User talk:Slp1

Crippled vs physically disabled

At Miriam Battista, your first edit to replace "crippled" was reverted by me. Your second edit to remove "crippled" was reverted by another editor. It's time for you to make your case on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it. I have now responded on the talk page of the article where I have expounded on my reasoning. --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And you've moved into field position for WP:3RRN with your most recent revert, which you know is disputed. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What is a "field position"? I really don't know. What I do know is that I have made 3 edits to the article over a period of 10 days, which doesn't seem to be anywhere close to 3RR; as I mentioned, I have commented on the talkpage.. --Slp1 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

He

I must sheepishly admit that I also thought you were a he until I just looked at your page. Not that it matters, but I wonder why. Maybe your writing style is diff than others here? Not sure it's enough for a PhD, but another data point, at least...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about my revert

Sorry about this. --Kangaroopowah 21:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. But do be careful with those automated tools; they are powerful and can be a bit dangerous if there isn't someone very viligant in control! --Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Torrent-Guasp

I am a reader of cardiac theory. Work by Torrent-Guasp captivated me the first time I saw the late doctors' rendering of the unfolding of the myocardium. I have seen a similar view once before in the work of Dr. Carolyn Thomas (possibly from New England), dated somewhere around 1959, connected to work by Peskin and McQueen. Further extrapolation of this work by Dr. Randas Batista allowed radical geometric remodeling of the failing ventricle, mostly in the still deadly epidemic of Chagas Disease. Work by Torrent-Guasp seems to be well reasoned and accepted in Spanish language Wikipedia but remains excluded by English Wikipedia. I respectfully request an explanation for this discrepancy.lbeben 01:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here for discussion. This is the sort of place to discuss things, not by creating an article as you did before. A few points:

• For edits here, it is irrelevant what Spanish Wikipedia has done. The two encyclopedias have different rules and organizations, and so it really isn't worth mentioning here.
• For there to be an article about Dr. Torrent-Guasp he would have to meet WP's notability criteria. These include WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", and/or academics WP:PROF. "Many .."academics" ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." It goes on to list the criteria (such as making a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" or "received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." I have done a quick look through the sources and do not myself find evidence that Dr. T-G would meet these or other criteria. However, you may be able to identify extra sources. You can gather the material and present it at WP:AFC, as I suggested.
• It seems based on your talkpage that you wish to include information about Dr. Torrent-Guasp's theories in other (medical) articles. Please note that on this WP we have very strict standards of sources for medically-related articles (see. WP:MEDRS. From a brief survey, Dr. T-G's theories are not (yet) accepted in the medical community, though reliable sources consider them interesting and some discuss them at length. e.g. [1][2][3][4]. These are the sort of sources (or better still scholarly medical review articles) you need if you want to propose edits to other articles.

I hope that this information helps. Note that this isn't the place to advocate for T-G's theories, even if you think that they are very interesting yourself. Collecting reliable sources about a particular topic and then summarizing them are what we do here.

A final comment. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will properly sign and date your posts for you automatically. Slp1 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the theory advanced by Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp worthy of encyclopedic mention in any and all languages?--lbeben 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. I don't know the field and I am afraid have other priorities at present. Why don't you collect references (and links) to high quality academic sources that mention the theory, and propose something on the talkpage of relevant articles.

As I mentioned above please sign your posts properly per WP:SIGNATURE. Your current method does not allow editors to link to your user and talkpage. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion of Sarah Luiz

I recently stubbed the article to remove unsourced material, and added two WP:RS that clearly assert the subject's notability. Please consider restoration of this article. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here and asking about this. I appreciate it. I looked at the references you found before I deleted the article; they support that she wants a uterine transplant and that she sued Blue Cross, but why is that notable? How many other individuals want uterine transplants (lots according to the clinical ethics article); how many others have sued Blue Cross for one reason of the other and got their 5 minutes of fame about it? Do we need articles on all of them? This sort of thing doesn't make a person in any way notable to the extent that we need a biographical article, per WP:BASIC and WP:BLP1E. If there is a fuller article to write, with more reliable sources/references and more details about her life, please go ahead and write it; but remember that the article has already been a magnet for BLP violations and consider whether it will really be a benefit for her or for this encyclopedia to host it. --Slp1 (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The issues you describe should be considered at AFD. When it takes a full paragraph to explain why an article was deleted under CSD A7, speedy deletion was probably inappropriate. Since my stubbed version of the article was not an obvious BLP violation, please restore the article so that this issue can be discussed by the community. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it needn't take a full paragraph to explain the issue, but I gave you that courtesy. I guess my effort was wasted. The short version is in the deletion summary, which you have already seen. There was no claim of notability and there are in addition issues of BLP1E --Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a deletion review discussion about this article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Hi Slp1 – I'm a bit concerned about the message that has recently appeared at the head of the article, regarding the fact that someone claims to have "detected that this page contains external links that are either on the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist", having been flagged up by Cyberbot II – I'm not really sure what to do about it.

