User talk:SlimVirgin/July 2016

Could you comment

here Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, I'm sorry I missed this at the BLPN, but I've put the article on my watchlist. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shambo (bull).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shambo (bull).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Veganism

Is it that you aren't interested in this and the other discussion the IP started? Or is it that you are too focused on other things? Pinging you still works, correct? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, I took the article off my watchlist in January because of the disruption at the time, but I'll take a look. Thanks for pinging me. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining. You have enough help there to revert bad edits, though. I'll revert when I see disruption such as vandalism or POV-pushing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I've left a note on talk about the arrangement of the sections. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DavidCPearce

Just FYI, despite being blocked for 24 hours after violating the 3RR on Thomas Pogge he came back and did the same thing again.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made an AN3 post about it (pinged you). But since you asked on David's page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Davidcpearce. Sounds like meat puppetry though from his reply. Just FYI EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Looks like you're online. Does this need revdel? FourViolas (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not, but the editor has some explaining to do. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue

Just asking here to avoid cluttering the talkpage with discussions of details. What's the deal with removing the images? I'm aware they're shitty illustrations, but I didn't dig them up at random from some sleazy Commons category. Both of them received prominent placing in article space, and are not isolated examples. Surely it's useful to show some of the problematic imagery we're dealing with. I'm mostly just looking for clarification here, since I'm not sure if I've been in breech of rules or etiquette, or something else entirely.

@Montanabw: in case you want to chime in

Peter ^Isotalo 23:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't violating any policy, my intent was, basically, not to "remove" the images, I just made them into links so as to avoid cluttering the relevant page. What I have seen on some of these discussions related to women's sexuality is that once one person starts posting images, the trolls show up and under the false guise of "we're just discussing this," they feel they have carte blanche to post even worse stuff. Before you know it, the page has become a hostile environment for a lot of people and the trolls win again. It's sort of like removing grafitti as soon as it appears; if you leave it, it just attracts more of the same. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, it's that they were images of women as things, so it was a surprise to see them on the GGTF page. I like Montanabw's solution to link to them but not display them. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we have users active on the GGTF talkpage that don't see the problem with objectifying or sexualized imagery, I'd like to think that (literally) illustrative reminders are appropriate. I didn't add these images as a demonstrative or provocative examples. Both of these images were prominent, non-vandalism examples from article space that still have parallels in other articles. They were sexist, or at least clearly sexualized, but not pornographic. There are far worse examples out there. I'm not going to argue the issue further, but I consider the idea of hiding image examples directly from articles inherently problematic. At the very least, consider taking it up on user talkpages before editing other user's posts and going off-topic with procedural issues. And as for "graffiti" concerns, I know from personal experience that this doesn't happen even in heated discussions in article space, and it's never a relevant excuse to edit other user's posts.

So far, no one has contributed a single relevant comment about the original request in the thread which is disappointing. This is not the first time I've brought the issue of gender-insensitive imagery att GGTF[1][2][3] and I would really love to move forward by codifying experiences and how to deal with these issues. Acknowledging that we need more eyes on the problem is great and I appreciate your support, but I know from personal experience that replacing them can be surprisingly difficult and that some methods seem to work better than others.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I've left a note on GGTF about how we should try to add something about this to a guideline. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endometrial ablation

Slim, can you come-over to Endometrial ablation and comment as to whether this is FGM?

Do you believe that the procedure requires informed consent? Discuss. FredrickDay2 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source use review

You made helpful critiques of my sourcing practices at Psychology of eating meat a while ago, and as I revise the article I want to be sure I'm addressing your concerns. I'd be grateful if you could let me know what you think of the refs in the section at User:FourViolas/sandbox/Meat. Content addition and wordsmithing still needs to be done, but I've applied the following WP:V principles:

Statements of fact sourced to MEDRS standards: recent review articles in mainstream journals (or books from academic presses), with page number
Summaries of particular studies cited to a secondary source summarizing them (with page number) as well as to the primary source (no particular page).
Qualitative level of support ("indicated", "demonstrated", "suggested", no qualification) acknowledged
sfn format

Best, FourViolas (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FourViolas, I don't have time to look at it in detail, but I had a brief look. If you're using the primary sources through the lens of secondary sources, it should be okay. I question the point of some of the research. For example, the thing about men being less likely to choose a "ladies' cut" – that would probably apply the other way round too, for lots of reasons unrelated to meat. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, that's what I wanted to know. You're quite right, the secondary source only called that evidence that men are motivated to avoid “feminine” foods; I'll be careful with those details. FourViolas (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE

FYI. I mentioned you at AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#David_Tornheim with this diff. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't quote or cite me out of context like that in these contentious disputes. I rarely comment on GMO issues, in part because I have no interest, and in part because whenever I do, the comments are recycled, and it can end up being very misleading. If you look at the list in which you included my name, it's a list of editors who (according to your post) someone asked to have sanctioned for pointing out or challenging pro-industry POV edits. But that doesn't pertain to me. Please leave me out of it, unless I decide to comment myself. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree that you were not asked to be sanctioned, even though I do see it as part of the same behavior. I will delete the diff. ASAP. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done [4]. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please claim your upload(s): File:Tolleshunt D'Arcy map (Bamber).JPG

Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transfered to Commons.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like changing more than once

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

but your edits on King don't reflect the article where he says he gave this "survey" to thousands of people (not just boys) - sometimes on the radio - and certainly not all whilst in a Rolls Royce. Police comments such as "hundreds of photos of boys" often mean "amongst thousands of other photographs" probably not brought up in court. I read somewhere about "seduction packs" (it may have been in his film) which were ordered ignored by the judge as none had been seized or produced in court (why not?). They were actually Concorde promotion packs. It strikes me as unfair to include the police side and not his and I actually think neither has a place in the article. And the whole thing about 5 separate trials - three ordered abandoned by the judge after the acquittal in the second trial - and the Judge saying he would sentence on the first trial verdict as a sample for all claims must surely be worth including (you seem to have dropped them). I also find omission of Who Let The Dogs Out and Chumbawumba odd. Most people know about his involvement with them. You seem to have taken charge of this article so I thought I'd mention them here rather than there. Ballymorey (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ballymorey, I'll look at the thousands of photographs articles again. It did sound odd, especially the figures. I'll look at the five trials thing too. I've been trying to streamline to make it less confusing, but perhaps that should be restored. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the old section about the trials. Which words do you think should be restored and why? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a better precis from the original Wiki article and to be honest I think all that stuff about photos and Rolls Royces should be left out as opposed to carrying King’s defence as well.

The original piece started…. The investigation led to King's prosecution which was split between several trials at the Old Bailey.^[1]^[2] King denied the charges but, in September 2001, he was found guilty, in the first of the trials, of four offences of indecent assault, one of buggery and one of attempted buggery against five boys aged 14 and 15 during the 1980s.^[1]^[2] He was found not guilty in a second trial two months later. The Judge ordered the remaining charges dropped and sentenced him to 7 years' imprisonment for the offences in the first trial as a sample for all charges.

Sorry about the links - cut and pasted!

These are bits from the Independent, Bob Woffinden and Billboard I found valid. ... Ballymorey (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference barber was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Ronson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I've removed the newspaper text because of copyvio and also because it's not what I asked. I was asking which words of yours, or of the previous version, you believe need to be restored. (The prosecution account in the previous version was long and confusing.) Also, please don't add anything without a source. Have you edited that article before with a different account? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, should I do? I've not edited much. Why do I need to change to a new account? It's not so much adding previous stuff. More that I thought there was a lot of prosecution and police stuff without the other side and much of it seemed carried after trials in media and not only denied but excluded from trials. I think the section ought to be cut right back with less speculation. Ballymorey (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer I'll try to find all the stuff like his conducting those surveys on radio and add them with links. It's probably on his site somewhere. But isn't it all detail not suitable for wikipedia? Anybody that interested can go to the sources themselves. Ballymorey (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one link to the odd fact that King's original accuser did not mention King in his initial approach to Clifford which explains why I think it is worth saying "about other men" but I really do not believe blogs like Icke should be considered worth linking in wiki - most of those posting are really crazy! But if we begin adding details, where do we stop. Anyway here it is plus the link. Too busy now to go on with this! From 2005. https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1061525105&postcount=67357

As I have said I approached Max Clifford by email, not naming King only naming Denning and The Walton Hop they contacted me the following day and asked if I had any photographic evidence of which I did not. Ballymorey (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ballymorey, I'm going to archive this because it isn't productive. The article needs a reliable source for every point, not discussion boards on conspiracy sites. The subject's website can be used for personal information that isn't in dispute, but even then only sparingly. Otherwise we use high-quality news sources and books. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MfD nomination of Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests

Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[barber-1] Cite error: The named reference barber was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Ronson-2] Cite error: The named reference Ronson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]