User talk:SlimVirgin/August 2015

😘 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclooren (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ian Tomlinson

hello. You are wp:editwarring on Death of Ian Tomlinson Govindaharihari (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)(Shemuh khalifa)[reply]

Gladsmuir

I asked and was given permission to stand on the front lawn of Gladsmuir. There is still a car but there was nothing I could do about that. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philafrenzy, I'm just being super cautious. I'm sure it's fine, especially if you had permission. I've been looking through your photographs of the whole area. They're really wonderful. I've driven through it a few times, but never stopped to look carefully. Sarah ^(talk) 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that before I saw your new photograph. It's great, thank you! Sarah ^(talk) 21:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Phil, if you live near there and have spoken to the owners (and so long as they know it's for Wikipedia), I wonder whether they would ever let you take photographs inside, or at the back. There are apparently some interesting features, including a weather vane from 1775. Sarah ^(talk) 21:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission from the security man. I think they have had photographers before. I regret to say that I doubt I would get permission to go inside or round the back. With full time security and lots of cameras I think they guard their privacy very carefully. I was surprised really that I was allowed to take that shot. Every other house in MH is listed or has an interesting history. Not so Hadley Wood, however, which is stockbroker and footballer territory with barely a shred of history. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense, and asking would feel awkward. Sarah ^(talk) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer with these houses is to wait until they put it up for sale and make sure you capture all the inside shots from the estate agent's listing using Internet Archive or a similar service. Those links can then be incorporated into the article. Lowbridge Estate and Hadley Lodge for instance. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female mentorship

Nice to see you have time to work on that article, question though. You added sources but a large amount of the promotionialism is still in the article. Do you have plans on copy editing or getting people to work on the article? I am loathe to do it as it might require a female touch but I still think it is needing a rewrite. I'm willing to hold off on that if you are still working on the article. Let me know please and i will respect the fact if you are planning on working on it and leave it be. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more or less back to a stub now, so perhaps someone familiar with it will build it up again. Sarah ^(talk) 17:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, you did a great job! ThNks for the reply. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Core content policy talk

Template:Core content policy talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Controversial groups

Template:Controversial groups has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattress performance

Hi, the boys have put in a Camille Paglia quote, lengthening the section on responses. Will you put your two cents on the Talk page when you have a chance?--A21sauce (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one boy. I for the record had nothing to do with that and can't vouch for the content. I merely commented that the stated reasons for A21sauce's revert seemed flimsy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editors chiming in are guys. Also, lengthening the article is a flimsy reason? Right.--A21sauce (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animal cognition article

The scientific status of "consciousness" in animals continues to be hotly debated. Serious consideration of conscious thought in animals has been advocated by some (e.g., Donald Griffin),[20] but the larger research community has been notably cool to such suggestions.[21]

I've added an "update needed" tag to this section because of the above paragraph which is poorly cited to material from 1985 and 2006 respectively. I very much doubt that this is still "hotly debated". Everything I've read within the last decades says otherwise. The archaic notion that animals don't have consciousness has been used to justify eating them and experimenting on them. I doubt that current science still supports this antiquated notion. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That attitude is oddly common on Wikipedia. I've never understood why it's so prominent here. Sarah ^(talk) 16:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I contacted you was so that we could get these articles updated with the most current research. On the other side of the aisle, it might be interesting to get the input of editors like User:Tryptofish, who may be able to point us in the right direction. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying because Viriditas pinged me, and I thank Viriditas for thinking (probably incorrectly) that I'm that capable. My short answer is that "consciousness" is one of the most ill-defined concepts in the English language. Are we conscious when we are dreaming? Or when we are "zoned out"? Depends on how you define it. So you can define consciousness to apply only to humans (self-fulfilling definition), or define it to apply more widely (also self-fulfilling). Beyond that, please leave me out of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me stalking your Talk page. I agree very much with what Trypto says, however, there are a couple of recent review articles you might wish to look at on this subject. I'll try to find the time tomorrow to work these into the article, but feel free to do this yourselves if you wish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1668/20140167.full.pdf

DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles appear to significantly diverge with the evidence, particularly the consensus found at animal consciousness, which contradicts what our article on animal cognition says because it is out of date, hence my original point. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is still controversial, but the weight of opinion may have shifted. Perhaps the most reliable statement of the modern center of opinion is the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which is discussed very thoroughly in the article. There are certainly plenty of people who disagree with it (including me!), but it does seem to represent more or less the mainstream. Looie496 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nagel's definition is still widely cited: "[A]n organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the organism." [1] Note his point in that paper (first published in 1974): "Some extremists have been prepared to deny it [consciousness] even of mammals other than man." I mention that to illustrate how odd this argument (that animals do not have subjective experience) has seemed.

