (Help!) 20:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That section closely mirrors practically all my experience of activist editors on WP. It's true that they're sometimes intent on adding material, not removing it, but generally it's removal of anything deadly to the POV that seems to be the thing they focus on, often citing UNDUE no matter how good the sources are. Will BeBack made a similar point to yours recently, and we were trying to find a way to express both issues without making the essay seem contradictory. You're welcome to join in. See toward the end of this section. Happy New Year, btw. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. Antonio Petrus Kalil

Hi SlimVirgin. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I have been away. Sure, I'll check this out. It does look quite long... Regards, Húsönd 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Husond. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So where's the discussion??

If you google Hewitt in general interest publications, what you'll find is reporting on his Wikipedia ban.

It was reported worldwide. In a cultural sense, the incident is probably more significant than his contributions to science.

One can only imagine your point of view on this topic, but I've got my private theories.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the talk page, CB. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please delete the article on Professor Carl Hewitt

Please delete the Wikipedia article on Professor Carl Hewitt because of violations of BLP on his talk page. 98.210.242.39 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some distinct problems with what you're doing to the Carl Hewitt page.

Can you suggest ways to address this through a review?

Thanks

71.235.237.175 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it further, please log in and start a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you could have done this yourself but...

...you asked for it you got it Toyota. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ron. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Jane Velez-Mitchell

The vandal who keeps adding gossip as a description to her job has returned. Several months ago you placed a protection request on the article that expired on December 24th. The unregistered vandal has returned and is slandering journalist as saying she deals in gossip, which is not news, but hearsay. Is there a way to place an indefinite block to prevent this from happending? Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi XLR, it was just one edit, so it's not reason enough to protect, but I'll put it on my watchlist. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

I've just emailed you.  Roger ^talk 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I was looking at the article talk page of Carl Hewitt (per your post on BLP) and in one of the archives, someone's posted your real name here. I've taken the liberty of redacting it. Not sure you wanted that posted. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Activism

Just a heads up; please mind WP:3RR. I haven't done a formal count (and don't intend to) but wouldn't be surprised to find you and Cla68 Collect are both close to the line. There's enough "spirited discussion" on that page without the additional drama that could come from people filing reports on each other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First Barnstar of 2011 (please move to userpage)

		The Oddball Barnstar
		Finding a Barnstar which SV has not already received or deserves is difficult, but here is one for her work on Bradley Manning. I've been a part of the group of editors who has done something with that particular oddball subject and I am proud to be able to offer SlimVirgin a Barnstar which seems appropriate for her (and him). With hopes that the New Year brings SV many more (Barnstars, not oddballs), and with thanks, here you are. S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Stevan, that's much appreciated! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For your input at ANI. You might note [1] wherein I note that I stand by all my edits :). 2/0 did leave a very mild apology on my UT page, by the way. But it still reads like he thinks I was in the wrong. Again - thanks. Collect (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll get sorted out soon. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note [2] which, to me, appears an eensy bit pointy. Collect (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Et seq now -- funny thing is WMC made a point of reverting me when the actual last revert really was of you (as you were the last to remove the "irony" bit) :). He seems intent at this point, for some unknown rationale, at specifically reverting my attempts to make the essay neutral! Collect (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I have trouble with reftoolbar. Do you know, who should I see or what should I do? Today, randomly reftoolbar in my menu got disappeared even though I ticked that mode in my preferences.--NovaSkola 11:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The best place to ask for technical help is at the Village pump. See WP:PUMP, then go to the technical section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bradley Manning (uniform).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bradley Manning (uniform).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As there's a free one now, I've deleted the one I uploaded. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords Assassination attempt section

Hi. As you seem conscious of the Arizona shooting articles, your opinion and insight to a current issue would be appreciated. Regarding the Gabrielle Giffords article, there was much talk yesterday about renaming the shooting section "Assassination attempt." After many users voiced their concern that there wasn't yet an official charge of "assassination", the official charges did come and all reliable sourced reported this as an "assassination attempt," most users, including even Jimbo, appeared this was the correct designation. There has been one "sleeper" account, perhaps a meat-puppet, that is now revering the title "Assassination attempt."[3][4][5] Here is the discussion in talk - Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords#Section_title_.22Assassination_attempt.22. --Oakshade (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been giving my reasons as to why I made these changes each time, and sort of find it odd to be rapidly labeled and named 'sleeper' and 'meat-puppet' etc. I've been professional and given reasons each time, so I would appreciate the same from other editors. Oakshade is continually changing the title of the section to the loaded word "Assassination" and it was previously labeled "2011 Tuscon Shooting". This section links to an article named "2011 Tuscon shooting", which seems to strongly support the idea that it should be ok for this section to have that same name, at least until that article is retitled. Also, I have provided the rationale for these reverts, and Oakshade specifically seems intent on using the loaded word rather than a more calm and completely accurate title. -- Avanu (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I might mention that this has been a subject of some debate in the article, and as Oakshade pointed out Jimbo has commented twice in the discussion but really didn't come out strongly on one side or the other, in fact, he quoted an article that said:

