User talk:SlimVirgin/January 2014

Proposal for "Say where you read it"

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to provide input at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#ALT3 comments (Support / Oppose). I obviously did not give a clear rationale. The problem is that metadata (title, author, year etc.) supplied by Google Books is 36% inaccurate, so editors who use it run considerable risk of making unverifiable citations - no such book. My guess is that we have hundreds of thousands of such dud citations, quite a few being ones that I made. The proposal is to point out the problem, and suggest giving a link to what the editor actually saw. I am sure it can be better worded. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aymatth, I'll give it some more thought and I'll leave a response on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I use Google Books a lot and always naively used http://reftag.appspot.com/ to generate the citation. This has been bugging me since I heard about the problem, started checking scanned publication data where visible, and began to understand just how many unverifiable citations I had made. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A personalized New Year greeting

Hope you have a bright 2014! Acalamari 11:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, Happy New Year! It's been a long time since we last spoke to one another; I'm glad to see that you're still editing and still a highly active editor. :) Best. Acalamari 11:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Acalamari, it's nice to see your name again, and thank you for the good wishes. Happy New Year to you, too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White House Farm murders

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article White House Farm murders you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Veganz

Hello! Your submission of Veganz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Epistemological Letters

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White House Farm murders

The article White House Farm murders you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:White House Farm murders for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR and Bunting

Many thanks for being willing to mine JSTOR for a few pieces on Basil Bunting and Briggflatts. He's a rather obscure poet, and sometime by Spring I plan to bring those articles up to snuff.

There are five JSTOR articles:

1. Bunting's "Briggflatts": A Quaker Masterpiece
2. Basil Bunting's "Briggflatts" and Melancholy
3. Time and the Literary past in the Poetry of Basil Bunting
4. Journeying with Bachelard, Bourdieu, and others toward Bunting: Revisiting the Margins of Forgetfulness
5. Sketches from "My Voice Locked in: The Lives of Basil Bunting"

I am grateful for your help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've responded by email. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	What wonderful improvements to Mary Babnik Brown. Thanks. Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug, that's very kind. I'm glad it helped. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Hey. I hope you're managing to keep warm. (It's 85° here ) I just thought I'd point this out to you, lest you miss it. Your views on BLP are always worth hearing. Take care. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, many thanks for the ping. I've left a comment there (it's also 85° where I am, thanks to central heating and several layers of clothing). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bad Pharma

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bad Pharma you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Stone Nullah Lane

Hi SlimVirgin. Thank you for reviewing my DYK nom. I've addressed the concerns listed and replied accordingly on the nom page. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories for media

Out of courtesy, I am letting you know I have removed categories from the following pictures.

File:Stanley Green by Sean Hickin (1a).jpg and File:Stanley Green by Sean Hickin (2a).jpg

I noticed them when I was looking up a category. Although Wikipedia handles media pages in the category page, they were the only pictures appearing so I felt that no categories for media was an accepted rule. I hope you agree! Periglio (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Referencing style

On the Help Desk, there is a request for mediation on a GA nomination for War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. The article seemed close to being GA approved, but the editor change the referencing style during the review. That lead to a dispute between the editor and the reviewer over WP:CITEVAR. There's a lot of hard work in the GA review. Give your edits to the page containing WP:CITEVAR,[1] perhaps you can help move the matter forward. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I left a comment on the review page. The most sensible thing would be to close the review so that the nominator can re-nominate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nah, per WP:IAR, I reopened, looked at it, and passed the article as a GA. GregJackP Boomer! 03:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Veganz

Allen3 ^talk 10:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It's now featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, feel free to add it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Allen. You're welcome, Gerda, and thanks for posting it there. I'll remember to do that in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you feel about Joel Brand for TFA this year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, oh no, not again. :) The thing about it is that I have to juggle inter-library loans (to make sure I have them at the same time), which is a pain in the neck. All I really have to do is check source-text integrity, and make sure that I'm using his book rather than secondary sources that discuss it (which I think I've done in a few places). So it's not a lot of work. But it's dull and I don't really want it on the front page, so I'd be doing something I don't want to do, in order to achieve something I have no interest in achieving. That makes it more than usually Wikipedia-like. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! Take your time and perhaps try next year. I watch the Main page every day, it's not as bad as its reputation. On the German one right now the blue duck attack by a missing friend, - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, one day in the hopefully not-too-distant future, I will present Joel Brand to you as a gift, polished and ready for his day out. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

Thank you, a great promise. I translated for a friend, enjoy, duck attack on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Month abbreviations

You often comment on style matters, and if I remember correctly, you have commented on ongoing bot runs to correct date format errors in cite templates. So you might find an RFC I have begun of interest: WT:MOS#RFC: Month abbreviations. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Has Anti-Semitism in the United States ever existed among individuals or groups?

