User talk:SlimVirgin

File:Animalibrí.gif

File:SV age 3.jpg

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

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[1]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Since you're the filing party for the mediation request, would you mind removing Drmies from it? (He requested to be removed from all of the dispute resolution stuff) Idag (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We're also missing ChildofMidnight (I think you forgot to remove Drmies from the agreed list even though you removed him as a party). Idag (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Thanks re suggesting I be part of the mediation/arbitration process. Also, how did you create the flying (humming?)bird device? Syntacticus (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That issue

I take it that the most important point is how the issue was subsequently not dealt with so it's probably minor, but when you say in the RfC "The edits are now oversighted and attributed to the next editor, an anon IP", I was under the impression that PD was wrong on that particular detail. Aren't OS'd edits simply removed, not reassigned to the next editor, or have I misunderstood how it can be used? I had assumed there was initially no 'cover-up' (because FT2's edits were something else), but a latter mishandling of the situation, Is this incorrect? Misarxist 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are different ways of oversighting, as I understand it. The quick way (as with admin deletion) is to attribute the edits to the next editor, which is how it was done in this case, so that diff does show what the edits were — there was more than one edit, by the way, but they're compressed into one edit by the oversighting and attributed to the anon. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, yes. If the edits are oversighted to the point where they are removed - like if a phone number is oversighted - it'll just disappear. However, if the text is present subsequent to the revisions oversighted, the extra text is just pushed along onto the next revision in the history of the article. It's hard to explain. For example, SlimVirgin's comment above was the last one before mine here. If I oversighted her diff (here), it would look like I'd written the comment just before mine here. However, if I blanked her comment above with my edit here, then oversighted her diff, it would magically 'disappear' - Alison ^❤ 10:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And for a real-life oversight example, see this edit of mine. I've actually blanked some text revealing non-public information on an editor (not the talk page owner, BTW). If done right, there will be zero bytes in the diff and the in-between edit will look like it never happened - Alison ^❤ 10:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is more of a tangential point just for my curiosity, but isn't the other method technically not in compliance with the GFDL, as the edits are not attributed to the person who made them? Sticky Parkin 11:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx for explaining that. Misarxist 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SP. Well, yes. There are two issues, really; the removal of GFDL-licensed edits and the attribution to others. The removal can be justified somewhat if they're done for extreme reasons (as oversight edits usually are). However, the latter scenario - the attribution to others of edits someone else did - is also problematic. This is more of a quirk of the database, and oversighters strive to avoid that where possible. But yes, it's technically not in compliance, IMO - Alison ^❤ 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. The GFDL really requires only that the major authors names be recorded. Since we don't have any systematic way of determining that we just record all of them. But unless the edits made were massive any minor change in attribution of this sort would be still GFDL compliant. (disclaimer: IANAL) JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2

Slim, I feel obliged to say I find it odd to see you pushing this issue about FT2's comments, considering it appears that you have yourself made significantly inaccurate statements about oversighted edits, then stonewalled and refused to answer basic questions about it from multiple editors. I believe you'll recall that I asked you several times if oversighted edits showed that User:WordBomb had attempted to out an editor after being informed that this was prohibited and agreed not to, five hours before you indefinitely blocked him. I suggested that he had not here, asking you to "please correct if this is mistaken." You responded here, but did not correct the point. However, only shortly later you then posted arbitration evidence specifically stating that he had, in 7 oversighted edits including three during the relevant time period, "added to the article that Weiss was editing Wikipedia as MM, and that an anti-naked short selling group had 'launched a campaign' against Weiss to show that he was posting to certain message boards."[2] Following many questions about this and much discussion by multiple editors, and at least one admin requesting information from the oversight list here, only then you said that you did not actually know the contents of the edits despite having made specific claims about their contents in an arbitration case.[3]

