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 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Just an interesting blog post (EL)

Thought you'd find this interesting. I'm not in the field, so I don't know if this is old news. Link: [1] Ocaasi (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very interesting. One of my favourite quotations about this is from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique in 1764:

Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master, which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.

There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just when you think you're on the cusp of post-modernity, Voltaire goes and does it better than you 200 some years ago.
• I'm not unsympathetic to utilitarian arguments for animal research, if there's a case to be made. But I can't fathom people just ignoring or denying the experience of animals. Ocaasi (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly re: Voltaire. I agree about the latter too. I don't understand how someone can deny non-human animals feel pain. The idea that there's some sharp divide between humans and non-humans stems from religion, but what's confusing is that it's some scientists who continue to try to keep the divide intact, based on no evidence. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For me the most persuasive arguments are structural: that we have the same pain-feeling parts--and evolutionary: that pain is so f****ing awful I don't know how other organisms would have comparably survived without its torturous direction. What else says, no don't do that or you'll die like pain? Ocaasi (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Which scientists deny that animals feel pain? As far as I know, all federally funded animal research in the US needs explicit prior approval from an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (the animal equivalent of an IRB). That requirement is based on the recognition that animals are capable of feeling pain, among other things. MastCell ^Talk 01:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Rollin gives some examples. You could try his The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press, 1990. Have a look at chapters five and six, and for a couple of quick examples, see pages 114–118. Parts of it are visible on Amazon. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will check it out. By the way, the book appears to have been updated in 2010 to reflect "recent changes in thinking and practice in this fast-growing field." I'd be interested to see what has changed. I wouldn't pretend for a second that animal research ethics are simple - any more than human research ethics - nor that abuses have occurred and continue to occur in both human and animal research. But modern animal research is conducted under the assumption that animals can feel pain and suffer. Such research needs to be considered and justified with explicit reference to that potential for suffering, and IACUCs typically demand not only recognition of the idea that animals can suffer, but explicit plans to address, eliminate, or minimize that suffering. That's why I'm surprised to hear it asserted that scientists (or even a sizable minority of scientists) deny that animals can feel pain. MastCell ^Talk 07:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the blog entry that sparked this thread is that it ignores conscious awareness: in humans, if you are unaware of pain, through distraction, you don't suffer. If this last assertion is true, and it is a tenet of pain science, and supported by what little I've read about the philosophy of mind, then the author should add "conscious awareness" to the minimal requirements for feeling pain. As it is, the entry is discussing nociception not pain.

To be clear on my position, I oppose all nociceptive/painful research on animals where volunteer humans would suffice, and the remainder of experiments (if there are any) ought to be approved by one international ethics committee (to eliminate pointless or unnecessarily duplicated experiments). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you said, "we have the same pain-feeling parts". No, The IASP definition, which introduces Pain, uses "experience" implying "conscious awareness." If you don't experience pain, that is, if the pain is not in your conscious sensorium, it doesn't exist. Pain relies on consciousness. For example, if you can become distracted from pain, it doesn't exist. There seems to be a question mark over whether other creatures share this faculty, consciousness, and so, are able to suffer. I know nothing about this controversy. Can anyone recommend a good overview of the neuroscience, ethics and philosophy of mind of pain and suffering in non-human creatures?

MastCell, you said, "the recognition that animals are capable of feeling pain." Can you point me to a source for that recognition? I'm asking these questions because I think Pain#In_other_animals may need an update, and I'd like to find the best sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned one above, Anthony: The Unheeded Cry. It gives a good overview. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't get very far talking about pain that perhaps no one is conscious of; it's like discussions about whether a tree falling in an empty forest makes a sound. As a matter of fact, we judge whether non-human animals are in pain the same way we judge whether human beings are in pain—by observing pain behaviour. I can only assume other people are conscious because of the way they behave, because I can't read their minds, or even know whether they have minds. But because they behave like me, and I believe I'm conscious, I have reason to believe they're conscious too, whatever that means.

If we're doing something to an animal that we would expect to cause pain in ourselves, and if the animal moans, or screams, or tries to move away—as we would do—then we assume of the animal the same internal state that we assume of a human being exhibiting the same behaviour, because we have no reason not to. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've ordered a copy. I was hoping for something a bit more recent, particularly on the neuroscience of consciousness, but I'll do a search for that later. I agree. In our ignorance, we have to act as though other animals with nociception have consciousness and so can suffer, but that's not the same as "recognising" that they do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

More recently from the same author: Science and Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2006. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.8.6 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Allison

Hi Slimvirgin. Just wondered why you deleted the Hugh Allison article. I am quite a fan of the guy (and, I'm pretty sure it was me who created the article in the first place) and I wondered why the page was marked as "Spam". I'm just guessing, but could someone have replaced the article with spam, in which case can it be restored as an earlier draft?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, I've restored it so you can work on it. The reason it ended up on the spam list is that it's a cv rather than a biography, and it doesn't include any secondary sources that establish his notability. There's a mention of The Observer, but when you click on the link it goes to his website, and says nothing about The Observer. If you could work on it to remove some of the career details (or at least not include them in such a long list), and replace the primary sources with some secondary ones, that should save it from deletion in future. The bottom line is that a Wikipedia article shouldn't appear to be an extension of someone's personal website. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I'll work on it--TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Ebionites regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't recall ever being involved in that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:19, 22 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)