I'm being told that contention is not the case.[2] Understand that my motivation is impure, per similar edits to Category:Anti-Catholicism, but as you know First They Came is my favorite poem. I've decided it is time to release the hounds. (You are, hopefully, the hounds.) -- Kendrick7^talk 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this editor continues to believe Anti-Semitism has never existed among individuals or groups throughout all of American history.[3] I mean, hey, maybe he is right.... -- Kendrick7^talk 04:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick this is a dishonest representation and you are leading the witness with a bogus question as well. The question is whether groups or people that are allegedly anti-Semitic should be added to such categories - and past consensus has been no. If you think consensus has changed, an RFC is the proper course looking at all of these cats (homophobia, racism, anti-semitism; etc). If your purpose is to expand the coverage of anti-semitism in the US, you can edit this --> Anti-Semitism_in_the_United_States.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, if I figure out how, I will turn the following rant into an RFC.

I basically have 3 problems with what is going on with the purging of, at least, Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States, and perhaps whatever y'all have planned next. First They Came...

My first problem is "allegedly" doesn't mean anything, because Wikipedia is based on WP:V & WP:RS *not* WP:TRUTH. Was Hitler an anti-Semite? Well, you know, allegedly. Of course he was, but we don't deal with "truth" here. We explicitly deal with a set of what we hope are reliable allegations.

My second problem -- and I admit, Slim and I have come to cyber-fisticuffs on this matter before -- is that you, Anslem, et alia (henceforth y'all) are taking a completely anti-Theological (hah!) position by lumping oppositional theology in with racism, homophobia, etc. Yes, there are serious shades of gray, periodic outbursts of horrible violence, and so on, but for most of the last 2000 years, Category:anti-Catholicism, Category:anti-Judaism, anti-Marcionism (I haven't gotten around to that one yet, but it was a thing), and Category:anti-Gnosticism, and more recently Category:anti-Protestantism are fundamentally about thought exercises, more akin to anti-Capitalism, anti-Communism, or even anti-Fascism. Yes, Communists and Capitalists occasionally kill each other in vast numbers (heck we all almost died). But we don't lazily equate anyone taking one side or the other with racism, just because we can lump any category with the prefix "anti-" in with anti-Semitism. I'm half surprised Category:Antigua and Barbuda hasn't been lumped in yet as well!

My final problem is how sneaky the purging of Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States has been, from my perspective. You're happy to hit what you imagine (since you are ignorant of the topic) are low level targets like John Dowling (pastor) (lived in the 1830s, arguably the father of the anti-Catholicism movement in the U.S.),[4] while letting the most famous example of a group of "alleged" anti-Catholicism in U.S., the Know Nothing Party perfectly alone, lest, I could suppose, more people like me with some degree of common sense shows up. But like I said "allegedly" has no encyclopedic meaning, so I'd like to assume good faith that you just think some obvious things are more obvious than other obvious things. But we've been having this argument since August, and it's basically come down to "yeah, but there are more of us, so go screw."

My fourth problem is... oops, oh bugger!. I mean, I guess I fundamentally don't like whitewashing history for silly reasons. I mean, y'all are insisting Jack Chick -- who Slim might best know of for being the sole remaining [edit: American] cartoonist who draws Rabbis with hooked-noses un-ironically -- isn't anti-Catholic, while the truth is, were he not a fundamentalist, he'd happily have that fact tattooed on his forehead. He insists quite freely that the Pope is the anti-Christ (wait, are we purging that anti-X too??) and, hey, God bless him. Why should we not be able to give the man his due? Because Hitler? Well, I think that's just lousy. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying the existence of anti-X, nor even the notion that There are orgs and people who are clearly anti-catholic. But the problem is a slippery slope one - for inclusion in a category you should not have subjective criteria- so how anti-catholic do you have to be to join that category? How many crooked noses is enough? Again you seem to want to use the category system to make some sort of political point about anti-Catholicism but it's the wrong approach - why not edit the article instead? We're not trying to be sneaky, I'm just trying to enforce the long standing consensus. If you think a separate RFC should be had to say 'Ok, anti-religion is diff than anti-semitism and racism and sexism, so let's do a new RFC just on the anti-religion cats to allow categorization of people, organizations and media that are anti-religion, and what are the criteria for so doing' then see what the community says. Your slow, one-man-army approach isn't going to work, because we have past consensus on our side, and repeated visits to CFD have convinced me that consensus still lies in the same place, but CFD is a subset so a broader RFC is perhaps needed to gauge the sentiment. If I wasn't afraid of being put on front page of NY Times I'd prob even remove Hitler from the anti-semitism category- Hitler was also racist, anti-gypsy, anti-handicapped, pretty much anti-most-people, but he's not in the German racists category. Or perhaps there's a nazi exception to the rules? I dunno... But I'm not in the mood to start that fight.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, i think when Dowling's magnum opus is entitled "Romanism" he's fair game. What you categorize as "long standing consensus" is just the opinion of a single closing admin on a 2 year old WP:CFD, which, quite apparently, everyone laughed off at the time as ridiculous. Only recently has User:StAnselm resurrected this result as Gospel, which you and a few others have decided to start carrying out.

