User talk:SlimVirgin/September 2014

File:Sighet ghetto, 1944.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sighet ghetto, 1944.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello SlimVirgin/September 2014! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Neal D. Barnard

Years ago you edited this page a little. I found an article that may have some good information for the good Dr's page. It is older but still has some valid points. I started a section on the talk page. I do not have a lot of extra time to make substantial changes to articles, for which I do regret. However, if you want to look into some of this information I would be most grateful. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 03:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bondfield

I've not been able to look at FGM yet, but I should be able to at least make a start before I go on Saturday evening, because I've just finished drafting Miss Bondfield, and placed her at peer review. She was a determined and formidable woman, not nearly as recognised and appreciated as she ought to be. If you can find time over the next week or so to take a look, and perhaps make a comment, I'd be most grateful. But don't worry if you don't have the time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks really interesting, Brian. I'd be very happy to review it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned users MfD

Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sonderkommando photographs

On 17 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sonderkommando photographs, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Sonderkommando photographs (example pictured) of events around the Auschwitz gas chambers in 1944 were smuggled out of the camp in a toothpaste tube? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sonderkommando photographs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sonderkommando photographs

Absolutely fascinating. Thank you for starting this article. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 04:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Came to say the same. It's featured also on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I don't know why you don't want this standard practice: Zeszyty Oświęcimskie [pl]. It's used for example in the list of composers by name a lot, - an article in a different Wikipedia establishes notability. (When the article here gets written, the interwiki-link is not shown anymore, see Stanisław Kłodziński.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're both welcome, and thanks for the feedback. Gerda, re: the links, thanks for the information. I prefer to write a stub when one is needed, but I see the benefits of the other way too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely leave red links because they get filled by others, and then I can't add an infobox ;), but DYK name time is a good time to hope someone else will do what I have no time to do. How do you like Ernst Roth? Great inscription on his tomb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About my revert.

I understand where you were going with that, but I think the BLP page is better with when it had more of that overall context. The policy covers more disputes than that last one. If you read it now, I think you'll see it still expresses the nuance you were seeking.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elaqueate, would you mind posting this on WT:BLP? That way, the conversation is in one place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importing disputes

Don't know if you noticed this originally, but I made a more extensive proposal not long ago and and it went over like a lead balloon.[1] Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must look awful...

but that section was heavily battle grounded for months, and I think any major reversion back to pre-debate phrasing will have people fighting in the exact same way. I suspect it would be easier to re-word Mos:Identity from scratch without debate, or change back all the capitals in birds names. I think that last marathon discussion has more words than the MoS itself and it was painful for a lot of the editors involved. Everyone had a different definition of what LQ really meant, and it becomes pedantic incredibly fast. If you think the wording is deficient enough to go through more discussion it again that's fine, but please don't assume you're making edits that people would consider non-controversial. (I'm sure I sound like a jerk somehow and I'm sorry.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bondfield

I am thinking of nominating this article at FAC in the next 24 hours or so, and will therefore be closing the peer review quite soon. I've been very grateful for your comments; please add more if you have time, otherwise, you can always raise further issues at the FAC when it opens. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, you're welcome, and I'll look out for it at FAC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI

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.

Hi Slim - At no point have you said EllenCT acted wrongly, which I do not understand. I do not understand how after Kingofaces made an explicit disclosure of his work, you continue to call for a COIN posting. I do not understand where you are coming from. If you would like to explain, I will listen. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, it's best to continue the discussion there, so that others can join in. I can't really think of anything to add. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that people who oppose stricter COI/paid advocacy policies like to throw up "witch hunts" and "getting railroaded" and "we focus on content not contributor" as some of their key concerns. EllenCT is the poster child for persistent inappropriate accusations of COI - her behavior is truly disruptive to a collaborative, consensus driven project. If what EllenCT has been doing is not admonishable in your eyes in any way (and you have opposed any sanction), I have a hard time imagining what kind of COI management regime you would establish, that I would want to work in. I came here to ask where you are coming from. If you don't want to say, OK! Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only firm position I have in relation to that discussion is that it needs to be toned down, because the aggression is getting in the way of seeing what's what. And I would really prefer that it be discussed there, because I'm just a peripheral commentator. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (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.

Archiving

Something wrong with the archiving bots? Those threads you archived on WP:GGTF were past the 30 day mark. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wondered about that myself. I'll take a look to make sure we've set it up properly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I compared it to the code on my own talk page and it seems okay... how strange. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing that to 20 days. I've left a note for User:Σ, the bot owner. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution v Sex Work

I was surprised to see that all articles on sex work seem to renamed to use the term prostitution. The general move in academic circles is to either use the terms together (e.g. sex work and prostitution) or to just use the term sex work. It's not clear to me how this naming got established and wondered if you had any insights or suggestions. Thanks! DStrassmann (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diana, I stay away from those articles on Wikipedia, so I have no idea who the key editors are. One place to start asking is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Lightbreather might be able to help: she has recently become involved there in an effort to present other views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate the advice. DStrassmann (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sorry, DStrassmann, I can't give you much insight. I am no academic; I can only tell you my opinion as an editor. I think if an article is about a person, and that person is/was primarily a prostitute, I would use the word prostitute. However, if that person is/was equally well known for modeling, dancing, pornography - then I might be tempted to use the term "sex worker," but probably better to just say "he/she is/was an adult model, stripper, and pornographic actor." As SlimVirgin suggests, you might ask at the porn project page, or maybe try Flyer22. Lightbreather (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DStrassmann to make sure she sees this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did see that. The term sex work covers sex for pay and is seen as a more respectful term than prostitute, which carries a lot of demeaning innuendo. There are interesting debates on this topic. We are publishing a symposium (possibly a special issue) on this topic in Feminist Economics so I've learned a lot about the discussions and various points of view on this topic. Requiring all articles about those who engage in sex for pay to use the terminology prostitution shows a lack of awareness of these points of view; one reason I'd like to see it changed.DStrassmann (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antônio Petrus Kalil

Hello SV, would you please review your indefinite full-protection of this article, has it been long enough to attempt to reduce to this SPP? Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux, by all means feel free to semi-protect it, if you think it's okay to do it now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully the BLP issues stay at bay this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.