The obvious thing is to delete the offending link, but I'm damned if I can find it, and I don't want to have to spend hours looking for it. The message at the head of the source code indicates it as <http://books.google.com/?id=VMF_-aVJSE4C&pg=PA178&dq=British+anti-slavery+petitions+percentage%7Cbot=Cyberbot II}> which does not appear to exist anywhere in the text (unless I've stupidly overlooked it). Presumably there has got to be an easier way of finding exactly what this bot is objecting to and correcting it? Any ideas?

I'm far from happy that this has happened, and it reinforces the impression I have recently gained that Wikipedia these days is edited by powerful technicians and/or administrators who have developed what they believe to be useful robot technology (albeit probably well-meaning), but which ends up just making life difficult and unbearable for lowly contributors, who just want to make an encyclopedia, but end up gettting sick of the interminable changes and disillusioned with the whole futile process.

I'd be interested to hear your views on this.

Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Nice to hear from you. I hear the weather in the UK has been lovely, after a rather dismal start to the summer. I hope you have been able to enjoy it.

Thanks for drawing my attention to this- I totally missed it. It seems that this bot doesn't like the word "petitions" and so tagged that book reference because it had the word in the google search string. I think the original idea was to ban spamming of petitions in support of this or that, but it shouldn't be tagging this sort of stuff.. The ref was there- not sure why you didn't find it. I removed the search string and that should be the end of our problems.

I have to agree these automated things can be very frustrating, though I guess we do benefit too. The bots who revert vandalism work very well on this article!! It looks like we were a bit unlucky in that the bot was being let loose on a limited trial to see if it behaved well, and poor William was one of the test subjects. If you look at my contribution history you'll see that I have also reported the problems to the powers that be. You could share your opinions there too, if you want. In any case, hopefully the problems will be fixed soon. Keep well, Bruce!! Slp1 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slp1. Thanks your message, and for sorting this out. I’ve been away for a few days, aware of your efforts and your message – but without time or opportunity to respond. I’ve no idea why I couldn’t find the reference – apart from the fact it was late in the evening and I was tired and annoyed (perhaps you guessed!) I take your point that this was a limited trial and have followed your correspondence with CyberPower and am aware of the issues. It may be best if I don’t now add my voice to the conversation, as you seem to have conveyed the problems more than adequately. Yes, the weather has been fantastic this summer, after so many poor years – it’s about time, as I had been thinking of emigrating! So, I have indeed taken full advantage of it. I hope you are well, and good luck to you, too. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds very good. Yes, I am well, thanks for asking!! Have a great week, Bruce.Slp1 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

IRC?

Can you meet me on IRC?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Meet me at #xlabs ^connect—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I am technically incompetent in many areas, and don't have any idea how to get to IRC. And no real desire to learn either!! Sorry. --Slp1 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

After having some time to think, I have decided to restyle the tag to be smaller. The regex generator has been fixed, and the next bot run will test to see if tags will be removed. Thanks for your comments. Cheers.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me and in advance for reworking the template. Just to point out that making it smaller is just one of the suggestions made, and it would be good to address those too. In any case, good luck with your bot. Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What were the other suggestions?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. What I am about to say is made in the utmost good faith and in a genuine effort to help you. It is partly informed also by my off-wiki professional life. Please don't be offended. It is not my intent. I have noticed that sometimes it seems like it isn't always easy for you to pick out the key information (includes messages which aren't always explicit) in people's written posts. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that this may be one of those times. Rather than me just give you the list of what suggestions I think were made, why don't you read through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4 and Template talk:Spam-links and make a list of the suggestions for the template that you see? I'll do the same. Then we can compare notes. It might be instructive. Slp1 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit that it a problem. I am autistic, so picking out information that isn't clear will never succeed on my end. All I see that it is quite bulky and that it should be compressed with a details link.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay well that makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. But don't say it will never succeed because that's pretty defeatist!! Figuring out strategies to cope with the problem is going to pay enormous dividends for you in terms of interactions with others, and being successful in all sorts of areas. What if I narrow it down for you? These posts all contain suggestions for the template's improvement that go beyond size and a details button. [5][6][7] Do you see them now? I see 5 other suggestions to consider in these Slp1 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, big and bulky needs to be fixed, rename the template, and figure out why syntax isn't working, which may not be fixable from here since I see nothing wrong with the syntax itself.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yes those are some. Here's what I see in those links.:

• Reduce size (you got that one)
• Change its position: One of the commentator says "They should have a more decent and reasonable size and position" - This also mentioned on your talkpage.
• Move the template such as 'blacklisted-links'. (you got that one)
• Terminology used on template: I said "it talks about "spam links" which is not the case and uses the term "external links" in a way that is not consistent with WP's definition at external links.
• List of links not always given. "the list of "problematic links" was not shown, which meant we had to dig to try and figure out what the (non)problem was." -I think this is the syntax problem you mentioned.
• Add that the bot may make errors and give a place to report them. I said "given the fact that the bot is in a trial stage and is making mistakes, it seems to me that it would be better to provide information about where to report errors in tagging, rather than the current formulation which suggest that the bot can do no wrong, that the article and its editors (or the blacklist) are at fault, and that they need to figure out the problem and act on it or the bot will be back."

Last piece of free advice: identifying this kind of information and detail from the communication of others is a very important skill to learn: it will help you in all areas of life if you can learn some strategies to help you process things more efficiently. You might want talk to somebody at your college about getting some information and help about this. Slp1 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the template. Any thoughts? I know I still have to rename it, but it shouldn't be intrusive anymore.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Other than syntax, I think I did everything.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been off-wiki for a while. Sadly, it looks likes your bot still needs some follow-up and fixes. I'll try to get to it soon. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for closures

Hi Slp1, I regarded the proposals for closure on the horrible RfC as a suggestion of consensus finding. In that light, I actually quite liked them, as preliminary ways to describe consensus. A closing admin could than form his own closing statement and rationale, and could cherrypick and shape their closure based on the earlier proposals. I agree with you that none of them should be taken as is, but as a tool for getting a feel for the consensus, I do think their valuable. That said, by now, they have served their purpose, so keeping them closed is likely the best for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree with them all. The proposals were based on a good faith effort to find common ground, and contain wisdom too, which should be useful for a closing administrator. However, my concern was less with the content (though obviously some of it was deeply problematic) and more with the process, which has ended up becoming more of the same unhelpful polarization and battleground behaviours. Once you reach that point, conversation is more trouble than it is worth. --Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we agree in our agreement :D I was commenting on it because I felt it (probably not intentionally) can send the signal out to not break your pretty little editor heads on finding consensus, leave that to the admins, which (I'm sure we also agree on) is not the signal we want to send across. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point. I certainly wasn't trying to give that impression. I'll tweak the close statement to make it clearer. Slp1 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring William Wilberforce (estimated annual readership: 313,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing William Wilberforce to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's cool! Thanks. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Echolalia

Hey, there ! I am getting a bit more settled :) :) Would you have time to look at Talk:Echolalia#Removed? Some version of this "delayed vs. immediate" continues to pop up in this article, and I suspect it is always from the same course. There is text that could be added there, but they never seem to get it right, and I don't have time to rewrite it correctly (nor the inclination, considering the overemphasis on a few marginal sources and one minor aspect of echolalia). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I've been having a busy time in real life, but will certainly take a look as soon as I can. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

William Wilberforce portrait by Hayter

Hi Slp1 – Going back to our correspondence two years ago regarding the identity of the sitter of the painting by Hayter, I have contacted the Public Catalogue Foundation with my doubts and referred them to my correspondence with the Curator of the Ferens Gallery and the William Wilberforce House, Hull. If you remember, they tended to be sympathetic with my concerns about the painting, and said that further investigations would be made as to the sitter's identity. The Public Catalogue Foundation has digitised the entire UK national collection of oil paintings and are partners with the BBC on the Your Paintings initiative (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/william-wilberforce-17591833-78598 ). We may now get some information as to the progress of the gallery's enquiries. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bruce! Happy Thanksgiving, Canadian-style! I'll be fascinated to see how this works out. Please do let me know. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I did find it good for some things, and terrible for many others. I think it has potential, so will probably reactivate it and see if has improved... I am sure it has!Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely still a work in progress, so if you run across problems, please feel free to post a note for me or one of the other people at WP:VEF. You can also sign up for the WP:VisualEditor/Newsletter (one note every few weeks) if you want to hear about what the devs are working on. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

I'm not going to lodge a complaint against you about this, because frankly, sanctions are over-used. But that account is retired for good reason, and I'd ask you to respect the policy. Thank you.98.222.60.232 (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)