I'm currently trying to improve our article on the Australian philosopher Val Plumwood. There's an ABC podcast here (broadcast after her death) where she talks about human/nature dualism, and she sums up well the problem of anthropocentrism; she makes the point from c. 08:05 to 10:14 mins, beginning "The exaggerated opposition between humans and the non-human order ..."

That's an interesting article, DrChrissy; thanks for the link. Sarah ^(talk) 17:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NORtalk

Template:NORtalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cinny Kennard

Thought you may want to check this out and see if you can improve the sourcing. I don't think it's ready for mainspace but the editor might be someone you may reach out to, User:WomenJournos. Seems like you are both on the same wavelengths so she might appreciate your usergroup. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

YGM. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favor?

Hey SlimVirgin. Would you mind uploading a photo of Elizabeth Gillies to be used on her biography? I can't do it myself because I recently just joined this association. And I have to wait for 4 days until I get to upload a photo. Hoping for your reply very soon. Jade Renner (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

Dear SlimVirgin, I know you've stepped away from the discussion, and I hope you won't take this as hounding, but I wanted to share a though with you. Before engaging in this discussion, I personally had no idea that there was any controversy (or, at least that there was any diversity of thought) with respect to the phrase, "plant-based diet". I was, in short, in the position of the typical Wikipedia reader. Moreover, there was no place in Wikipedia where I could find out that there was any controversy; although the phrase is used in Vegetarianism and Semi-vegetarianism, its meaning is not explained in either of those. Now, a reader who sees that phrase in those articles (or elsewhere) and wants to know what it means can get an answer that provides context and sources supporting the factual assertions about that context. Also, please know that our disagreement on this matter does not affect the immense respect that I have for you as a Wikipedian. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD2412, thanks for your note. The issue is complicated and the sources aren't clear. I'm in the process of obtaining more information off-wiki from specialist sources. If I'm able to work out what happened (how certain terms evolved and how they're mostly used), I'll post more on that talk page or yours. Sarah ^(talk) 17:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - cheers! bd2412 T 17:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why

The issue has the meaning (enciclopedic info - including). Undo yourself (such trouble has right be placed on the personal page of Jimbo Wales). With explanations. You removed inportant info. You not will create again (Im sure). You have no dream create this again. Important info! 95.27.126.15 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 95.27.126.15, I didn't remove any information. I semi-protected the page following a request because there seems to be disruptive editing there from unregistered or new accounts. If you would like something to be added, please go to Talk:Russian Orthodox Church and argue your case there. Many thanks, Sarah ^(talk) 21:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, it was my mistake (I did not see simply). All normally. Sorry for my mistake! 95.27.126.15 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But your friend creates damage. Please rollback him in the article.95.27.126.15 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted by many...many many many....editors over the last month/year that you have tried to add this nonsense to the article; don't single me out for simply happening to be the latest one. To be brutally frank, you are not fluent in English enough to contribute to the English.Wikipedia. The poor quality of the text is itself enough of a reason to justify reversion; that it is slanted, biased and WP:NPOV-violating is just a bonus. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, the disruptive editing there is only coming from one person, who was banned as long ago as February 2012. He'll complain about you to Jimbo soon. He always does. I genuinely believe (and I'm not saying this as an insult) that the person is deranged. It's absolutely the same over and over again: he adds biased text in poor English, gets reverted, readds the text and starts becoming abusive. Complains to Jimbo (or ANI) with the only result that he's blocked. He readds the material using ips, the page is then protected, more complaints to Jimbo go unheeded and he simply waits for the semi-protection to expire before repeating the cycle. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Valenciano (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this message ("You must restore info in the article about ROC. If you do not wish have very great troubles not only via Wikipedia.") is a very clear threat and blockable right away. That's the second in 24 hours, following on from his "you will be killed soon" message to me yesterday. There was also the sinister "Bitch, you're almost a corpse. You touch one other user with an ip address and I think I'll come to you and I will hurt you very painfully. I still do not know your address. But authorities have a lot of friends. Sit down and do not rock the boat, schmuck" threat earlier in the Summer. Valenciano (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc and Valenciano, looking ahead, let me know whether any pages need protecting because of this, including user and user talk. Sarah ^(talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I accept. He's now mucking around here as well. Valenciano (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sarah ^(talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 18:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dewritech (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dewritech (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Year Society

Can someone invite himself to the Ten Year Society? I've been on Wikipedia since 2004. H Padleckas (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation duly delivered. Welcome. :) Sarah ^(talk) 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, thank you very much. H Padleckas (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user/sock