“ The legal status of assassination is ambiguous in both domestic and international law. -- Assassination And The Law - Political, Common, Treason, President, Offense, and Legal http://law.jrank.org/pages/541/Assassination-Assassination-law.html#ixzz1Acl32EbM ”

I would really ask that editors try and stay off personal attacks and simply focus on what is best for the articles and Wikipedia as a whole. -- Avanu (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the only thing we should be doing is sticking to what reliable sources call it, and discussing disagreements on talk. Continuing to revert up to 3RR is pointless. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. The section was originally called '2011 Tuscon shooting' and the entire story is maybe 2 days old? There has been much discussion on this in the various Talk pages on the various related articles. My repeated suggestion is to leave it as it started since that is factually accurate and less inflammatory title. The news media will do enough hyping without Wikipedia adding to it. -- Avanu (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I would like your feedback on what to do if this continually gets changed to 'Assassination' without consensus. (or, for that matter, anything else) Since you would prefer we don't keep repeating the undos for us getting back to the original title, what is the alternative when people will not wait for actual consensus, especially in a situation with a large media following like this? Thanks in advance for the advice. -- Avanu (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just keep discussing it on talk, and if no agreement can be reached there, consider an RfC. See WP:RfC for instructions. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection of Hindu extremism

I thank you for your intervention in this regard. I am new to wikipedia editing and do not yet understand all its intricacies. I should, however, point out that the Single purpose account editor, Sarmadhassan, is reverting to a version of this article[6] that used unreliable sources. For instance, on of it's sources, NDTV, has been caught fabricating claims about Barack Obamas recent visit to India (see recent expose by Anderson Cooper on India's "premier channel" NDTV making up stories concerning Obama's visit to India here). Also, he selects facts from cited sources to suite his anti-Indian POV. For instance, he writes (here) that "According to wikileaks cable, congress leader Rahul Gandhi told US Ambassador to India Tim Roemer, that Hindu extremism is a bigger threat to India than organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba", implying that wikileaks endorses the concept of "Hindu extremism". However, the same wikileaks document also exposes that the anti-Hindu Indian National Congress party (of which Rahul Gandhi is the master strongman) has fabricated much of these claims (such as a "secret conspiracy of Hindu Extremists" and Israel carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks") and leaked them to the Indian media and Muslim community (for details, see the ref from The Guardian here, as well as the relevant wikipedia article Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak_(India)#2008_Mumbai_attacks). His edits are clearly combative, unbalanced, and indicative of a political agenda. Also, his claim made in the RFPP, that the pagename is being redirected to an "irrelevant article", is a bald-faced lie. The article to which it has been redirected is Hindutva, which is the national liberation movement that is being portrayed as "Hindu extremist" in these media reports.Meanstheatre (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a closer look at it. In the meantime, I'm going to copy your post to the RfPP section, so everything's in one place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See response here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Involvement

No animals were harmed in the making of these...

... or this.

