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 08:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

File:Animalibrí.gif

RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion? Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV.

France national team

You protected the article with the incorrect numbers. The user posted the incorrect numbers just before you fully protected the page. No I can't change them. Joao10Siamun (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are they actually wrong, John, or is this a difference of opinion? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually discussed at WT:FOOTY. On 24 May, the FFF sent in the current official numbers to FIFA that the players will wear at the World Cup sourced here. However, in the ensuring two friendly matches, a couple of players wore numbers that contradicts the official FFF source such as Anelka and Ribery wearing 22 and 39. Regarding Anelka, players are only allowed to wear numbers 1–23 in official competition. My stance is keep the official numbers the FFF initially sent to FIFA until there is official mention that the numbers have been change. Jafdfm's stance is change the numbers to the currently unofficial numbers being worn in the friendlies without any confirmation other than the numbers are being worn in friendlies, which are currently posted. There is no difference of opinion. I told the user to just wait until it is announced that the numbers in the friendlies are official then change them. Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin protects an article, we have to protect on the version we encounter. There are circumstances in which we can revert to another version, such as vandalism, a BLP violation, 3RR violation, or something that's clearly incorrect or inappropriate. What you're describing here seems to be a difference of opinion, so I don't feel I can revert. What I'd suggest to settle the dispute is that you find secondary sources that have discussed the issue e.g. recent newspaper articles about the team. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I dislike encountering such situations on Wikipedia because it takes too long to get to the point.Listen, there is no difference in opinion in this case because as of right now, I am correct and the other user is incorrect. By the World Cup, the numbers could be changed to the numbers the user have posted, but as of today, the numbers are wrong. That's why I constantly told him to wait. I posted the source with the current official numbers that should be posted on the page. There has been no official announcement of the numbers changing. How is it a difference of opinion? Not to mention the user gave Anelka #19 on the basis of that's what he thinks Anelka will wear at the World Cup. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it offline...

Hi Slim. People on the CC are, unsurprisingly, skittish because of a long on- and off-wiki campaign (of which Solomon is a part) to derail the climate change articles. It is a minefield. But one way of handling a minefield is to step carefully. Unfortunately, you have not done so. In this particular case, you attack William, while making unfounded claims about Solomon, who has viciously and wrongly attacked him in his column. William's alleged COI has been discussed and dismissed at WP:COIN before. If we allow any public figure to create a COI by writing about a Wikipedia editor, WP:NPOV goes out of the window. And I take exception to the "always involved in snark or insults" part. What happened to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? More constructively, I suggest we collapse everything from your comment on 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) to Guettarda's made 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC). It's off-topic for the talk page. Do you agree? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC clearly has a COI in relation to that article, regardless of who has decided he does not. The only body able to make that ruling would be the ArbCom, but I'm guessing that any sensible group of uninvolved Wikipedians would conclude that he has a COI. As for Solomon, the only thing I said about him is that he had made no effort to edit William Connolley (at least, there's nothing to suggest he has), unlike Connolley trying to edit Solomon's BLP.

I don't agree that this is off-topic for the talk page, and I'd prefer to discuss it there, if more needs to be said. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are wrong. It does not help us to improve the article. But as you wish. I'm off to bed. But let me repeat: What happened to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're saying I'm wrong about. The problem with COI is that the issues related to the contributor and issues related to the content can't be separated, because they infect each other. That's one of the reasons COI should be avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to your "always involved in snark or insults" snark. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I see it, Stephan. It's always WMC, KimDabelsteinPetersen, Guettarda, and you. A discussion involving one often means the other three arrive (for the most recent example, see Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Coffee merchandising), and the exchanges are rarely constructive and civil. They usually deteriorate instantly into snark, attacks, and lots of ums and nopes and ughs. I'm sorry to be so frank, but that's my honest perception. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I think your perception on this is largely correct, and many would chime in to agree. However, I would like to note that in my opinion Stephan is also correct to allege that there has been a lengthy "on- and off-wiki campaign" to discredit WMC (and other editors like him) and derail the climate articles. But, WMC is not doing himself or his cause any favors with his bad behavior, and it is true that there is a large clique of editors engaging in battleground tactics due to this entrenched conflict. Sadly, the only way to break this pattern is to discipline both sides. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the onwiki dispute reflects the offwiki one. I read someone today, possibly Lawrence Solomon, arguing that science relies on the free flow of ideas and that there's a perception that it's absent in the real-world CC dispute, which is partly why people are having difficulty trusting the science. I don't know whether that's true, but it seems clear that it's absent onwiki, where anyone who's not on-message is attacked. I don't know whether that's happening on both sides. So far I've seen it only on one side, though my experience of those articles is limited. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, no matter how you see it, WP:NPA still applies. Secondly, I've been editing these articles for several years, and I have most of them on my watchlist. I assume that is the same for WMC, Kim, and Guettarda. Thirdly "disagrees with me" is different from "snark or insult". I don't think I've made any comment on you. In this instance, I have commented on one of your claims. Fourthly, "polite and constructive" is different from "I get my way". To be honest (and this is a comment on you, hopefully polite and constructive), I've not seen you defend many of your contentious edits with substantial arguments on the subject. Instead, you complain about the hostile climate and request enforcement against other contributors. I find that deeply offensive and unconstructive. Having a pleasant editing environment is desirable. But having correct content is a sine qua non, at least for me. In contentious areas, the best mechanism we have for that, short of assigning competent censors, is open debate. Here is a deal: I try to refrain from "ums and ughs" (sorry, I need my "nope"s) if you start to argue the substance instead of the persons. In fact, I'll give you my half upfront (feel free to buzz me on my talk page if one slips by, and I'll refactor). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's the problem. You personalise things. When I pointed out that your edits to Singer were plagiarism, you simply attacked me. It wasn't until several other editors weighed in, that you desisted. You can't dismiss people just because they disagree with you. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you, and my edits were not plagiarism. This is the kind of smearing I'm talking about. The minute someone disagrees with this small group, the knives are out. It's not just opposition or constructive criticism, which is expected. It goes way beyond that, and it happens instantly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, how is it "personalizing things" to observe the lack of a civil, constructive, and welcoming editing environment? After all, Guettarda, I'm on your side on this topic, yet I agree with SV's observations and experiences. Coming here to make further accusations against her only proves her point. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while you and other climate editors might only have the best interests of the articles in mind, the working relationships between editors is what makes this place function. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, I found WP:GANG interesting reading. Where it falls short is in dealing with the situation where there isn't actually a tag team, it just looks like there is one. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I learn your thoughts on WP:SINGLEEVENT?