I thought it was relevant then to find out whether your evidence was correct, considering that you had presented it as relevant. It didn't occur to me to suggest that you resign your adminship over the issue. But then I wouldn't have expected you later to demand that another editor resign as arbitrator and checkuser for not answering your questions, or based on the assumption that he must have known something he says he did not know. Is this reasonable? Mackan79 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow any of the above, Mackan. I remember you asking about WordBomb's oversighted edits, but I don't think I responded to you, because I have no access to oversight, and they were irrelevant. WB was blocked for trying to out someone, and for responding to a request to stop, by doing it again. Period. That's miles away from an arbitrator actively misleading people about when he himself learned about his own edits being oversighted during his own election to the ArbCom. If I didn't know you better, Mackan, I might think this was an attempt to sidetrack and derail. Happily, I know you would never do that. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just seeing some striking similarities. I linked your initial response to me above, here. Following your evidence submission, the issue was then discussed at length on the arbitration pages here and here.

I see I also asked you this and one other question here on February 27. You responded to the other question here on February 28, after which I immediately repeated the first about the oversighted edit (12 minutes later).[4] You didn't respond to that, or the subsequent discussion, until two days after Random832 sent the question to the Oversight mailing list on March 7.[5] Only then on March 9 you said that you did not know what was in the oversighted edits,[6] again, despite the fact that you had claimed in evidence what they showed.

I'll note the other part of this is that I can somewhat see why FT2 wouldn't have answered your question in the Peter Damien unblock discussion, since he likely thought you were derailing that discussion as you suggest here. Admittedly I don't know why you're pursuing this with FT2, but if you didn't see the various discussions linked above where editors were trying to determine what you knew about the oversighted edits that you presented in evidence, you might appreciate a similar situation with FT2. I'll try to leave my comments there. Mackan79 (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dirty hands

Created it. Over to you! PamD (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfar

No particular incident, no. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The timing will never be good, as the circumstances of the dispute are not good. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano RFC

Classy. You are a nice person, thanks for explaining. Theresa Knott | token threats 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Hi, I first intervened on the above article as an uninvolved adminsitrator, though I do have an opinion about her, as can be seen from my comments which have made me now involved. Since I have no desire to continue working on that article given the amount of unacceptable behaviour shown on it, I don't think it is necessary for me to be involved in any mediation or arbitration. So, I'd like my name removed from the list. I do not intend to contribute to the article or debate any more, and I will not. As a side effect, I note that Kjaer said he would not join in any mediation attempts if I was involved in it. I find the attitude odd and not particularly in adherence to WP:AGF, but if my removal increases the chance that Kjaer (and perhaps others) get involved, then that is also a good reason to remove my name: the objective of having a negotiated well-structured article that works to the benefit of wikipedia is far more important than any one editor's involvement in mediation or arbitration. So, could you inform the rest of the editors on the Talk page about this and remove my name? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of WP:PSTS from WP:NOR

I should let you know that several users have recently advocated removal of WP:PSTS from WP:NOR, using it instead as a guideline on a separate guideline page. This is, of course, in addition to the lengthy arguments in recent weeks about its language. So, in response to at least a couple of recent assertions that no clear consensus has ever been demonstrated for its presence, I decided to take a straw poll to try and find out how strong the opposition really is. It's at [[7]] . ... Kenosis (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Perez.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Perez.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand. Peter Damian (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

No. The current problems will remain. People will read that someone is Jewish and will think it's a religion. Or that someone was born into a Church of England family and will assume he's a Christian. And the source would have to confirm that the religion is relevant to the subject, a requirement that many editors will just ignore, so this proposal will change nothing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Slim Virgin, I shall respond here as I don't want to clutter up the talk page.
a) Jewish: no, if you look at the current infoboxes this has been done correctly. "Judaism" is used in the religion field, and "Jewish" is used in the ethnicity field.
b) What people will assume: it is not our job to second guess the crazy things people assume. It is a given that readers have the full article for expansion of details. We have agreed to always reference the religion field.
c) Sources: we have agreed to add sources. No problem. We will not ignore it. This can be added to the template guidelines, so it won't get ignored. Bletchley (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing WP:NPOV violation on Article linked to WP Main Page