Given the degree to which you have been involved in the debate of involved admins, you really should not edit the involvement section on Wikipedia:Administrators. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be one of those superhuman admins you believe exist, aware of all my biases and in control of every aspect of my mind. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed! Can you please use your superhuman powers to make me lose 15 kg? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that I already gave you dietary advice. No animal products and the weight will drop off—there's a limit to how much tofu and broccoli a reasonable person can eat—and it comes with the added benefit of making you a real environmentalist. :-P SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as chocolate is a vegetarian product, this will not work. Or do you suggest fully vegan? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can get lots of vegan chocolate products, but if chocolate is your thing, it's worth every extra pound! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're ever in San Francisco, you should check out Herbivore (looks like they have several locations; I can only vouch for the one in the Mission). I'm a committed omnivore, but I could eat there every day for the rest of my life. They have quite a few vegan chocolate desserts, including a vegan German chocolate cake which, if stereotypes hold true, will appeal to Stephan. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A tip for a tip: Kalpna in Edinburgh is outstanding - a vegetarian restaurant I choose for taste, not for health or to safe the planet. Not so great on chocolate, though ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're ever in London do not miss the chance to have lunch at Govinda's, the vegetarian restaurant/cafeteria run by the adjoining Radha Krishna Temple. It's on Soho Street just around the corner from Soho Square. The food is very good (it tastes better than it looks) and I found conversation with the Hare Krishna folks very pleasant and engaging. Another vegetarian in London is Food For Thought. Excellent food, much more carefully and imaginatively prepared than Govinda's, though not quite as interesting an experience. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a superb vegetarian Indian restaurant in south London I was trying to find for you, but I've forgotten the name. That's something I'd love to do: open a really good vegan restaurant. "SlimVirgin's Veggie Treats" has a certain ring to it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been to Britain a couple of times, and, according to the locals, Worcester has the best Indian restaurants in the world. As has Manchester. As has Birmingham (although I was taken to a very boring Steakhouse there - sorry, Slim). I'm fairly certain that Edinburgh and London also have the best Indian restaurants in the world (according to the locals)... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And talking about restaurant names, Slim's Vegan Steakhouse would be a hit, I bet ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indian food is practically the main British cuisine. I can't tell you how much I miss a vegetarian korma takeway; I don't think it's real Indian food, more like British-Indian comfort food: sweet and mild, and on every street corner. The UK in general is great for vegetarian and vegan food, including the big supermarkets. The rest of the Western world has some catching up to do there.

I like the sound of Slim's Vegan Steakhouse. Investors, please take note. We can have a bank of computers in the back for Wikipedia addicts, and big screens around the room showing the edit wars. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or if you're ever in Northwood, NH, Susty's Cafe is a vegan paradise even for omnivores. Tofu fries, mmm, and really good desserts. betsythedevine (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't encountered tofu fries, but they sound delicious. Another item for the Vegan Steakhouse menu. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Slower G10 deletions?

In the spirit of doing what I do more efficiently and more collegiately, I've made a suggestion here. Your thoughts would be appreciated.--Scott Mac 15:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A sad stub

Just curious if you had seen Activism lately (no, this is not some bad joke or slight). It's amazing to me that this article is in such a trivial state considering the role Activism has played throughout history and its involvement in basically all controversies. Ocaasi (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could use some work, but it's not something I'd be interested in doing. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your question

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted revisions. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
Message added 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied to your comment at the Template:Weather box section; sorry it took me so long. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Taiwan boi/Esoglou RFC

Hi. I have a policy question. I'm contacting you because I saw that you're a member of the (defunct?) group WP:Policy patrol. (I've posted this question on two other editors' talk pages. One hasn't responded yet, and the other appears to be away at the moment.)

User:Taiwan boi has been drafting an RfC regarding User:Esoglou. I recently added an "outside view" to his draft. My outside view discussed the behavior not only of Esoglou but also of User:LoveMonkey, an editor who was also involved in the disputes that led Taiwan boi to draft the RfC. Taiwan boi removed the part of my comment that discusses LoveMonkey, saying that it violates WP:COAT.

I was under the impression that the behavior of any interested party is fair game for scrutiny once an RfC opens. That is how I interpreted WP:SHOT#There is no "immunity" for reporters (which, I realize, is not policy). So here's my question: To what extent may I bring up LoveMonkey's behavior in this RfC? I am happy to do whatever the appropriate thing is in this situation, but I need to know what that is.

Thanks in advance. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Please ignore my message. After talking with Taiwan boi, I have changed my mind about what I want to include in my RfC comment. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ping

please check your email.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well deserved!

{{Trout}}--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested

In this edit. Or not. Some people are more fussed about stuff like that than others. But thought you should know.[7].Bali ultimate (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

::SlimVirgin, may I please ask you to accept my apology for my inexcusable action that was pointed out by user:Bali ultimate? I do deserve to be blocked for this. May I please ask you to block me for as long as you believe I should be blocked for? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

An apology was issued because I believed you were hurt by my action. I see now you were not. A person, who is outed will not post the links to so called outing to a talk page watched by 265 users as you did here. When you outed me yesterday I emailed to oversighters and asked them to oversight the outing. Besides your post at Avi's talk page is a false ranting as I proved in my response. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You did bad!

