Jump to content

User talk:SlimVirgin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caleb Murdock (talk | contribs) at 02:02, 18 April 2010 (→‎Syn vio?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Proposal to replace current alt-text guidance

I would very much appreciate your comments on the proposal here. Regards, Colin°Talk 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music audit update and wikibreak

WT:MOS#Group: Music contains links to my appraisals of the main Music MoS's (Update 3). If you get a chance, could you review them? Have posted to Tony, also. I am going to be on Wikibreak for a few days: could also you make sure the others are aware. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 01:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Myth

Thanks. I'm keeping a low profile there as I have always hoped for other input. I feel that this article has become the pet project of one editor to debunk the myth on a high profile google page, but know I would be accused of bias. Maybe they would be right so it is really interesting to see what others think. Sophia ♫ 07:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Martin book on my shelf if you need any more info from it. Your experience in difficult environments is SO welcome here :o) 09:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)~~

CC RFC thank

SV, your work on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church was exemplary, and hopefully key in helping to avoid a repeat trip to ArbCom or Mediation. You stayed studiously neutral, helpful, and your feedback throughout and summary were excellent. The RFC was conducted in a way that left clear conclusions, and hopefully the long-needed article work will get underway now. It's sad to see the extent to which Wiki is dying, and that so few admins are willing to take on a task like this; it was a relief to see an editor who has experience with articles that attract POV editing take on this task. Having observed that article for more than two years now, I'd like to be optimistic and hope that your adminning won't come under fire, but history tells me that it probably will-- well, if someone eventually accuses you of being part of "Sandy's and Karanacs' FAC cabal", I'll let you answer :) Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Unitarian Bahaism#New Sources

There's a discussion in the above thread about how to appropriately use self-published sources. Baha'i is a fairly new religion, and when it comes to discussions about small minority sects there's very few "reliable sources" except self-published and blogs. The quality of these sources seems good, but the medium in which they are published is unacceptable by guidelines. I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor and offer an opinoin on how to reach a compromise on this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syn vio?

Please explain these deletions of the content approved in two RfCs:

Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that webpage, it's a little problematic—its use seems to be causing a lot of dissent, so it's best avoided—and it didn't mention Jane Roberts (see WP:SYN). SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dissent comes primarily from two editors (Hans Adler and Ludwigs2) who lost the two RfCs. They tried hard to defeat them and their arguments (which you seem to be accepting as valid) were repeatedly debunked, yet they continue to repeat them as if they were valid reasons for rejecting the source and statement. There was an overwhelming majority of editors, including several admins and at least one ArbCom member who supported the RfCs. They explicitly dealt with the validity of the source, the exact wording, and whether the statement represented the scientific consensus. On all three points there was support. Most of the dissenters were known pushers of fringe POV (who don't like the word "pseudoscience"), or editors who had obviously not read the source, or who didn't understand the RfC, or who used their personal opinions rather than policy to make their decision. Fortunately they were a small minority. The personal attacks by Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 and their continued refusal to abide by those consensus decisions has been pretty nasty and disruptive. Ludwigs2 was blocked once, but unblocked because he agreed to not edit the Ghost article. You are unwittingly supporting them in their disruption.
As far as any purported SYN violation, it didn't mention Jane Roberts, but she claims to be a channeler, and the statement mentions channeling. That's as clear a connection as can be made. There is thus no SYN violation. As a fringe subject the mainstream POV must be included and have prominence. While it's not getting prominence by this mere mention, it should at least remain. I suggest you revert your deletion and stop encouraging and supporting these two tendentious editors. You are going against the clear consensus in two RfCs. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding SYN, the Roberts thing is classic violation. Imagine I write an article about you—"BullRangifer is a history teacher in Birmingham, Alabama, who won the World Chess Chamionship in 2010. In his spare time he plays ping pong. Ping pong was identified by a 2007 Gallop Poll as the game most likely to be played by men who beat their wives, in the opinion of 73 percent of respondents." As clear an example of SYN as you could find.
As for the source in general, it's a webpage with no byline, it's oddly written, and it looks like a press release. It also doesn't mean anything to say that walking under ladders is pseudoscience. Is thinking a black cat brings me luck (or is it bad luck) a bad form of science? Just because something has a source doesn't mean we're obliged to force it into articles.
Sorry for disagreeing, but I just don't see that it makes any sense. If what the source is saying is uncontentious, there must be better sources out there saying it too, so the best thing would be to use some of them instead; preferably several sources if the issue might be challenged (except for the SYN violations, which should be avoided no matter how many sources there are). SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! What have you been drinking? You seem to be thinking strictly in straw man arguments today, both here and elsewhere. You've obviously not done your homework: read the two RfCs, read the sources, find out that the members of the National Science Board take full responsibility for the SEI reports, that they undergo peer review, that they are prepared bienally for the President and Congress. My god, do you have any idea what you've been saying? It just doesn't make any sense. Please, next time you don't know anything about a subject (in this case a disruptive conflict maintained by two defenders of fringe POV who lost two RfCs), don't say anything so that we won't know. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been drinking some lovely herbal tea, actually. Perhaps I ought to check out what they put in these things nowadays. :) The second (current) RfC is going against your position, is it not—that the topic should not be described as pseudoscience—or am I reading it wrongly? SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're reading it wrongly or if you're reading me wrongly! Whatever my POV about what is or is not pseudoscience, that is really completely irrelevant to the matter at hand since I'm not defending a POV, but the use of a source to quote the source in an NPOV manner. I haven't been following that RfC because (TTBOMK) it doesn't directly relate to this matter. This matter is about using a very notable source from a top US scientific body to document that the NSF said what they said. Whether editors think it's true or not is immaterial per "verifiability, not truth". Note that there are very divided opinions on that, with the majority in the RfCs, and still Gwen Gale, believing it is a RS for making such a statement. That is unchanged. It's about an attributed opinion, not about making a definitive claim that "blabla" is pseudoscience. Progressing from using that opinion to make a direct and unattributed claim in the article (which I haven't done), to adding the article to the pseudoscience category (which I have done in some cases), are very different matters that require the use of other policies (not just the NSF statement), most notably the Psi ArbCom ruling about how we deal with and categorize pseudoscience and its corollary in the NPOV policy (since moved to FRINGE). My RfCs didn't deal with that question, but my addition of certain articles to the Psi category was based on those other policies. In some cases the articles were already in the categories, and in other cases other editors did it. I haven't edit warred over any of this. Since I haven't followed that RfC I may be missing something in my reply, so just ask. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To SlimVirgin: I'm curious about something: Why are some people trying to classify psychic phenomena as pseudo-science at all? Doesn't it have more in common with religion? All religions begin with inspired (some would say psychic) events, yet no one is trying to classify the religions as pseudo-science.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one?