Hi Slim, this article links to the Main Page so I would have thought that at least one admin would have shown up by now to address the problem. Could you take a look and try to fix it or suggest how to proceed? Thanks. [2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict] Doright (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No Iranians Allowed

Slim, also please take a look at this Iranian content. It is located on the same talk page above the link I already provided above. It has been deleted from the article. Obviously, some editors don't like how this [WP:RS] edit disturbs the Palestinian narrative orthodoxy. [Section titled Iranian involvement]

Gaza Massacre in lead

Also see this NPOV dispute regarding another element in the same article. [another NPOV dispute]

Vandalism to Talk Page

Unfortunately, the above links may not work as the Talk Page has been vandalized and evidence of a dispute removed from the article and Talk Page [[8]]Doright (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

I just got something that requires me to go AFK for a couple of hours, any chance that you could do the notifications for the ArbCom? If not, I should be able to do them around 7 or so. Idag (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Comment. John highlights the fundamental problem with this template. What it seems to be doing is identifying how a person's parents were labelled, and then labels the offspring that way too, though the offspring may never have given their informed consent. There is no such thing as a "Christian child." There are children whose parents are Christian, but that doesn't impose the label on the child, until he's an adult himself and chooses to accept it. Any sources for this template, and indeed for the articles, would have to state clearly that the subject was a practising Christian, or whatever, himself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, the sources do precisely what you are asking, and therefore I see not problem. See as a random example: Augustin Louis Cauchy. Bletchley (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New Arbitration Request

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [9]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are the adults?

lol Slim, I hear it doesn't pay very well anyhow. Could you help by bringing my note to the attention of the adults at WP, if any are still here? There are ongoing and systematic bald face violations of policy. Doright (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, it's not chaos, it's quite systematic. I guess its time for me to declare that the thugs win and WP ain't what she use to be. That a page that links to the WP Home page is has strayed so far from WP Policies suggests something has gone very wrong with the project. Time to move on to more productive to endeavors. Take care and have fun.Doright (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		SV, your user page is amazing! Johnfos (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy SlimVirgin's Day!

User:SlimVirgin has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SlimVirgin's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SlimVirgin! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Animal rights

Given your abiding interest in the subject, I thought you might find this interesting: Israeli troops shot and killed zoo animals. Mercy killings for these captive creatures, or cold-blooded murder? Tiamut^talk 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record. It appears to be a pattern. I was reminded of Chris McGreal's article back in 2004, on the Rafah zoo

Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks for your note in response. To be honest, I did not think you would respond. I deeply appreciate your words of solace, for both the people and the animals. Take care of yourself. Tiamut^talk 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stranger

Reflecting on your message of 00:06 today, in a rambling way

Hiya Slim;

For the most part we (collectivly) don't know each other as people, only as editors. We judge what the other person says since that's all we have. Sometimes, often in fact, over time an editor's voice drifts: vandals grow up, or cranky bastards become reasonable. Sometimes the opposite occurs, where we (again, collectivly) re-enforce negative behavior and drive people further and further away from where they began, probably further away from where they would like to be.

I remember when JzG wasn't an acronym. He was different then.

So, in my clumsy way, I'm sending out to you some good vibes. Because I remember when you weren't being publically tarred and feathered as Wikipedia's BigBad, worst of the worst. And I'm happy to see you still contributing, still growing as a person (like we're all meant to be, right?), happy to hear a new/old "voice" from you.

As always, with affection,
brenneman 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Aaron; the good vibes are warmly welcomed. You're right that we only have the words; we don't see the flesh and blood person behind them, and we may not even get a very accurate sense of them. What I'm learning is that that includes ourselves. I think that very active editors/admins risk becoming their accounts, as it were; we become our words, and if the words seem reasonable, in keeping with policy etc, we think no further. We don't think, "but are they helpful, or are they hurtful, or are they dismissive of the human element, which may not be reasonable, but which still counts." I'm rambling here too, but I think you'll see what I'm driving at. It's a steep learning curve, for me anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

k

Where did my edits go

You removed my comments that took a long time to craft. Could you please give me the link to where they are. You say you have moved them to a subpage. Can you link me to it.