Today you restored my talk page and my archive history that was deleted a year ago for a good reason. By doing this you restored personal attacks, like this one for example, harassment's posts, and a very personal and very painful information. What you did to me today was worse that any unfair block. Not only you yourself harassed me, but you opened a way for abusive socks of a banned user to harass me and to threat me with revealing even over-sighted comments. It was the post by the very same user, who posted the example I provided above. I cannot find any explanation for you actions,and besides you are involved in content dispute with me. Your action is even stranger because it is coming from the one, who had many of her own edits over-sighted, when you needed it. I used to respect you. I do not anymore. Do not worry I will not post anything to your talk page ever again.D: D8 D; D= DX --Mbz1 (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

RFPP

Could you please review the RFPP for Sylvester Stallone again? You mentioned that it was already protected, but the log does not show any protection since January 2010. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got 2010 and 2011 mixed up. :) It's done now, see RfPP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I had an inkling that that may be the case. Thank you for your help, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt and BLP

Could you please point to the reasoning why the sections on Talk:Carl Hewitt were removed. I really don't see a BLP violation in the penultimate additions by Calamitybrook. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, there was a recent discussion about it here on BLPN, where it was agreed it wasn't appropriate to discuss that issue in the BLP or on its talk page. I think Calamitybrook is engaged in boundary testing. If you want to discuss it, the best thing would be to raise it again in the same thread on the noticeboard. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Avanu

I was reviewing the unblock request on this page and wanted to follow up with you, as the blocking administrator. I reviewed the user's edits and don't see anything that warrants blocking. Many users come/return to Wikipedia after major events such as the Giffords shooting. I would like to unblock this account, but wanted to check with you first. Cheers! TNXMan 16:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Tnxman. I've replied there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of current communist states

Need advice. I want to revert back to the 03:28, 10 January 2011 version. If I did that, would I be killing your last two pp-semi-protected edits? Slightsmile (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you put the tag back, and all will be well. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

Minor point. [8] Unfortunately, AFD was not keep, it was "do not delete" - which left open keep or redirect merge for discussion elsewhere. I agree that there's no merge consensus on the talk page, but the AFD doesn't speak to that. As you know, I tried to keep the afd open so that the options of keep or direct could be discussed in one place with an uninvolved person calling the decision - but I failed, and someone closed it as "not delete" without prejudice to any other outcome. Messy. Very messy.--Scott Mac 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the AfD should have been allowed to run its course. You could try DRV, but I'm pretty sure the result would be to uphold the AfD decision. Best to let the merge discussion run its course and find someone experienced and uninvolved to close it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing technically wrong with the close. AFD is about deletion, and the article was never going to be deleted. The problem is that the closer missed the bigger picture and left people warring over the meaning of the AFD. Its the same old problem that "redirect" is practically the same as deletion, and yet in policy it is simply an edit like any other - and perfectly consistent with a keep decision in a deletion debate. It is, for many, counter-intuitive, and easily open to gaming.--Scott Mac 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but this has been a problem with AfD for years. AfD is to decide whether to retain the title; whatever content is on the page should not be decided at AfD. To say "redirect" at AfD means "keep". But we're whistling in the wind trying to point that out. And it's still the case that consensus about whether to redirect and merge can be picked up from an AfD debate, even though it's not meant to be about that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I laughed

I just wanted to let you know that this is the best redirect ever. Thank you for brightening my day. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It rarely gets used because it's longer than SYN. But I think we ought to start linking to it more. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I always thought the former Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin, had the best name --NSH001 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Good one. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Sock

Hey,

I'm messaging a few admins to see if I can get someone to look at this persistent sock issue. Think you could help? NickCT (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Referencing a book

Hi, and thank you for 'taking over'.