SV, what's really the difference here between your proposal and one that focuses on use of sources/WEIGHT? The latter kind of board would generate the same kind of effect. I'm not talking (and maybe I should have made that more clear) about RS/N. But rather one dedicated to scrutinizing users themselves relative to their pattern of violations of basic policy. So basically, instead of focusing on advocacy, we would determine if a range of other policies were broken on a user-focused basis. That's the same as an advocacy noticeboard, isn't it? Except that a large part of the focus is on whether the user tends to violate specific policy rather than that they are an "advocate." It's a matter of show rather than tell. It could even be called the same thing, but if you made clear that it merely examines evidence in a cool manner re content policy, it might get off the ground. Make clear it's a place for determining if content policy has been consistently broken and explaining to the user how to correct that. Am I totally off the wall here? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. If it's kept we could certainly shift the emphasis a little. That's the kind of issue I'm hoping would be worked out during the trial period. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the objection most people have, including me, is that it would turn into a witch hunt, as things here tend to do. So in any future attempt at something like this one would have to reassure on that point. Also, people wonder how it would be different from other boards. I'm quite interested in this, because I think a lot of disruption/advocacy comes about through the misuse of sources and weight. The other noticeboards don't focus on specific users and their general actions over many articles, except rudeness I guess. You're right that there is a need for that. But somehow it needs to focus not on a vague notion such as "advocacy" or "disruptiveness," but rather on concrete ways in which the user fails policy. I see all the time people on both sides of disputes misusing sources and WEIGHT. A place which focuses on particular users re these issues is very much needed and in fact might help the quality of the encyclopedia because people couldn't as easily get away with things. Look at the lead to the Jerusalem article and then notice that they seem to freely admit that the sources don't justify naming it unequivocally as Israel's capital. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your NPOV idea

I kind of like it but how about as a friendly semi-support group rather than something cold? Would spread the love a bit :) Egg Centric (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory, that's the best approach for sure. It won't work with all advocacy accounts, but it might work with people engaged in it inadvertently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User Conduct Noticeboard

Hi, I just wanted to point you to my remark at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution#Problems_with_RFC.2FU. Someone suggested a general User Conduct Noticeboard, and as I explained there, I think that's potentially an excellent idea. I really think the advocacy board is likely to be actually counter-productive; whereas such a board, with an appropriate emphasis on education and solving disputes, could actually serve the purpose the advocacy board is meant to, in terms of early warnings and stepping stone to RFC/U etc. (See my comments at the RFC for marginally better explanation.) What do you think? Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts spring to mind. (1) I'm wondering how a general user-conduct board would differ from AN/I, because that's basically what the latter is. And (2) my hope for an advocacy board is that it will help to sharpen our instincts—by being a dedicated venue with examples and debate—of when education crosses into advocacy, and how we can not only spot it in others, but also how we can spot it in ourselves, because it's often inadvertent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cough, well it doesn't seem you did go to the RFC/U to read my comment: A general "user conduct" noticeboard might be worth exploring, actually, if it was sufficiently distinguished from WP:ANI by not being framed as a demand for Admin Action Now. If it served as a general place for people to go and say "I have this-and-this problem with this user or group of users", without necessarily even needing to specifically diagnose or declare any breach of policy (if they just describe facts), that could help get more input for disputes that may be resolvable by focussing on content and some gentle education (often the poster as well, I'd guess). it would also help shift some of the stuff away from ANI which doesn't quite really belong there, but doesn't necessarily fit comfortably anywhere else. And your Point 2 seems, to be brutally blunt, Thought Police territory. I won't repeat myself any further on why the advocacy board is a terrible idea which will in fact be another instrument for determined advocates to use against others, particularly relative newcomers. You're basically giving everyone in a town guns, in order to deal with the crime rate - but ignoring the fact that it's the habitual criminals who know how to handle the guns. Rd232 ^talk 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The board I'm proposing is very specifically not intended to resolve particular content disputes, but to identify when a user's behavior has become problematic, in terms of advocacy, over a period of time or range of articles. I take your second point, but the fact remains that we do have an advocacy problem on Wikipedia, and it can be difficult to define and control. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"The board I'm proposing is very specifically not intended to resolve particular content disputes" ... yees, but conduct and content are always mixed up, and we're always (correctly) advising people to focus on content, not contributors (as far as possible). Besides which, what do you think the primary focus of my suggested "general User Conduct Noticeboard" is? Finally, such a board could certainly include discussion of advocacy when it arises, without forcing things to be framed this way when the issues are probably more complex. Rd232 ^talk 07:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks!

For the double-check at RFPP. Much appreciated.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 06:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Tomascastelazo

I've responded on my talk page. Spellcast (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi slimvirgin, I find your observations about my IP address curious and evidently as a result of my intervention in a vote. I just hope I am not being singled out or scrutinized because of that, for that would be discriminatory and intimidatory. My vote is consistent with my ideas in the topic. Whether or not I log in or participate in EW is inmaterial, and it does not mean I do not visit EW nor follow certain issues. Be sure that the IP issue had nothing to do with behaviour, violation of policies or anything of the like, but as result of technical issues beyond my control. As someone said, collateral damage over IP issues. It truly annoys me to be scrutinized in this manner, someone else already has done it, and having to deal with it a second time starts to feel... funny. I hope this is the end of this matter. Regards. --tomascastelazo (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sinai Band

Hi SV - regarding Sinai Band, what does "protect" the page mean? What i don't understand is I am the only one trying to ensure factually accurate content is posted on the site, while the band's management and PR company is trying to shape the article to show only what they want to be seen to use wikipedia as a promotional web source for the band, and not the factual truth. I have posted many links and articles, and they keep stripping them off the page and requesting references be deleted from these reference sites, which is ridiculous and black hat efforts. Why is no one else blocking them from the page and trying to protect the truth? --Garrettmarvel (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Garrett, I'll copy this to the article's talk page and reply there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sadads, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page

Except of course for those notifications you are required to make. Your factfree endeavour to make a content dispute into a conduct dispute - while conducting a revert-war - is evidence of terminal bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. Your recent post is a claim of ownership; more editors at the moment have disagreed with the poor phrasing you defend than have agreed with it - and nobody has defended the policy it would (taken literally) support. This is a dispute; and removing the tag which indicates it will be suppressio veri - as well as persistent revert-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your quotation is from another editor who has chosen to frame his content dispute with me as a conduct dispute; if you read further, you will find that he was more severely warned than I was.

You really should make up your mind before the RfC whether you regard the change from "include" to "assert" as making any substantial difference; you have now taken both positions. I don't insist upon any particular language - merely that the present ill-judged language be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've told you that was my last post; I ask that you bear it in mind going forward. If you're going to continue to respond, it would make more sense to do it on your own talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry SV. An over-eager touchpad was the culprit for that silly reversion. Sorry again. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I assumed that's what it was, and I've done it myself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, I was in the process of undoing my reversion but as I was writing an apology in the edit summary and tried to save you beat me to the punch. Embarrassing to say the least. Best regards. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

I have opened an SPI on one of the editors at Roger Scruton here. TFD (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jprw has edited logged out a few times, and the IPs he was using at those times weren't linked to the IPs linked to Yorkshirian, in case that helps. It's true that he was meatpuppeting for those IPs, but that's a separate issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I added some additions comments to the second nomination of protection for the Alan Keyes article. Please reviewed the newly added comments before archiving the second request. Thanks. Aaaccc (talk), 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see only one IP revert of the image since protection lifted. Also, I'm not clear why it's so important to retain the current image that swapping it would be seen as vandalism. The current one is almost certainly not freely licenced; there is no source or author information, and it was uploaded by a little used account. [2] The older one at least has an OTRS ticket. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The older photo is from the 80's during the time Keyes' was in the Reagan Administration the image has been thrown around in racist useage before and I believe the 2008 photo is of higher quality. The article content its self has also been subject to minor vandalism also by the IPs. Aaaccc (talk), 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The IPs are saying it's the current image that has been used inappropriately, and there's no indication the other one is from the 1980s. But the bottom line is that one has a release, and the other is of uncertain origin. That means removing the latter isn't vandalism and we can't semi-protect over it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help in this I let you know if there are any future issues. Aaaccc (talk), 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's on my watchlist in case the reverting starts up again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP

A presumption in favour of stability? Okey. Then your explantion of how text that moves towards a position that there has been wide and consistent community oposition to got added should be interesting.©Geni 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible good articles?

Hi, I recently read Jeremy Bamber and thought it was pretty good. I also thought I detected your signature style, and sure enough you've been a recent major contributor. I've re-rated it to B class. What do you think about getting the article to be a Good article? I think the section on the campaign for overturning the conviction might be a bit long, especially the last sub-section, thereby raising WP:UNDUE issues, but otherwise it seems pretty comprehensive and well written. Btw, there's an article on a strikingly similar case, David Bain, that you might be interested in. It is less polished but also quite good Fences&Windows 20:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had briefly wondered about taking it to FA status, but it would be a lot of work. I'm not familiar with the GA process these days, but I'd have no objection to trying. Certainly, it's a bit long (over 11,000 words), though I don't know whether it's best just to tighten it, or whether some of the material (e.g. the campaign) could be moved into a sub-article—or would it become a POV fork?

What's interesting about the case is the detail, but it's the detail that makes it long, so I'm not sure how best to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have managed to get an article to GA, so it's not that onerous! WP:GACR: Well written, accurate and verifiable, broad coverage and focussed, neutral, stable, illustrated. Fences&Windows 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Help:minor edit

not so minor. Rd232 ^talk 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP

No worries. It's better to have the policy pages patrolled too carefully rather than not carefully enough.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bradley

Again, your skillful, helpful, and indeed gracious edits to the Manning article are noted and most appreciated! --S. Rich (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. The feedback is appreciated too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link for an update to Carlos Vela

http://www.wba.co.uk/page/News/0,,10366~2279310,00.html