And, hey, maybe I'm a one-man-army, but I have WP:TRUTH on my side! (P.S. FWIW I suspect that Hitler isn't in the German racist category, because being a Nazi is a probably subcategory of that category(?); categorization always runs downhill.) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm going to pass on this, but thank you for the kind invitation. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't blame you and, per WP:BIKE, I'm straining to care about these categories at all. But, somehow, I sort of miss the old Slim. An editor wrote on your talk page "I'd prob even remove Hitler from the anti-semitism[sic] category" if he could get away with it, and you didn't even flinch? Back in 2006 you would have given me a two week block for such a thought even crossing my mind! On the other hand, you've clearly grown as a person. :)

So, good on you. But sooner or later I'm going to fix the oppositional theology cats, probably via a new WP:CFD. So fair warning that will, possibly, only push this trio towards your bailiwick. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I have no idea why you didn't start a CfD discussion ages ago. StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Petrus Kalil

Hi Slim,

A couple of years ago, you helped out with an BLP of Antonio Petrus Kalil, which had been very poorly written by used DonCalo with tendencious and defamating content. At that point, it was argued at first that the article should be deleted, but finally you took the decision to stubiffy it and that the new entry should be written in a correct manner. Turns out that DonCalo rewrote a very similar article a year later and once again with poorly sourced elements, hearsay and so not. Could you please take a look at it?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 January 2014

I'll take a look if I have time, but the best thing would be to post at the BLP noticeboard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention and interest on the case Slim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Slim, about a week ago, you mentioned the possibility of moving this entry to a draft page untill it would be veriafiable and correct, there were no other responses to this possibility since the 19th. Could you please procede with this move in order to avoid any more injust public defamation for the moment? Thanks Sportsmarketer (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've left notes for DonCalo and on the BLP noticeboard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Jimmy Wales is asking a few questions about my COI participation and situations where I have made direct edits at: User_talk:CorporateM#Quick_question

A while back there was a specific case where I came to your Talk page and asked if you felt it was ok for me to make an edit. Do you remember what it was? CorporateM (Talk) 20:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bad Pharma

The article Bad Pharma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bad Pharma for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Meat industry

Hey SlimVirgin! I started an article about the meat industry here: User:NewJohn/Meat industry. So far there is just a redirect from Meat industry to livestock. If you -- or anybody else -- want to improve on my draft please do so. Thanks! NewJohn (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Meat Atlas

The DYK project (nominate) 00:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You are guilty of 'speciesism'

• you said on AN that I added Origins of Attitudes towards Animals into 'articles unrelated to the topic of the thesis. '

It is untrue, this non-sense shows your lack of skill/knowelage of scientific research. The international data mining project described in the Origins of Attitudes towards Animals, collected data about thirteen world issues, including: environmental protection, reducing poverty, racial equality, women’s rights and, sustainable development. Animals issues are only one of it. Although the thesis focus more about animal issues, but the results of other issues were reported in great detail. Rsearch into the soruce.

• You have racist attitudes in your views (judging by your past editing). You were actively managing speciesism, Do you understand speciesm and racism are both unscientific bias? People like you using lies to justify their discrimination to other groups. A anti-speciesm campagin that engaged in racism is self-defeating: Different ethnic/race groups are subspecies of humans. Racism is one kind of 'speciesism'. You are guilty of speciesism.

124.170.241.46 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Leah Vincent

Slim,

I found some further revs that should be deleted, for instance [5], by looking at deletions in [Special:Contributions/174.111.227.167]. Would you like me to make a full list? It's fairly clear from the diffs which ones ought to go.

Thanks, Nick Levine (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, that's done. It's odd that I missed it first time. Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Christian Science sidebar

I hope that you are aware that you are adding an excessive amount of links to disambiguation pages in Template:Christian Science sidebar? The Banner talk 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Banner, I've just created this sidebar and will be trying to get it in order over the course of the next few days or so. But you keep reverting, including reverting to a version with the wrong name of the template, so that anyone clicking on the little "edit" button at the bottom will be taken to the wrong page. I'm adding dab pages, lists and categories in order to link to groups of churches because there are so many of them. Why would doing that be a problem? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding links to disambiguation pages is the problem. When you want them all in the article, you better create a "List of ... Christian Science Churches" instead of pointing to a dab-page. The Banner talk 11:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a discussion on Template talk:Christian Science sidebar, so I'll copy your post over and reply there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)