You see I had to reply to what Jokestress wrote. She talks about the word "theory" and she talks about Phenomena Vs terminology. These discussions are a bit complicated, I feel that rather than writing a short little thing, then replying, another quick hit, then another reply. I just say all that's on my mind up front, then there is no need for a long thread of discussion. If the length of my comments is a problem. I am sorry this is a complex situation. It's 3D chess I can't write of it as if it were 2D.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Science religion field

Please have another look at the talk for Infobox Scientist. It seems to me that there won't be a consensus to remove the religion field, so I've swung around to supporting the rather long guideline for how it should be used. I'm hoping you'll comment on how likely it is that the guideline would be accepted as an addition to the template doc, and what might happen next. Thanks. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection

You're welcome! Acalamari 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon vandalism at Feminine essence theory of transsexuality

This is unprovoked vandalism by Dicklyon [10]. I plan to post the following at AN/I, but it seemed appropriate to notify you before doing so. As I write in the draft notice below, this does not inspire confidence in his participation in mediation. He engaged in this tagging spree less than 5 minutes after writing on my talk page about developing something we could move forward with?

This is unprovoked, spurious vandalism by Dicklyon [11] of a page for which his currently in formal mediation. Dicklyon recently nominated the page for deletion, a nomination which was defeated nearly unanimously. Clearly upset with that outcome, Dicklyon has now spray-painted the page with nearly two dozen dubious, who, and cn tags (his having added the earlier tags immediately after his AfD was defeated [12]) His diff summary then was “a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article.”

Moreover, this behavior does not bode well, in my opinion, for the mediation involving this page and in which Dcklyon is supposed to be participating in good faith. Dicklyon has a substantial history of blocks here and topic banning here.

The page in question is Feminine essence theory of transsexuality.

The failed AfD is here.

The subsequent RfC he filed is here.

The mediation involving Dicklyon and the vandalized page is here.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now added the AN/I post here. — James Cantor (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

I think you did a good job, and I am really sad that someone wrote an email requesting a change of mediator. Don't get discouraged, this is important work.--Cerejota (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think you did as much a human can possibly do in an impossible position. We ended up at the mediation because of WP-styled comedy of errors. I do not believe that the final result should be held against your audition. If anything, I think you showed amazing perseverence that will serve any mediator very well. — James Cantor (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Same here; your efforts were much appreciated. I notice you've taken a lot of flak on and off WP in your years of active editing; I've been through a few such episodes myself, so I had a pretty good idea what that was about and didn't let it bother me; it's clear that you're dedicated to wikipedia values. Keep it up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Images

Sure, may I ask why? :) So I know next time. Feel free to remove the nowcommons template, though, or someone might delete them next time. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson's Wife

Slim, contrary to your edit note, the newspaper reliable source says she pled guilty to a charge, which means she was convicted of that charge. That's the way it works in US courts. She was convicted. Please restore what you removed. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Jedi Purge and Order 66

Best SlimVirgin, the Great Jedi Purge is not self Order 66, Order 66 was but a part of the Great Jedi Purge. Tim Auke Kools (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird. I never took Sarah for a Trekkie.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor everyone else he's spammed with this, unless he's stumbled on the secret link between Slim and Kelly Martin. I don't know what's going on here but the laundry-list of warnings on his talk don't lend themselves to AGF. – iridescent 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I only wonder two things: 1) was the Great Jedi Purge before or after the Second Userbox War? and b) Were Kelly and Sarah on the same side? And if not, who was on the Dark Side? (or is that too obvious?)...ah, well.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, Slimvirgin. I just dropped in to say Hi. It has been a long time indeed! deeptrivia (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed that a while back you created a page for a psychotherapist. I created a page for Fred M. Levin and it has quickly come up for deletion. I noticed that most psychotherapists do not have much to justify their biography page. Care to opine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_M._Levin_(2nd_nomination)Mwalla (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla