User talk:SlimVirgin/February 2014

Ezra Pound

Hi SlimVirgin, I'm maybe, kinda, sorta, thinking about taking Ezra to FAC again so thought I'd alert you. I've submitted to PR (well, I've made a mess of that!) and because I very much want this to be a collaborative effort have added your name there. Just thought I'd let you know. I don't really have a sense of how much work needs to be done, and PR, I'm hoping, will be useful in that respect. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, thank for letting me know and I'm really glad to hear it. I think I may print out a copy of the article and sit down with it to refresh my memory, and see how it flows. I've also put the PR page on my watchlist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have accidentally made two PR pages, but hopefully that will be fixed. Earlier today I was thinking about printing out a copy as well. I've added some bits recently, but I'm not wedded to them, nor to some of the structural changes I've made. In the end, I decided I need feedback. I do have access to sources, so that's something! Victoria (tk) 00:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the endless project that will never get done! Just to let you know, I've decided to out on break for the foreseeable future. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oops, we can safely ignore the statement above. I'm about ready to send to FAC, probably today, or certainly this weekend, if you think all the issues have been worked out. I'll wait to hear back from you. Victoria (tk) 17:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you feel ready, I'd say go for it! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'll chicken out if I don't. Then we'll be having this discussion again in another four years. And that's a scary thought! I'll give myself a little while longer to think about it, but yes, I think it's ready. And I won't have the books forever either! Victoria (tk) 20:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Victoria your shilly shallowing now. You and SlimVirgin already have a superb page and are each more than capable of meeting any requeasts that come in. The page can only improve from review. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Do either of you know how to close the PR? Victoria (tk) 21:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There are some instructions for that here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, found it. I'm a little rusty! I've nominated, here. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well done! :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI - you'll see it, but I've done a bit of digging re the photographs and have left a screed on the talkpage. I won't be around much for the next however many days and wanted you to know. I might be checking in and watching and I'll be getting messages from my page but will definitely be out all of Friday and probably the weekend too. Sorry to do this to you! We're almost there though! Victoria (tk) 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Ceoil and I can keep an eye on things and (I hope!) hold the fort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lemmons

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a paid postion with the church. I love wikipedia. As strange as it sounds. I use it first for everything. Which I probably shouldn't do. I want the page on Christian Science to simply be the best. The most honest. Even with controversy. Sect, denomination, cult..... could careless about those titles.... To me they are meaningless. IN fact I appreciate Melton. He is an honest thinker, even if he feels we are a cult, he is honest in his thoughts about Christian Science and I have enjoyed getting to know his thinking. Right now the page calls Christian Science "everything" hahaha gnostic, new age, spiritualism, theosophy.. which I am used to. But, very reputable thinkers, also call it "Christian". The burden of proof is on me. Don't mind that. The research has been fun.

Don't want to mess with your page. Appreciate your care and love.It's all good--Simplywater (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

christian science

I do not have a paid postion with the church. I love wikipedia. As strange as it sounds. I use it first for everything. Which I probably shouldn't do. I want the page on Christian Science to simply be the best. The most honest. Even with controversy. Sect, denomination, cult..... could careless about those titles.... To me they are meaningless. IN fact I appreciate Melton. He is an honest thinker, even if he feels we are a cult, he is honest in his thoughts about Christian Science and I have enjoyed getting to know his thinking. Right now the page calls Christian Science "everything" hahaha gnostic, new age, spiritualism, theosophy.. which I am used to. But, very reputable thinkers, also call it "Christian". The burden of proof is on me. Don't mind that. The research has been fun.

Don't want to mess with your page. Appreciate your care and love.It's all good--Simplywater (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

About the other users, I really don't know honestly who the others are. I'm simply there because a few weeks ago I happened to look at the wikipage on Chistian Science, which I never look at becausee I have no need to, and was surprized at what it said. I am not looking to turn the page into a Christian Science advertisment. A lot of doors have been opened.--Simplywater (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting the word "prayer" stay. I feel satisfied with the first paragraph. :)

Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album)

Would you please semi-protect the page for another three months? Because it's not enough. 183.171.179.101 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

New error messages in CS1 cites

Just FYI. As you are likely aware, the CS1 cites have become ever-more restrictive using the quick speed of Lua to pinpoint trivial issues with date formats. Currently, 2-day dates are invalid now, and to fix pages with CS1 cite dates, consider moving the date to end-of-cite:

• {cite journal|title=Subject|work=Journal|date=4-5 May 2009} → "Subject". Journal. 4–5 May 2009.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

An easy bypass is to move date to end & add dot: "}} 4-5 May 2009." Rather than using the power of Lua to make templates smarter, or detect actual grammar errors when copy-editing text, it seems Lua is being used to make templates more nitpicking, to further hinder writing, by quickly scarring thousands of pages with trivial, bogus error messages as busy work to fix invented problems. Jimbo has advised we need standards to control the over-use of templates. Perhaps: "A template shall not be petty". In many ways, the use of Lua script has been a disaster, triggering multi-week reformatting of millions of pages for small changes, while obscuring the key features of a template with layers of cryptic Lua encodings. It requires tremendous concentration to focus on adding valuable features, rather than busy-work formatting. -Wikid77 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules

Thanks for all your contributions on this. Perhaps I've been a bit stubborn, but the page is improving. Any additional help would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

New Category

Added Category:Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia to your User Page, for your approval. A little humor! If you don't like, you can of course remove.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		Because, one year on, I keep looking back to your work on Christian Science as an example of how it should be done. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much appreciated! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete all unsourced BLP statements on sight?

Your input would be appreciated in the discussion at BLP Talk. Dezastru (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's check your memory

I am taking a look at a potential ArbCom case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise_-_Involved_and_AdminAcct

One of the possible issues is an interchange between User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:Leaky caldron.

My short summary: Leaky Caldron read the policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry literally, and concluded that the prohibition:

Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.

does not prohibit edit an RfA talk page. The sentence specifically identifies talk pages of polices and guidelines, but when it comes to RfA, it refers to voting, not commenting, or contributing to the talk page. FPAS takes issue, and is dismissive of the notion that the intent might have been limited to votes, as opposed to talk page edits.

It is my belief that the position of Leaky Caldron is plausible, but I thought it would be interesting to see if I could get any insight from the history.

In case you are wondering why I am addressing you, it is because you wrote the text (AFAICT)

If I read the history correctly, the language did not exist prior to your edit of 3 October 2009

You said:

Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.

In August of 2009 there were general prohibitions on editing talk pages, but this prohibition was the use of more than one account.

I note that the addition was accompanied by a footnote to an ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry. The key point there seems to be a finding that

Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.

This would seem to be supportive of the position of FPAS, as the talk page of an RfA qualifies as a discussion internal to the project.

However, when you wrote the language, you did prohibit contributions to talk pages of policies and guidelines, but when it came to RfA, you prohibited only voting, not contributions to talk pages.

One of the reasons I wanted to look at the history was to ascertain whether the limitations on policy talk discussions and RfA votes were added by different people at different times, which might suggest that the lack of parallelism is inadvertent. However, given that it seems to have been crafted at the same time by the same person, it seems more likely to me that the difference is deliberate, and it is a plausible inference that votes to RfA are prohibited but contributions to talk pages are not.

One other things that occurred to me - I cannot tell from the history whether you crafted the words from scratch, or perhaps were leaning on language form other sources. If the latter, it might be that the lack of parallelism is an accidental artifact.

I realize it has been quite some time since this happened, but if you have any light to shed on this issue, I would appreciate your input.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I can't be certain that the failure to mention RfA talk pages was deliberate, but I suspect the thinking was that it's commenting on the RfA page itself that matters. But if someone is socking to have an effect on an RfA via the talk page, then I think it's reasonable to see that as a violation of that part of WP:SOCK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	We may not have crossed paths before, but I've always seen you doing wonderful work everywhere! A major contributor of Good and Featured articles which I always admire and respect. Thank you for your hard work over the years! Maybe I could learn a thing or two from you someday :) Best Wishes. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That's extremely kind, many thanks! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

NFC edit

There are three things that you are removing - and blindly since you're not addressing Aquegg's similar edits which are not being done without discussion but do reflect practice.