How can I get you this book to reference. It's driving me insane and I'd like to mail it to you, that way it can drive you insane.... ? It's the Spanish book of the history of Bambu and the the "bamboo'ers" which is basically a history book on cigarette paper making in Spain. I think of it as the book the Bambu brand wishes never existed :) Seriously though, can I send it to you since you're going to watch the articles in Question? Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks, I'm not editing the articles, and I don't understand Spanish anyway, sorry. You could post on the talk page what it says that's relevant to the date issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Left a warning about Bambu edits

Hello SlimVirgin. I left a warning for ArnaudMS since he once again restored a founding date of 1764 in List of oldest companies. This is what I warned him not to do before unless he could supply proper verification and get consensus. Since I see you've been sorting out the dispute at Bambu rolling papers in a helpful way, you can advise how to take this from here if you don't agree with my warning. In the meantime, Dougweller has undone ArnaudMS's edit. He states that a reliable third party source is needed, independent of the company. If I don't hear from anyone to the contrary, I think I will proceed with the block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And as his edit summary suggested that there was agreement on the talk page, which is the only way I can interpret "reverting back to proven date. see company talk page", I support a block. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Ed, I've just blocked Arnaud for 24 hours for sockpuppetry with Lostsociety (before I saw this post from you). There also seems to be a COI issue with Nahome, which I'm discussing with him on his talk page. Perhaps we should consider topic bans for all these accounts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I was just looking at the discussion at WP:COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If problems continue after Arnaud's block is over, a topic ban should be considered. I hope you would still allow both Arnaud and Nahome to participate on the talk page. Nahome has been busy looking for references, but then he extrapolates from them in an WP:OR way. I recommend restoring the semiprotection on Bambu rolling papers after the full protection expires due to the fishy editing by IPs and the possible socking. There is also a discussion thread at User talk:KrakatoaKatie#Bambu. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could discuss it further at WP:COIN#Rolling Paper, so everything's in one place. It seems there is a COI all round here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the ban discussion at WP:COIN#Rolling Paper. Consider making an entry in WP:Editing restrictions to simplify future enforcement. Some people may deny that a ban exists unless it is logged somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When are you planning on starting the discussion on reverting Nahome's taking bambu off the list of oldest companies. Which he was the catalyst for. Clearly discovered by you that works for a tobacco company. Proven Bambu did not get placed on there by someone with a COI. Can you start this discussion now?--ArnaudMS (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should let this issue calm down for a bit, Arnaud. When the situation has been calm for a while, I'll look at the articles in question, and I'll discuss with others whether there's anything that needs to be fixed. Please remember that you're topic-banned from commenting on this issue anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP/H

Hi. When directing a disgruntled article subject to this page just now, I was dismayed to find that you had replaced it by a redirect to a rather curt section of the policy. I strongly disagree with this; I was tempted to revert, but instead (after giving my "client" a link to the old version) I have stated my objection on the article talk page, and will invite comment at WP:BLP/N. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Monster High page

Hi,

I wanted to follow up with you on the Monster High page, since you were the one who gave it the two weeks' protection last time. In the time when it was protected from IP edits, there was basically no new information added, which was appropriate as there was no new info to be had. Also in that time, I went through and cleaned up a lot of the text of the article, which was then further tidied to winnow the article down to a reasonable amount of info. I personally think that edit was awesome and took away a lot of the extra bulk.

Well, now the protection is off, and the article is back to its usual state. People are adding in lots of superfluous detail, and the one rumored doll that will not go away is back. The next wave of products is coming soon so there's a lot of rumors and speculation, which will only get worse as the date gets closer. So, I was hoping you would have some advice...should I post to RPP again?

Thanks, Lhall (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I saw from comments above that you're vegan - me too! Hit me up if you ever come to Portland, Oregon as one of the reasons we moved here was easy access to lots of vegan restaurants. (Though Dallas, Texas had surprisingly many as well...) We visit London a couple of times a year to see my in-laws, too so I was glad to see those recommendations! It's oddly hard to find stuff that's vegan as opposed to vegetarian there.

Hi Lhall, I've extended the semi-protection for three months, which might gives things a chance to calm down. I agree about London, though when I was last there the supermarkets, at least, were getting better in that regard, if you didn't mind spending hours reading labels. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Decade :)

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Baseball Watcher ^{Lets Chat} has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 23:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How to protected a article in Wikepidia

I have read about the page of 2011 Pacific typhoon season, that is Semi-protected.I just wonna ask how to protected or semi protected a article of wikepidia.Can you please give me some procedure how to semi-protected a article.Thank you Dolor285 (talk)

Hi Dolor, you can request semi-protection at WP:RfPP. Just follow the instructions on that page, or copy how someone else has made a request. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RudolfVrba2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RudolfVrba2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Jared_Lee_Loughner_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop

Please stop edit warring and SlimVirgin and changing others' edits on a talk page. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Users and NPOV page

Hi, your input is requested on this thread. Cheers (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The Reader. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)