User talk:SlimVirgin: Difference between revisions
→Regan: new section |
|||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
:Hi Brian, I think it would be helpful if you were to add your voice to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_JSTOR_access#Question the discussion]. The ideal thing might be if Steven would allow one or more of us to join in his discussions with JSTOR. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
:Hi Brian, I think it would be helpful if you were to add your voice to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_JSTOR_access#Question the discussion]. The ideal thing might be if Steven would allow one or more of us to join in his discussions with JSTOR. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Regan == |
|||
Can you date [[:comons:File:TomRegan2.jpg|this Image]] of Tom Regan? It looks a little older then 2008 to me, don’t you think? [[:commons:File:Prof._Dr._Tom_Regan_2.jpg|Here’s one]] from 2006. --[[user:0g1o2i3k4e5n6|goiken]] 11:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Regan == |
== Regan == |
Revision as of 11:40, 28 August 2013
Flickr RFC again
Apologies for bringing this up again, but when you closed an RFC at Talk:Flickr you asked if the current wording was a compromise (it wasn't) and what issues remained, so that you could judge consensus - your (indirect?) response to the clarification was to suggest another RFC to vote on a possible wording, and you haven't responded since. Can I just check that "no consensus, hold another RfC" is your final, considered opinion on how the previous RfC should be resolved? I'll look into raising a straw-poll RFC if so. --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Only list when notable
I asked a question from User:Nymf, and he referred me to you. So let me please ask you.
I noticed in this edit that he removed the names of parents and children from a {{Infobox person}} because they are not independently notable. That condition is not listed on the documentation page. It does say for children, "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." bit 1. that is only a suggestion, and 2. only for children, not for parents.
In his reply he said that such is long-standing consensus, and referred to you. Can you please explain to me if indeed such is the consensus, and if it is, where was this discussed, and why this is not in the documentation. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just to jog the memory of SlimVirgin, since it has been a while ago, this is what I referred to when I deferred the question this way. As far as I can tell, the notability wording was there for over 5 years prior to the change. Nymf (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Mary Baker Eddy
Dear SlimVirgin, don't know if you saw my post on Mary Baker Eddy's talk page about morphine, but just want to make sure you're aware of it. Best regards, Bridge bendek (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Smithfield Foods
Hi SlimVirgin, If you're around and interested, the oft-debated Teitz article is under fire again at Smithfield Foods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Smithfield_Foods. I read you were quite heavily involved in the last go-round, so wanted to let you know in case you wanted to jump back into the ring with me. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Beat me to it. a13ean (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
BP
Hi, SlimVirgin. There is a discussion how to move forward with the DWH section of the BP article. Do you agree to take the role of informal mediator? Or maybe you could propose some other non-involved editor who could do this? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, SlimVirgin. As you have not answered this request, I suppose you are not want to deal with this issue any more. If so, it is sad but I can understand the reasons. I would like to say that although we had some different opinions, your facilitation helped to improve the atmosphere on the article's talk page and created a hope that the issue would be resolved. I still hope you may reconsider. Anyway, thank you for your work. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that we added our comments simultaneously. Yes, I think that formal mediation could be an option and I agree that it should be focused on DWH subsection only. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Death of Keith Blakelock
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Death of Keith Blakelock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of GregJackP -- GregJackP (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Death of Keith Blakelock
The article Death of Keith Blakelock you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock for things which need to be addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
FJ noticed it today and started tweeting about it an hour ago. Hence the influx of vandals. Hugs DracoE 23:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thank you, and it's lovely to see your name again here. I wondered what had sparked the sudden interest. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you know me. Never able to resist a nice hornet's nest. ;) You sure got yourself a good one there, lovely. And that hashtag is trending. Question is, protect the article or sit back and enjoy the lolz? DracoE 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Jayen has filed an RfPP, so hopefully the cavalry will arrive soon. I'm a bit reluctant to do it myself given that I created it. But hey, we're trending on Twitter! SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a fine article by @brokeymcpoverty about the appropriation of black twitter by sites like Gawker. Like I said, it's a hornet's nest. DracoE 00:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Re this edit, undoing an addition made by Daniel Case a few weeks ago, note [1], [2] and other recent tweets by him. I guess it's a problem with snippet quotes, and the context coming off differently than originally intended. Best, Andreas JN466 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Probably best to leave it out if the context isn't clear. I've removed the sentences about the Rachel Jeantel criticism too, to be on the safe side; will look at it again when I have more time. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Echoing the general sentiment of DE's section header, I had occasion to read Night (book) the other day. As I went through the page, it became clear to me you had written it, even before I checked the contributions history. Thanks for that article. Andreas JN466 03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's a very nice thing to say, thank you! (assuming you didn't mean you recognized it by its awfulness). :) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Slim, I'd love to ask you a few questions about your Black Twitter page. Is there a way to contact?--@thewayoftheid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:1580:65:B062:DC3:F1E8:75CF (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't know whether you'll see this, but you're welcome to email me. I'll leave a note on your talk page too. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Death of Keith Blakelock
