User talk:SlimVirgin

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Bericht RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Bericht No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

File:Animalibrí.gif

Aspartame and Aspartame controversy

You recently protected Aspartame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Aspartame controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due content disputes. If you have a moment, I am wondering if I might persuade you to take a look at recent edits - they look like they might be veering off course a little, and anything you might do to forestall that would be appreciated. Please note that, while I have not been editing over there much of late, this should be considered a request from an involved editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too bad at the moment, but I've added them to my watchlist, and I'll restore the protection if things deteriorate. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

{{nobots}}

Stop adding this template to articles without reason. β^_command 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor182. Kristoferb, ANI, and Images

I see you've been dragged into this too. You might consider these and a possible WP:NPA issue. It's been going on for over a day now and is frankly to the point of silly. N419BH 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left him another note. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've been watching both of their talk pages since this whole thing began. If you want to know the details, there's a little light reading over at WP:ANI, or you could just skip to the "diagnosis" section (amusing on a dispute about pictures of pharmaceuticals). N419BH 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Some extra light reading is just what I need. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Houston_McCoy you wrote "and the subject has requested that it be deleted, which means there's a strong presumption in favour of deletion." I don't see any indication in the {{afd}}, or on the article's talk page, that McCoy, or someone delegated to represent him, requested deletion.

I recognize that it is possible that a request was filed, on the talk page, prior to Jimbo, and others, courtesy deleting its contents. But that doesn't help those of us who don't have access to the deleted content.

Several other contributors to the {{afd}} asserted McCoy requested deletion. And I asked them whether they had reviewed an OTRS ticket, requesting deletion, that had been confirmed to be from McCoy, or a representative of his.

IMO we must be very careful trusting any assertion that a request for deletion is from the subject of an article. First, some POV pushers spoof us, and make claims from an IP address that they are the subject of the article, and they want their article deleted. Second, similar to the game of "telegraph", sometimes a contributor will try to use an argument like, "imagine you are the subject of this article, wouldn't you want it deleted?" But they make the analogy in an unclear way, and readers think that they are reporting that the subject did actually request deletion.

So, you may not have the patience to answer -- but how exactly did you know McCoy reqested the article be deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My memory is that I was taking that information from the AfD comments, GS. If not there, then some other public post about it. I have no independent knowledge of his having requested deletion. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

India and Egypt

Can you review this, and if you feel there is a community agreement, log it and do what is necessary to have it enforced please? [1]

As for the India article, I looked at it, it is an area I know little about. The genetics article is from a non-peer-reviewed outlet. The data looks legit, but this kind of data is always overanalyzed as mitochondrial DNA and Y haplogroup DNY only tell you about two ancestors - if we are going back one generation, this is 100% of your ancestors. if we go back two generations it is 50% of your ancestors. If we go back three generations it is 12.5% of your ancestry. If we go back four generations it is 6.25% of your ancestry ... you see the problem.

I would love to find the actual books that make claims about bene Israel as they sound preposterous, but I would need to see the books.

I will try to look more closely ... alas, most of our articles that are on social topics are terrible ... Slrubenstein | Talk 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but again please don't worry if you can't face it. :) I closed that topic-ban discussion by the way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

You may want to take a look at Sonic Heroes. I semi'd the page, but only for 24 hours. I'm new at page protection and didn't want to overstep. If you think it needs tweaking, please do. Thanks for your help Tiderolls 02:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have done it for a bit longer, but 24 hours is okay too, as it might die down. You can always extend if needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought you'd want to know

As you're an admin, I'm going to let you take care of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARobert_Byrd&action=historysubmit&diff=371490955&oldid=371305725 Abrazame (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin on hr.wiki

I sent an usurpation notice to hr:User:SlimVirgin, so you will have your user name in 7 days. I'm sorry I can't change it right now. :) --MayaSimFan (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Maya, much appreciated! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN

[2] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit too cryptic for me, SB. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep a Close Eye

Just a reminder: please continue to keep a close eye on Zakir Naik and its talk page. Dhulfiqar 06:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

Ari89 on Zakir Naik has violated 3RR to justify 'consensus' . Rules are rules. --Dhulfiqar 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not violated the 3RR. I have asked you to restore the consensus version. You did not. I have asked you to discuss the bold edit. You have not. --Ari (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We will let the administrator be the judge, but till then you've clearly violated 3RR under the pretence of consensus. --Dhulfiqar 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

Please note Ari89 cut me off from further discussion over Zakir Naik, which is seen as [1] on the history of his talk page. He was also responsible for removing the 3RR template by labelling by edits as vandalism as seen as [2] and [3] on the history of his user page , despite him posting the template on my page to warn me of my near violation a week or two ago. Till date I have not removed it. --Dhulfiqar 07:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that you have no right to edit my user space let alone after I have warned you not to so I am not quite sure what all this schoolyard taddling is doing for you. --Ari (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

MN Sources

Please don't take any of Mark's sources without independent verification. I trust that he means well, but he has a terrible track record. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with you

I wanted to make sure you saw this, since I did contradict you on a very minor point (whether to tag that page, or let the policy at WP:BLOCK stand alone as the tagged policy page). I just wrote:

"I think the best way to understand it is this: First and foremost, SlimVirgin is absolutely right: "It's a long-standing policy of the community, developed by the community through a shared understanding of what constitutes disruption." Second, it is fully endorsed and has been implemented for a long time by ArbCom. Third, I fully support it and I am willing to do so in my formal traditional role in the English Wikipedia, including the reserved powers of WP:CONEXCEPT. Fourth, it has been publicly stated by Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia Foundation as policy. If anyone has any doubts about the first thing, or the second thing, then there's the third and the fourth thing. It couldn't be any more policy than it is."-

I just wanted to be sure you knew that I agree with you fully on the more fundamental question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know, Jimbo. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Social populism

Thanks for protecting Social populism, I appreciate it. I really hate to ask for protection, and only do so when I can see no better way of preventing harm to the project. I have tried to calm both users, and will continue to do what I can, but I hope the protection will help, and that debate can take place. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher

Thanks for that. I suspect it may need a much longer protection at some point though - you only have to look at the history. SPI has proved that the editors are coming from various locations; it's a pretty obvious meatfarm, presumably from a forum or similar. Still, let's see what happens when the protection expires... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If the protection needs extending feel free to ping me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bronisław Komorowski

Could you provide me a link to whatever I can look at to help me understand the decision to full protect Bronisław Komorowski for an entire week? On first glance, it looks like overkill, but I'm sure an editor of your standing had good reasons for it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Huksie, I apologize for the error, and thank you for pointing it out! I was responding to a request on RfPP to add move protection, and I mistakenly added full protection at the same time. I've returned it to the previous semi-protection until July 11. Again, my apologies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Your reputation provides you with a presumption of good will, and I just figured some kind of off-page warring had been going on out of my sight. Thanks for clearing things up. Bye! HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian Wulff

I'm giving you an update on the Christian Wulff article which you protected. Myself and Leicchaucer thought that consensus through discussion was exhausted and thought the best way to go is a vote. We both agreed that the best place to hold further discussion and the vote is on WikiProject Germany's talk page. I have informed all registered users who were involved in the discussion of this vote. Kingjeff (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kingjeff (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible you can protect it for maybe another week while the vote is finished? Kingjeff (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

pl-wiki usurpation

hi, per your request, I initiated the usurpation procedure on pl-wiki. cheers, Pundit|utter 07:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Pundit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac

Pardon me for saying so, but I believe there is no need for the full-protect. The conflict has been resolved, well, I at least have no objections to User:Paxcoder's latest edit. If it weren't for his aggressive attitude I doubt there would've been any confrontation at all. (His abuse, however, is not something I'm prepared to take.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Direktor, I've left a question about it on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

Hi,

Would you mind protecting Ten Commandments in the pre-edit war version, that was stable for the last year and a half?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only do that if there's something really inappropriate in the protected version, such as vandalism or something else that's clearly wrong. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So WP:BRD, which both sides of this dispute support, is irrelevant? Is it just a matter of which edit warrior reverts and then runs to RfPP before the other notices? — kwami (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a request on RfPP and I added protection to the article as I found it when I responded. That's all we're allowed to do, unless there's reason to suppose that the current version is wildly inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin eye requested

I've asked Karanacs, but you may be more active. To Kill a Mockingbird is going to celebrate its 50th publication anniversary on July 11. GrahamColm just informed me that the BBC did a story on it this evening, which no doubt will increase traffic to the article. It may also be highlighted on the "On This Day..." main page box. It's currently had partial protection lifted for the pending changes trial. Can you keep an eye on it and replace partial protection if it gets too much vandalism? School is out, but when it was featured on the main page 2 years ago, it got over 100K hits. I would do it, but since I wrote it... you know... conflict of interest and all... Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do, Moni. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

newspaper "company bio"

I am seeking an administrator to help me with a problem at this article and you have been very evenhanded and helpful in discussions I have seen. An admitted editor at the subject paper ("our company bio has been changed" was asserted later) created the original article. It had no references and was copy taken right off of its "about us" information on the web. Much material obviously was proprietary marketing material and I edited it down. Then I began to build an appropriate page for the paper and I "wikified" the entire article. The same editor repeatedly has reversed many edits I have posted with extensive research with sources about the paper.

This editor has never posted an entry to another article. The revision history reveals the clear intention of the editor to eliminate data about community issues raised about a change in paper policies, an issue that is well documented. The same editor continues to reinsert promotional material and contact information that is available readily on the website for the paper and to suppress data that is unwelcome, no matter its truthfulness.