Having problems with an obvious sock and hope you can help. User:RyanBurns1980 was blocked for juvenile vandalism like this. The ip User:222.158.40.25 is clearly just him evading the block. Identical edit to RyanBurns on Sailor Uranus. Both of them active on List of Happy Tree friends episodes and the ip popping up to constantly restore RyanBurn's disruptive user page. I could file an SPI, but they usually take a while these days and I think behavioural evidence makes the contribution somewhat obvious. Thanks again. Valenciano (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the user page, but I can see normal edits from the IP, so it's probably best to ignore unless the vandalism starts up again. Sarah ^(talk) 21:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your guidance and thoughts at the Bild article. Your thoughtful remarks cause me to carefully consider the relevant policies and guidelines, as well as reconsider my edits. This is the kind of interaction that happens all too rarely here, so I appreciate it all the more. Thanks again! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, Capitalismojo, I appreciate it. Sarah ^(talk) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akashay Hingane

He is my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayesh8055 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hilary Bardwell

The article Hilary Bardwell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There's no individual basis of notability for this person, other than having been married to Kingsley Amis and having given birth to Martin Amis, but the fact that she has famous relatives is not sufficient to justify an independent article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TJRC (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected and left a note on User talk:TJRC. Sarah ^(talk) 19:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your accumulation of a large number of barnstars. LavaBaron (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LavaBaron, for my first meta barnstar. :) Sarah ^(talk) 19:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good article idea

I was utterly flabbergasted by a news article I read article today..[[2]] I'm sure you have read something about this but is there some precedent for this type of punishment and should there be an article on this. I just can not understand how any reasonable person would think that this was justice or even a shade of it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's an extreme example of misogyny. Sarah ^(talk) 18:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if we frame thus as an article how would u think we would proceed?Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to make sure you have sources with more detail; otherwise there won't be much to write and someone will prod or AfD it. If I were doing it, and assuming that detailed sources existed, I might create it in the women's names, but it's hard to judge because I'd need to see the sources first. There may be another article to which you could add a paragraph or section about this, then redirect the women's names to that text. If you look through the {{violence against women}} template, there might be something suitable there. Sarah ^(talk) 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overriding topic for the specific case Hell in a Bucket linked above is "rape as punishment", and there are a lot of google hits and news hits on that specific phrase. There is a brief "As punishment" sub-section in the current gang rape article, but it seems there are probably enough sources for a separate article on this disturbing topic. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was aimed at both actually, it's hard to understand how anyone could think this is justice. I want to do some more research but I would appreciate any help from either of you. Thanks for letting mebug you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I would do is trace the provenance of the story. Sometimes things are exaggerated along the way. I'm not saying I suspect that in this case, but the extreme nature of it would make me want to know where it came from. Sarah ^(talk) 01:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fairly reliable Time, Time of India, [[3]] however the part that makes me wonder is when researching this isn't an isolated incident NPR stated it happened in this case as well. Maybe a subsection under Rape but individual incidents? Everyday I grow more and more disappointed in the human race. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo's idea of creating Rape as punishment was pretty good. It's also known as Punitive rape, if that title is preferred (Gender Violence (1997), p. 226). There might be something in Encyclopedia of Rape (2004). Also see Types of rape. Perhaps creating it as a user-page draft would be a good way to start. Sarah ^(talk) 03:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those pointers. I will see what I can work up, I added a subsection to the main rape page as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great that you started that section, Hell in a Bucket. Thanks for doing it. Sarah ^(talk) 19:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gah!

Hi, I was on RC patrol when I saw your recent edit about punitive rape. I read the link, and I just wanted to say that that's the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. Sorry, nothing really useful to add, it just shocked me in a way that very few things do, and I wanted to rant about it to someone. Good edit. Thank you. --Ashenai (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ashenai. See the thread above, where Hell in a Bucket and BoboMeowCat raised the idea of an article about it. Perhaps if that sub-section is built up, it could be spun off into a separate article. Best, Sarah ^(talk) 20:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FGM

Hi Sarah, I came across this Guardian article about FGM, thought about you, and so am leaving it here in case you can use it, [4]. Hope all is well. Victoria (tk) 15:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victoria, thank you, very interesting. We could perhaps use it in the FGM article where we discusss Fuambai Ahmadu's views. She had it done in Sierra Leone as an adult and speaks positively about it, so the Guardian article would provide another view. Sarah ^(talk) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had to look at FGM to refresh my memory. This article does provide an opposite point-of-view, or in the least gives some context. Anyway, not important to use so much, but yet another to add the huge library of links I'm sure you already have. Victoria (tk) 18:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]