User talk:SlimVirgin

File:Animalibrí.gif

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 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following: User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Unfair block hello SlimVirgin, we've met before, at WP:AN when I was very active in anti-vandalism tasks (Feb-Apr 2007); I hope you can help this time: I am concerned with the recent block of User:PatPeter, because I'm sure that he doesn't deserve it, . Would you please comment this issue? Thnks in advance. --Doktor Who 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I disagree with you: as you can see at his userpage, he's a member of various Wikiprojects, so his work is not related to main pages only. Furthermore, it is not a real trouble, he's not used to any vandalism, and his tone and manners are usually polite and appropriate. :-/ --Doktor Who 21:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC) RFCbio list If you want to change the wording that is on that template you will need to change the page where {{RFCbio}} is used as the comment on that template is what generates that template. βcommand 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Writing policy After writing third opinion on a discussion you were involved in some months ago, I remember reading that you were quite involved in writing policy, or at least know a lot about how it is written, and most importantly, who write it. The same effort (writing third opinions) has lead me to the conclusion that some new policy is needed on two very narrow and well-defined topics. As a fellow editor, I would like to ask you some questions concerning this. The first topic concerns templates, specifically navigational templates. Wikipedia:Navigational templates does not contain any guidelines on writing those templates, and some serious edit warring is going on concerning these. Just this week, the following disputes arose: Is LaVeyan Satanism influenced by objectivism, and if so, does it belong in the navigation template?" - and the same with State religion and Religious persecution in Template:Religious persecution. The solution is clear - make sure the article to be included in the template fit the sourcing policies and establishes the connection. Without this solution in writing, the edit warriors will (of course) not accept it. The second topic is about historical names. The disputes about the name of Gdańsk, and the place of birth and nationality of Ivana Miličević are famous for their trivial subject and yet furious edit wars. Some clear cut policy is needed to avoid these disputes altogether by choosing a middle ground. I do not have any ideas here, but some policy is needed. The question I am asking here is how to go about this. The proposals village pump seems to be certain way to make an idea not work, and bold changes to policy usually get reverted with "discuss first", or go unnoticed. What is a good way to write some project-wide guidelines on the above problems? Thanks in advance, User:Krator (t c) 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC) abused? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFactory_farming&diff=151756427 -- please stop claiming that YOU are the one being abused. It's laughable. Jav43 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC) WP:AN & Factory farming I have changed the header for the content you added to more accurately reflect the substance of the change. Although it may be considered that the content is an attack, since you are only a named party rather than one of the correspondents I felt that the header may not have reflected the parties interpretation. Of course, if either of the parties concerned wish to revert my change I would have no objection. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Interesting article As someone who edits articles on animal rights issues and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I thought this article might interest you: "PETA Critiques Hamas TV for Animal Abuse." I would have added it on the "Tomorrow's Pioneers" Wikipedia article, but it looks like somebody beat me to it. --GHcool 06:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Iraq war. Flaimer alert!--Freetown 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Picture. Warning- User:VegitaU has been bullying over the header picture. Consensus ignored, his POVish/Politicaly corect choise in. His general attitude is bullying. User:theFEARgod and another user:Rangeley disagree biterly with VegitaU, but were ignored. --Freetown 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) This is so typical of his attitude- Don't edit my posts I write what I want how I want it and I don't need you to come in and make changes. ([2]) Don't do it again. -- VegitaU 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Over 3 inter page blue links being added? A bit too heavy?--Kerry Perry 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Doesn't matter. Don't touch my edits. Read WP:TALK -- VegitaU 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC) All right, I quit the Wikipedia for good as of 00.00UTC August 20th.--Freetown 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)--Freetown 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) I concur, User:VegitaU is rideing rough-shod over the other talk page users.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC) I quit I quit at 00.00 on August 20th to avoid the bitter fait that befell others like User:Zoe and User:Longend.. (Not exsactly-I will still post to both you and User:theFEARgod untill 00.00 August 22nd, if your need an arnswer to current issues.)--Freetown 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) I could use your help if you have time Hey. It's been a while. Anyway, when you have a chance, could you look at White people, especially the lengthy discussion (you ought to read the whole thing, although the most salient points are toward the end)here? I am especially concerned with Fourdee. The underlying issue is whether races (in this case, obviously, the white race) are biologically real or social constructions. I feel very confident in my grasp of both the sociological and genetic research and know that Fourdee is wrong, but I have tried very hard not to engage him on this. Instead, I have tried, consistently, to make the discussion about compliance with our core policies. Fourdee has been (in my opinion) consistently courteous. But I believe he is a racist, and it seems obvious to me (and my question is, will it be obvious to you too as you read through the discussion, and slowly see slight changes in his position/rationale) tht he is nothing more than a POV pusher who wishes to use Wikipedia articles as his own soap-box. I do not know if the situation is appropriate for an RfC. But I would (1) like to know whether you think my reading of him is right, or whether I am over-reacting, and (2) if you do think I am right, I would appreciate whatever support you consider appropriate. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Your thoughts on criticism sections? Hi, SV. I was wondering if you have an opinion on critcism sections in general. Do you recommend or shun their use in GA and FA articles? Thanks. Majoreditor 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3RR See ? on 3RR page.Sumoeagle179 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC) OK, I think I found it and posted it.Sumoeagle179 21:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I can live with PP. How long is this one? Also, I still don't get this "previous version" thing. If the first one is an edit, they then have to revert 4 times to be in violation, all all the edits were the same, then they get 5 edits before they're in violation? Thanks for the help and explanations.Sumoeagle179 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I disagree with the 3RR warning I've explained this in detail on the 3RR page. Count Iblis 00:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Obfuscation? Now, now, SV. A bit of good faith wouldn't hurt, would it? I believe I added that as an attempt to show how, contrary to popular belief, Draize testing for non medical products is small proportion of rabbits used. I'd be more than happy to use numbers instead, except the source itself quoted it as a percentage and I wouldn't have wanted to indulge on WP:OR lest it be deleted.... ;) Rockpocket 21:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC) huntingdon do the links work for you? they don't work for me here... --chodges 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Article 'White people' and POV pushing. The aparently bias users- User:fourdee, User:Phral and User:Muntuwandi are POV pushing on the White people article again. User:Slrubenstein's complaint of- 11:00, 19 August, 2007 (UTC), was just the start of it all! Is Fourdee a troll, I would like to know.--Pine oak 01:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Michael Wines section in the eXile Hi again, hope you are well. Did you read what I wrote on the discussion page? The source for the Wines incident was not the eXile, but a yahoo news reference. A google search turns up hundreds of other non-eXile references to the incident. It was extensively published about in other reliable sources, so it can be included. Or am I missing something? Dsol 10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I have added two non-eXile sources and the anon continues to blank, without justification. I would note that s/he has no other WP edits. So far I have written on the eXile talk page 4 or 5 times and gotten nothing in response. I find this really frustrating, as the Anon has made a dishonest argument regarding policy, had it refuted, and continues to blank the page. In the past you have correctly demanded reliable sources for all info, and I have acquiesced. Right now I would request that you warn the anon against blanking sourced and relevant information. I realize you have better things to do regarding WP and regret having to waste your time. Dsol 12:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC) The anon has once again blanked the section. In the edit summary, the reason has changed from relevance back to the false and previously adressed charge of WP:BLP. Still nothing on the talk page. At this point instead of a warning I would request an immediate block. Once again sorry to involve you in these trivialities. Dsol 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC) hello Since you're a regular on middle east topics, can you please review this proposal[1]. AhvaziKaka —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AhvaziKaka (talk • contribs) 00:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC). A Verifiability, No original research, Biographies of living persons, etc. Barnstar The Tireless Contributor Barnstar As the top contributor to Verifiability (by far), No original research (by far), Biographies of living persons (by far), and No personal attacks, you deserve this barnstar. Thank you! Jreferee (Talk) 05:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC) That block What I think is telling about your analysis of the situation is that it is based on opinion rather than fact. As you say, there were "allegations" of harassment, and "implications" of sockpuppetry, and so forth. In my investigation of this situation, I found that most of these allegations were either misinterpretations, exaggerations, or conjecture. For instance, as you refer to privacy issues, the accusation that Matt was revealing personal details about Elonka turned out to be just such a misinterpretation. We deal with facts, not allegations, and we should not block people for misinterpretation or conjecture. I can think of several long-standing editors about which there are numerous and perennial nasty allegations; if we were to block such editors (and we do not), we would only open up ad hominems as a viable strategy for content disputes. That said, neither of the two has been particularly civil towards the other, and both are apparently paying more attention to the other's contribs log than is entirely healthy. That is why I suggested an RFC on the issue. But the underlying dispute is not resolved by a one-sided block. >Radiant< 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (Image:BUAV-approved.gif) Thanks for uploading Image:BUAV-approved.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Discussion at WP:ANI I support you in this. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC) WP:ANI Hey, you probably don't really care that much (as you shouldn't) - but I just wanted to let you know that I'm 99% positive that everyone at ANI think you're an incredible editor - and no one is seriously even thinking about having a negative opinion of you due to some anti-wikipedian's article. So yeah - you probably already know this but just as a reminder - don't take anything personally, because there's no chance that any comment is meant to be an attack on you.--danielfolsom 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC) When Cyde and Gregory choose to trumpet some issues on WP:ANI in tandem, it's not that diffucult to make appropriate conclusions about the private discussion that must have preceded such an extraordinary development. Let's take it for what it's worth and move on. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC) What he said :). --Irpen 20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC) The Purple Star The Purple Star For suffering the jockstrap slings and suction-cup arrows of outrageous abuse. - Crockspot 21:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Thumbs up Thumbs to Sarah, A fabulous person and a terrific editor who preservers despite remarkable adversity. Please accept this humble token of appreciation from one of your many admirers on Wikipedia Sandahl 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Since there is no "corporate smear target barnstar".... The Original Barnstar The Original Barnstar For courage and fortitude in the face of a vicious corporate smear campaign. Mantanmoreland 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)