I am seeking some oversight from an administrator who can review the situation and place some warnings if found relevant. Although I am prepared to continue to deal with the changes, if necessary, I am tired of sequential reversals of the very same material that is germane to the article and have no desire to participate in a "war". Although I now am a reviewer (along with the millions now), but have no experience with the warnings that would be appropriate and really prefer editing articles. Are you free to take a look at this? I'll keep an eye on the article and this talk page for any suggestions. ----83d40m (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi 83, I've left a comment on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will double check, the source from the paper should have led to letters to the editor where the complaints were made. ----83d40m (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We couldn't use letters to the editor as sources in a case like this, unless the letters were from prominent people, though even then it might not be allowed. I'd have to see the letter to be able to judge. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The letters and related sources for the criticism were from leaders in the community such as the former mayor who now is head of a prominent business and development association, the president of the coalition of neighborhood associations for the entire county, and the president of the local neighborhood association affected by the issue, and I had placed links to the articles and letters referenced so they could be read. I decided to leave the section cut unless the controversy continues. If so, you can review them then and more local discussion should be available from newsletters published by the associations if it does. The original work is always there if needed later. ----83d40m (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think if you have someone like the current mayor writing in, and doing so officially where there's no doubt that it's him, you could possibly use that letter as a source. But there's a presumption against readers' letters being reliable sources for the obvious reason that such material can be tricky legally, and it's particularly awkward where you're using such sources to criticize companies or living persons. So the letter would have to be a very good one, and the writer a very prominent person, before we'd even consider it. And then all you could so is repeat what the letter said, e.g. "In 2010, Mayor John Smith complained in a letter to the editor about the newspaper's recent coverage of X." You couldn't use that letter to imply that there had been other criticism, or that everyone was unhappy about X, linking to the letter as an example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Byllis

Hi, could you lift the Deucalionite protection on Talk:Byllis? There is now a legitimate IP editor active on the article, whose input in a current talkpage discussion is needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IP hopping sock.

I did file an rpp for the GNSS article because it was being edited by a sock of User:Yattum who is currently serving an indefinite block for sockpuppetry. While I agree that the substance of the edit itself is not problematic, my objection is that the user shouldn't be editing the articles in the first place (i.e. I don't believe he has a say or right to touch an article given he has shown a disregard of all WP policies). Regardless, it appears that he's continuing to edit-war and in addition to the GNSS article, he's reversed my change on Indian Navy. Vedant (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him according to the sock report where it was confirmed that this IP range is implicated, and I reverted one of his edits to Indian Navy, but then I reverted myself because I don't want to get into a situation where we're reverting edits just because of who made them. So please check the source and decide whether it's a good edit on its own merits. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to citing sources but as per consensus reached on WT:AIR the particular source being used has been determined to be unreliable but given that most reliable sources have divergent numbers, there's no one right answer. This Globalsecurity source states 224 and AviationWeek gives a number of 181 for 2009 (either of which I'd be happy to instate). My only concern was allowing the user to continue editing despite a block. Vedant (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think the edit or the source is poor, by all means revert. I just don't see the point of reverting only because of who added it. There are admins who would disagree with me on that point, so by all means feel free to ask someone else to deal with it. It's just that personally I prefer to look at the quality of the edit first, but I can't judge that in this case without doing some research because it's not immediately obvious. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand, it seems a waste of time to revert a perfectly good edit (even if it's by an indeffed user). Usage of said amateur site though is more prevalent on WP than I'd like. Currently, the source is being used to reference service numbers on this article as well though once the 2010 Aviation Week is accessible to non-subscription customers, I'd like to modify numbers accordingly. Vedant (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here, have this

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For regular work at RPP, meaning I don't come in to a huge backlog like I used to! GedUK  07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A minor point regarding your CC statement

A minor point, almost certainly compounded by by usual attempt to multi-task and failing to do so effectively, but I was reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Statement_by_SlimVirgin and struggling to keep track of what you were saying versus what you may have been quoting and/or paraphrasing from the emails you mentioned. I know the deadline is over, but I suspect if you were to add italics or quote boxes to clarify, it would not be discouraged. Or, if you think the deficiency is only in my head, you can ignore.--SPhilbrickT 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that minor changes, especially to clarify a point, are allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. In particular since it's only 2h12 after the deadline... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I added blockquotes, SP. Please let me know if it's still unclear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the quoted emails, could you specify precisely which editors involved in the climate change case are directly linked to the email messages you describe? It sounds like you received some worrying messages, but it's not immediately clear how those messages are related to the climate change arbitration — perhaps this is a matter that would be better handled in a different case or venue? Also, could you indicate which editors involved in the climate change case (or who ought to be involved in the climate change case) were involved in reverting your changes to WP:NPOV? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to leave it as it is, T. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this — were any of the editors involved in the climate change arbitration involved in reverting your edits to WP:NPOV, or named in the emails you described? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've said what I've said, and it is what it is. The Arbs will either find it helpful or not. Sorry! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. My concerns remain that your submission, absent any specific links to the climate change case's participants, is both out of scope and needlessly inflammatory. I have described my concerns on the case workshop. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Concerns about the relevance of SlimVirgin's evidence submission. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, have you forwarded copies of the emails you received to the ArbCom? And is the editor who sent the messages currently blocked or banned? TenOfAllTrades(talk) (expanded 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

T, I'd really appreciate it if you'd leave this to ArbCom. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Social populism

Hey SV, you locked out this article due to an edit war, a guy on the talk page has said he will afd the article if a ref for the term is not found, i think i have one and posted it on the talk page of the article. Could you pop it into the article please? Or let me know the tag i need to place on the article talk page to get it done? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection ended in the last hour or so, Mark, so you can go ahead and add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)