I created a page for İbrahim Bilgen who was a Turkish politician, a founder of the main opposition party (Virtue Party), he joined Felicity Party after Virtue Party was banned. He was a candidate for Siirt (population :250000) mayor, but he was not elected. He was also a candidate for Parliament in 2007 and he was not elected. In Wikipedia, there are pages for elected Turkish mayors, like Hüseyin Kalkan, Cemil Şeboy. I think that many of Turkish politicians including non-elected politicians do not have pages, as there are not many Turkish Wikipedia editors. There are pages like Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, Ben Konop in the Wikipedia, so I think we can create pages for non-elected Turkish politicians. Since he was one of the activists died in MV Marmara ship, the other editors say that by WP:SINGLEEVENT, the article should be deleted. Besides the events at the ship, he is a renowned politician in Siirt. What do you think? Kavas (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kavas, I'm not familiar with the background. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN3

FYI [1] - I blocked the user based on a WP:AN3 report before I saw your note there. If you reach an understanding with the user and want to unblock, please feel free. --B (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.
Message added 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France national football team

You have frozen an inaccurate version of the page. France is currently ranked 9 by FIFA, and this needs to be changed in the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection expires shortly, Kevin, so you'll be able to fix it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected early so you can sort it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria shootings

Hi Slim, Why did you SP Cumbria shootings? There's little or no vandalism and there's been good IP contributions. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB, there was a request on RfPP because there had been some problematic IP editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Slim. Looking at it and there'd been no more than a couple of ip vandal attacks. In fact there'd been some account editor vandalism reverted by IPs. I think the requestor was asking for protection simply as a precautionary measure, whic I believe is not policy. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on RfPP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBSKIDS

Hello SlimVirgin, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

Daniel Razon

Hi, SlimVirgin. Sun Star is a reputable media company that publishes regional newspapers in Bacolod, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Cebu, Davao, Dumaguete, General Santos, Iloilo, Manila, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Zamboanga. The website mirrors the printed version. However, I do agree with your reversion, because an article that has nothing but information on a person's persona non grata status in his hometown is a sight for sore eyes. I will try to add more content to the article in the near future. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Razon article...again

Hi SlimVirgin, I've added both Daniel Razon's Broadcast Career and his alleged "Persona non Grata" status. Kindly click this for my revision and check if it is okay for you. Thanks a lot!IronBreww (chat) 04:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very confusing, to be honest. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this to the article's talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...quite so, any ideas on what should be done? I've included both positive and negative facts about the person. Thanks! IronBreww (chat) 07:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish

I was going to ask SMcCandlish if he wanted to be nominated as an admin after seeing efforts at Kevin Trudeau. But looking at the previous RfA's I had to cancel that notion for now. If not for the canvasing, do you think SMcCandlish would have succeeded in the 2nd RfA? - Roy Boy 17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Animal rights

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%209&version=NIV

The website above has the section titled "Rights of An Apostle", and Paul cites the "right" of the Ox to eat whilst it treads the grain. You don't need a Scholar to say that Jesus is depicted as a lamb or the Holy Spirit as a dove, when there are Church stain glass windows showing this. Nor is interpreting the Bible passage:

"The next day John SAW JESUS coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

As meaning that Jesus is like a Lamb, too controversial I think!!!!

Gabr-el 20:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]