1. Coin images. That section is just saying that for identification of coins/bills, we allow the front/back image pairs for identification, as to contrast that we allow one cover image to be used for other works. It is not an attempt to say any other type of coin/bill image is inappropriate, just that the front/back pair is the equivalent of cover art for coins.
2. Photographs of 3D objects. This is standard enforcement - a freely taken photo of a copyrighted work is a replacement for a copyrighted-taken photo of the same work.
3. Montages. Again, standard practice that a user-created montage is multiple works of non-free and generally avoided.

None of this is new or or novel or more restrictive than anything already on the page. So removing it makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it's best to discuss this on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin image

FWIW going to Flickr and doing a CC search pulls up several images that use the hoodie image but in de minimus and in a manner that actually shows it as part of the protests and rallies (actually justifying it better in the text even if these were non-free. Three that are rather good [1] [2] and even [3] My question is how you think it best to go about replacing it or approaching discussion to replace it; my gut says to open a new NFCR specifically on only that image and replacing it with one or more of these examples. FFD seems too bitey. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the second one, the David Shankbone one. I'm not familiar with all the discussions about this, and why the hoodie is the main image for one but not the other. I think there's no problem replacing the hoodie in Shooting of Trayvon Martin, where it's halfway down the page, and used to discuss the protests. David Shankbone's image would be fine for that. But it wouldn't be appropriate as the main image for Trayvon Martin.

Perhaps the best thing would be to ask on talk if anyone minds you replacing the hoodie in Shooting of Trayvon Martin with David's, and then ask on Trayvon Martin whether there's a strong preference not to use the car image as the main one, and take it from there. They might say they don't mind, in which case you could use the car image there too as the main one, and David's free hoodie one lower down, as on the shooting article.

But I think it's also important to remember that it doesn't really matter. Both articles are going to have at least one non-free image on them, and both images are ubiquitous. So there is no great non-free issue at stake here, and given the sensitive nature of the subject, the editorial concerns ought to take precedence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi SlimVirgin. I am not trying to be a prude or anything, but just trying to sort this out. Back in October 2013, I asked you if you felt it was ok for me to make a specific direct edit to an article where I have a COI.[4] Your response was "Yes, I think you could make that edit if it's not contentious, especially as someone else agrees."

But then when I described very similar situations where I have made direct edits to Jimbo, you find it concerning. I am presuming therefore that you do not mean that my making such clerical edits is concerning, but that you would like me to make it easier for editors to verify that my direct edits are indeed clerical?

It sounds like a petty thing to get into, but a GA review could easily take 20+ edits for copyediting, citation templates, etc. and I think I would basically have to abandon the GA process if I had to be utterly Bright Line compliant, which would in-turn result in more criticisms, since GA reviews tend to help weed out some of my COI bias. CorporateM (Talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll reply in the other discussion in case others want to comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox person - relatives/parents

Why would you removed "if notable" from the relatives and parents parameter without a consensus like you did here. It makes no sense to have non-notable people in there because then you are going to get users that are going to put siblings and aunts and uncles that no one has ever heard of or knows. Makes no sense to load up an infobox with non-notable people when every other parameter is "notable" only like height, children, awards, etc. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it can be important to omit names of children of living persons, but otherwise I see no harm in mentioning names of parents, siblings, spouses, partners, especially of historical figures. I would leave it to editorial judgment on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As a frequent editor of BLP articles, I have noticed this issue popping up more and more ever since it was removed from the guidelines. I do not think leaving it up to editorial judgment is going to be sufficient. Nymf (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see that things could go either way depending on context, so perhaps the best thing is to start a discussion on the talk page. I'll keep an eye out for it and join in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Pound lead section

I left you a note here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:George Habash.jpg

This fie is marked as Keep Local when a version has previously been uploaded to Commons with the same filename. Is there any particular reason for having this en-wiki version only, or can it be deleted? Thanks Nthep (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Help stop paid advocacy editing!

	The stopper award
	Thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)