Brangifer (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnan harassing another user

Hi there, sorry if this is a bit abrupt but I need your assistance on a particular matter as a senior on wikipedia. I understand that you tried to mediate between [User:Tanlipkee|Tanlipkee]] and Ahnan in the past [[1]] when their conflict escalated to outside the confines of wikipedia. There was no resolution to that case (unless one counts [User:Tanlipkee|Tanlipkee]] quiting Wikipedia), but Ahnan is similarly harassing another editor now off-wiki again. I reported this to the Admin notice board, but as this is the 1st time I'm attempting something like this I'd like your advice if I'm going about this right.

The following is the link to the notice made [[2]].

I had similarly asked for a hand from Bielle and was referred to you as you similarly had some experience in dealing with the particular editor. Is there someway I can improve on this? I know I'm actually putting myself in for my turn at being harassed for outing Ahnan but I think this really requires some special attention. Hope you can help me out in controlling this unnecessary harassment on Wiki editors. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Zhanzhao (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

bene bene benedict

Thanks for the protection... I was thinking about protecting the page as well (or having somebody else do so.) This edit warring is getting ridiculous.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I was wondering whether I'd protected it too late to be of use, because the last edit was a few hours ago, but I've left a note on talk in case it's all settled already. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been too late... it was actually a few hours ago that I was thinking about it... but I've since become involved with the article so put it on the back burner.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
Your hard work and even hand on the Catholic Church RfC were instrumental in its success. It was a pleasure working with you. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan

Eventually, I too thought I was adding too much. The connection is the surname, and the additions were simply a means of presenting more information on bearers of the name, some of whom may be related. Also to give the articles more links. Fergananim (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll go back and delete a good few of them. Fergananim (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alrightythen! Fergananim (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for policy Studies 3rr violation

I would like to point out that fellytone clearily violated the 3rr on this article. I reported him on the noticeboard, but I was declined because I didn't format the entry right. I tried it a second time, but I still don't have the formatting right because I don't know how to link to the each revert. Can you help get my entry on the noticeboard properly formatted. I believe fellytone deserves to be banned, not just for his 3rr violation, but for his insulting tone.annoynmous 06:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original editor of the Institute for Policy Studies. Why am I blocked by user annonymous is not and why is the article reverted back to its original state after the additions I have made. Fellytone (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

There was a request at WP:RFPP to semi protect the article and unprotect the talk page. I have semi'ed the article for a week, but I don't want to undo the protection on the talk page until I check in with you. Thoughts? -- Flyguy649 talk 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP (#2)

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removal of PROD from Bob Glaub

Hello SlimVirgin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Bob Glaub has been removed. It was removed by Dave Golland with the following edit summary '(Added references and removed deletion tag.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dave Golland before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&oldid=356705355"