The article Death of Keith Blakelock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock for comments about the article. Well done! GregJackP Boomer! 23:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
VE usage 9% but only 1-per-100 new articles
Just FYI. I sampled 20,000-30,000 article-edit entries daily last week, and confirmed that wp:VisualEditor is only used for 9% of edits, while 91% use either the wikitext source editor, AWB, wp:ProveIt, wp:Page_Curator, etc. Almost no one is writing new articles with VE, as only 1 page per 100 new articles. So, despite forcing the "Edit" button to demand VE for JavaScript browsers in July, few people are "drinking the VE Kool-Aid" (80% of RfC survey said shutdown VE as Opt-in only). Even the new usernames instead run the wikitext editor for 65% of edits. (Looks like the users might also be smart enough to write encyclopedia articles or something!) Meanwhile, overall IP edits remain about 27%-28% of total edits, and the pattern of editor-activity levels seems unharmed by the attempted VE coup, although several people have complained of losing entire large edits when VE cratered. I will re-attempt to focus on fixing the simple edit-conflicts, which is crucial for multiple people editing the same paragraphs/lists, but it has been difficult to get attention for fixing the important problems, when the focus has shifted to mobile-device editing, as if the world has been waiting to write an encyclopedia entry between tweets. It's not just WMF people. For decades, many computer people have been distracted in similar ways, tinkering with the latest computer toys, rather than focus on major needs of the users, and a software manager must skillfully direct developers to fix important issues. But it is always easier to scrawl a new painting than to carefully restore or reframe a masterwork. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
BradleyChelsea Manning
What would you think about semi-protecting the article for a few hours? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good grief: my internet connection went out until this morning, and what a surprise I find. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking, "I'm glad that flurry of changes has died down." I thought too soon! :) SlimVirgin (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder what your view is on the name change Slim Virgin, beyond the edit war itself, what is your opinion?--Mark 21:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Mark, I support the name change. This came up a while ago on the talk page and elsewhere, when newspapers first reported that Manning had named herself Breanna. Some people wanted to move the article then, but it was resisted because she hadn't made a public statement about it. My position was that as soon as she made a public name change, the title should be moved. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. That is my view as well. I didn't see the public statement that recently came out until just the other day, but remember around the time I removed myself from the GA review for personal reasons that this became an issue and that I had reverted the content because there was as yet to be any such comments from the subject. As long as it is very clear that this comes from the subject (and it appears to be) we should accept the name change now. Thanks again for you comments.--Mark 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I remember that. I wondered at the time what had caused the problem, but I didn't want to ask. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not that big a deal really. I sent you an e-mail explaining.--Mark 19:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I remember that. I wondered at the time what had caused the problem, but I didn't want to ask. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. That is my view as well. I didn't see the public statement that recently came out until just the other day, but remember around the time I removed myself from the GA review for personal reasons that this became an issue and that I had reverted the content because there was as yet to be any such comments from the subject. As long as it is very clear that this comes from the subject (and it appears to be) we should accept the name change now. Thanks again for you comments.--Mark 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Mark, I support the name change. This came up a while ago on the talk page and elsewhere, when newspapers first reported that Manning had named herself Breanna. Some people wanted to move the article then, but it was resisted because she hadn't made a public statement about it. My position was that as soon as she made a public name change, the title should be moved. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder what your view is on the name change Slim Virgin, beyond the edit war itself, what is your opinion?--Mark 21:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking, "I'm glad that flurry of changes has died down." I thought too soon! :) SlimVirgin (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good grief: my internet connection went out until this morning, and what a surprise I find. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Somebody has a question on full protection you did for Asian Fox Developments
Hi. Somebody wanted to re-create Asian Fox Developments which I had deleted some time ago. They came back saying it was fully protected. I searched and found it was (by you) and the reasons which I explained in my Talk page: User_talk:Alexf#Hello_Alexf.21. Wanted to give you a heads up. -- Alexf(talk) 21:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello SlimVirgin!
Hello SlimVirgin, as you are administrator I just wanted to know if I can create article on this topic or not? Your comment on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexf#Hello_Alexf.21 Benjohnson61 (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ben, I've responded on Alex's talk page. You can reply there; I'll look out for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello SlimVirgin, Actually as you are administator, so that's why I have added this to your talk page. Benjohnson61 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello SlimVirgin, I actually wanted to work on real page article, if you can remove protection. So I can work on real page. Thanks Benjohnson61 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ben, that's not possible as the article subject was protected from creation for a reason. Follow her directions and create it in your sandbox, then tell us when you think it is ready, we'll check it, and if it complies with policy, we'll move it to mainspace for you. -- Alexf(talk) 11:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Alexf, thanks for your reply. I'll definitely try with this article if I can and after creating it I will write on your tall page to inform you. Thanks to SlimVirgin and Alexf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjohnson61 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The Labiaplasty quarrel: a reply to your request in the labiaplasty talk page.
Hello, Slimvirgin,
Per your "Welcome" sign, I have come to your page to speak with you, because in the Labiaplasty Talk Page your friends intervened, and we could not communicate clearly. My reply to you follows this copy of your correspondence with me. Please, let us communicate directly, without intermediaries. I want to specifically discuss with you the corrections that Flyer22 noted about your censorship and pov-pushing violations of Wikipedia policies, regarding the Labiaplasty article, so that you and I can agree upon the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs) ---
- Hi Otto, I've replied to you on Talk:Labiaplasty. If we keep the discussion there, it means others can join in. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Hi Otto, would you mind discussing your proposed edits here on talk first? There seems to be a significant COI, and people have expressed concern about it a few times on WikiProject Medicine; for example, see 18 June 2009, 6 November 2011, 27 January 2013, and 8 August 2013. Also see this section of the COI guideline, which says that anyone with a financial connection to a topic should use the talk page to suggest edits, or the {{request edit}} template. That apart, your edits seem to violate some of our polices. Removal of the risks and the comment from Linda Cardozo is arguably a violation of Neutral point of view and WP:LEAD. Rewriting the criticism section to add your own opinions violates No original research. Some of the material you're adding is unsourced, violating Verifiability. Other sections are sourced to primary sources, in violation of WP:MEDRS, which is our sourcing guideline for medical articles; it says we should mostly rely on secondary sources such as review articles. You're also adding distinctive formatting. For all these reasons, I'd appreciate it if you would post your proposals here on talk, together with the sources, so that they can be discussed before adding them to the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Reply to Slimvirgin and cohort: Your POV-pushing version, and your censorship of the legitimate medical photographs, already were factually countered by the Adminstrator Flyer22. So, you, Slimvirgin, a Wikipedia Administrator, and your cohort, are obliged to follow the rules that you ask me to follow, that is, you must prove your accusations, because the word "seems" indicates your doubts about what you claim is wrong with the article. For two years, you have deliberately vandalized the article, and used the sources to push a pov that does not match the reality, either medical, clinical, or sociological, about this subject. In fact, your censorship and page-owner behavior were the subject of the January 2013 discussion that Flyer22 had with you and your fellow editors, in which she informed you that you are in the wrong in CENSORING the article, because you just don't like it. That is why we are quarreling. Everything I have contributed is true to the sources, after all, this is an article about an elective medical procedure, not about the sociology of Labiaplasty, which is the pov-pushing you have been doing for two years. So, let us meet half-way, and you begin the dialogue, by showing the specific sections, subsections, and sentences that are factually untrue. Playing games is conduct unbecoming a Wikipedia Administrator, the ethical onus is upon you, because it is you, Slimvirgin and cohort, who disagree with the medical facts of a medical article. The sources are listed, please explain where the article does not correspond to the facts cited. Come, let us begin. Otto Placik (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Otto, one more revert and you may shortly find yourself the subject of a discussion at AN/I. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it should be clear to you by now that your unilateral changes do not have consensus. Regards, Andreas JN466 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Now raised at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Otto_Placik_editing_plastic_surgery_articles. Best, Andreas JN466 06:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I have an editor on this page that has placed in some non neutral wording to replace what you had put in place tried reverting with the problem stated in the edit summary with this as a reaction: "Thank you for stating what you objected to although I do disagree" This gives no reason whatsoever on the person's position but I do not want to revert further to break 3RR what should I do? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I've reverted and left a note on his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay and thanks, I have joined in the discussion on the user's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Global renaming already as Chelsea
Just FYI. As you know, the rename as "Chelsea Manning" has occurred on several wikipedias, even though others are using a redirect instead (such as on French WP, German, Italian, Norwegian). The order of renaming, during 22–23 August 2013, for 8 languages has been as follows:
- English Wikipedia rename (redone 5 times?):
- (cur | prev) 12:18, 22 August 2013 Morwen (talk | contribs) m . . (105,110 bytes) (0) . . (Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: per [3], we need to do a bit of a copyedit on this!)
- Swedish Wikipedia rename:
- (nuvarande | föregående) 22 augusti 2013 kl. 15.29 Riggwelter (Diskussion | Bidrag) m . . (2 158 byte) (0) . . (Riggwelter flyttade sidan Bradley Manning till Chelsea Manning) (gör ogjord)
- Persian Wikipedia rename:
- at 17:09, 22 August 2013 ("۲۲ اوت ۲۰۱۳، ساعت ۱۷:۰۹")
- (فعلی | قبلی) ۲۲ اوت ۲۰۱۳، ساعت ۱۷:۰۹ Ladsgroup (بحث | مشارکتها) جز . . (۱۰٬۵۶۴ بایت) (۰) . . (Ladsgroup صفحهٔ بردلی منینگ را به چلسی منینگ منتقل کرد: تغییر جنسیت را آغاز کرده) (خنثیسازی)
- Turkish Wikipedia rename:
- (fark | son) 18:28, 22 Ağustos 2013 Ibrahim Dede (Mesaj | Katkılar) k . . (3.497 bayt) (0) . . (Ibrahim Dede Bradley Manning sayfasını Chelsea Manning sayfasına taşıdı: İsim değişikliği yapmıştır. Diğer vikilerde de madde taşınmıştır.) (Geri al) [otomatik olarak kontrol edildi]
- Dutch Wikipedia rename:
- (huidig | vorige) 23 aug 2013 01:40 RonnieV (Overleg | bijdragen) k . . (11.587 bytes) (0) . . (RonnieV heeft de pagina Bradley Manning naar Chelsea Manning hernoemd: www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/22/bradley_manning_chelsea_manning_wikileaker_s_lawyer_tells_today_show_that.html, nu.nl/buitenland/3556475/bradley-manning-wil-begin...) (ongedaan maken)
- Danish Wikipedia rename:
- (nuværende | forrige) 23. aug 2013, 01:59 da:Bruger:PalnatokePalnatoke (diskussion | bidrag) m . . (4.466 bytes) (0) . . (Palnatoke flyttede siden Bradley Manning til Chelsea Manning: nyt navn) (fjern redigering)
- Catalan Wikipedia rename:
- (act | prev) 07:31, 23 ago 2013 Jorsape (Discussió | contribucions) m . . (7.811 octets) (0) . . (Jorsape ha mogut Bradley Manning a Chelsea Manning: Reassignació de sexe) (desfés)
- Finnish Wikipedia rename:
- (nyk. | edell.) 23. elokuuta 2013 kello 11.22 Elena (keskustelu | muokkaukset) p . . (2 251 tavua) (0) . . (Elena siirsi sivun Bradley Manning uudelle nimelle Chelsea Manning: vaihtanut nimensä) (kumoa)
The Persian WP (Farsi) page was renamed 3rd (as "چلسی منینگ" - "Chelsea Manning"), but the Arabic title has not been renamed yet. I cannot read Hebrew, and I have not translated that to see if the page there has been renamed yet. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's all very interesting. Thanks for letting me know, Wikid. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Full protection expired
Hey the full protection for Manning's article expired I still think this could create problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it has, and I agree. I've asked the admin who added the full protection to restore the prior semi-protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
JSTOR
Thanks for pinging me. My concerns are several: first, that editors face automatic loss of JSTOR access after a year, regardless of the use they are making of it; second, that some editors in the "lucky 100" are sitting on their accounts making little or no use of the facility; third, that deserving editors presently outside the "lucky 100" should have the opportunity to acquire access; fourth, that negotiations should be extended to other paywalls. I am worried about the apparent lack of a guiding hand; Steve seems no more informed on these issues than when I raised them earlier in the summer, and the clock is ticking away. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Brian, I think it would be helpful if you were to add your voice to the discussion. The ideal thing might be if Steven would allow one or more of us to join in his discussions with JSTOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Regan
Can you date this Image of Tom Regan? It looks a little older then 2008 to me, don’t you think? Here’s one from 2006. --goiken 11:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)