User talk:SlimVirgin/June 2014

Your GA nomination of Brian Josephson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brian Josephson 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

NEJM

Hi SV - I was just at WP:RX and saw an old request by you for a few NEJM articles. Do you still need them? Sunrise (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sunrise, that would be very helpful if you have access. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I do. :-) Drop me an email and I can respond with PDFs. Sunrise (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

disappearing quote

The quote I added re Rennolls commenting on Wiseman seems to have disappeared in your edit (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Josephson&diff=next&oldid=611186700). Was that intentional? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I'll reply on talk shortly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brian Josephson

The article Brian Josephson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brian Josephson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones, I'll take a look now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Work on Deepak Chopra Greatly Appreciated

In case it wasn't clear on the Talk Page, I just wanted to express my appreciation for all the work you've done on Deepak Chopra. It's been a frustrating place at times, with either extremes of the skeptical or fringe POV's duking it out, and it's been a relief to have a reasonable, neutral, proficient editor come in and go gangbusters on quality control. Thanks for all your hard work there, and I hope the endless bickering over trivial details doesn't chase you off! The Cap'n (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Askahrc, thank you for saying that; it's much appreciated. I've given up on the article for now, because it doesn't seem possible to make progress. But I wish you all the best with it, and I may look in from time to time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:( Sad to hear this Slim Virgin. What's making progress not possible? SAS81 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a fresh read and it looks really good. The images are fantastic. I think there are a couple places that come off as promotional or too watered down, but it's "good enough". CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, I didn't mean my reply to be so abrupt. I just re-read it and it looked impolite. I meant that I don't see the article as good the way it's written. There are prose issues, sourcing issues and the structure is kind of all over the place. It's better than it was a few weeks ago though, I think, but some of the issues that were causing problems back then have been re-introduced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, I missed your question above. Normally what I would try in this situation is writing a draft and proposing it to the community for consensus. It would have to be significantly better than the current version so that people could easily see that it was an improvement. That would be quite a lot of work, with no guarantee that it would be accepted. A lot of our BLP-focused editors have left or are editing less because of burn-out, so I'm less certain nowadays where consensus would lie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks S V. I'm very disappointed we lost your voice on the page - right now there is an RfC and was hoping you could at least give your input. There's also an AE that was just put against me too, apparently there are a number of editors who are quite unhappy with the progress that was made on the article when you arrived, and are trying to make it worse than before. How can Wikipedia work this way? If neutral editors are harassed away or too frustrated to even try, BLP's representatives, working with WP policy get blocked from participating in Talk - it seems like all the WP policies that allow for self correction get stopped. I see how Wikipedia can correct this problem, but if editors try to own a page and stop the natural process I'm worried that the problem is unresolvable. I'm hoping you can tell me I'm mistaken. SAS81 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did notice there were some copyediting and sourcing issues, but you have to keep in mind this is true with most articles and the article is already better than 75% of our pages. CorporateM (Talk) 13:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Thanks for stopping by. The AE thread was just re-opened for comment. SAS81 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

SV - it's been my focus to study this issue on Wikipedia and I have come across many editors commenting on the problem, on this article and others. By far I can say that your summary in the AE is the most articulate I have come across. Not only did it communicate something i have been stumbling around for weeks - it also is performed the full benefits of an hour session with my therapist. I thank you. She thanks you. Cheers. SAS81 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, SAS, and you're welcome. :) I hope things work out for you. If the atmosphere on that talk page can be changed, things will be much easier for everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you're interested or not, but this article mentions your work on the page. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Walter Somerville

Hi Slim Virgin - thank you so much for the Talk message. Glad you like the page, though it is a work in progress and hopefully others will chip in. It came a surprise to see that someone as renowned as Dr. Somerville had never been written about. It is very heartening to have some positive feedback - it sometimes seems that half the people on here just want to criticize! Picknick99 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Picknick. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Peyton Sawyer article

Since you WP:Semi-protected this article before, will you consider WP:Semi-protecting it again and/or giving Sahyadrisingh a stern warning about his or her WP:Disruptive editing, including his or her constant IP-hopping to WP:Edit war and disregard any attempt at discussing the matter? I recently requested page protection for the article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. It might be a good idea to start a discussion on talk about the issue, just to make sure the anon doesn't have a point. It does seem as though s/he's just being disruptive, but it's worth a check. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As you saw, I further commented here. And like I just stated there, now that the article is WP:Semi-protected again, if I were to revert again, the editor would simply use his or her Sahyadrisingh account to revert again...like last time. As for discussing it with the editor, I tried that. See this discussion. If the editor were truly interested in discussing the matter, then the discussion would not have ended with my reply while the editor continued to edit disruptively. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

Just drawing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Ezra Pound to your attention - someone else has suggested it for 2nd July for the 100th anniversary of Blast, and I thought the three of you would like to know. Comments welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 16:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Bencherlite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. Given this post I declined on the nom page, though this is an article I'm looking forward to seeing on the main page. That date might'nt have to be anniversary dated, lets see. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with whatever you and Victoria prefer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your edits and good participation at Talk:Brian Josephson about edits to that article. it seemed embarrassing to me, a short while back, about how wikipedia had been treating him. your considerations there help a lot. sincerely, --doncram 02:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Doncram, and thanks for the feedback. I wasn't happy about him not being happy with the page, so I hope things can be worked out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. I just browsed further, and you did even more than i understood before. Really, bravo! It is important to be able to believe that Wikipedia can treat decent, notable, important people properly, i.e. fairly. I have come back more and more to fairness being really really important (especially about how Wikipedia allows bullying editors to have their way too much, though that may start to get off track a bit. See my comment at User talk:Brian Josephson#The World is Watching!, by the way). Sincerely, really, thanks again. --doncram 23:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Doncram: I completely agree about fairness, and I see more and more people talking about this on Wikipedia, about the need for a sea change in how we treat people (including each other). I know that User:Wllm, the partner of the new ED, is looking for comments about this kind of thing on his talk page if you're interested in joining in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

for summarizing the issues so beautifully and succinctly on the SAS81 AE. Your comments have the added effect of benefiting everyone working on the Chopra article, seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for saying that, Olive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[1] You've still got it. Please don't give up. Cla68 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla68, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Obstruction of edits by some editor

Hi Slim Virgin! I see that you are an administrator and I'd like to ask your feedback concerning the edits of a user:McSly, who repeatedly tried to obstruct my edits at talk:cold fusion by keep trying to archive the sections where I intended to add subsections. The reason for reuse of an archive I've explained on that talk page. His edits do not seem reasonable. He also made threats with reporting.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: From the history of that talk page one can see that the edits of another user:Johnuniq are similar to those of McSly. Johnuniq also seems to have the habit of removing comments of other users that object to his edits. This seems like quite disruptive.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Please look at the history of Talk:Cold fusion because something needs to be done to maintain WP:TPG. If you are not familiar with the case, cold fusion is a hoped-for source of unlimited and inexpensive power; it is also subject to WP:ARBPS. The issue at hand is that some IPs want to retain material on the talk page after it has been archived (see sequence of edits 19 June 2014), and they want to discuss that material in ways that seem very remotely connected with possible improvements to the article. I suspect that careful checking would show that nearly everything that is currently on the talk page has been archived. Certainly the recent edits restored text from archive 46. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've left a note on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how many distinct people are posting to the Talk:Cold fusion page as an IP, but it may be helpful to note that all but one of the IPs that have edited it since April were from Romania - 94.53.199.249, 188.27.144.144, 82.137.14.68, 82.137.14.162, 193.254.231.34, 82.137.9.180, 82.137.9.236, 82.137.8.198, 5.15.53.36, 5.15.181.68, 86.125.186.149, 86.125.167.74, 5.15.53.167, 5.15.37.240, and 5.15.35.32 all geolocate to that country.

This pattern of insistance on dearchiving goes back a while, there was a discussion in February about talk page archiving here where the consensus was to archive a number of threads, the only dissent on that discussion was from IPs that geolocate to Romania.--Noren (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I followed the link from another page to this one to emphasizes the utility of hastily archived section. Re Noren's POV, I thought that w'pedia does not rely on the numbers of individuals (from a particular region) expressing a reasoning, but the validity of arguments. The utility of not archiving has just been proved.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have put the DS template on the talk pages of the IPs, so that any further disruptive editing is subject to arbitration enforcement. I have been advised by Newyorkbrad that disruptive editing of talk pages of articles that are subject to sanctions is itself subject to sanctions. I think that the IPs are all sockpuppets, probably of a banned or blocked user, but that only has to do with the quacking. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You're famous

I presume by now someone has already brought this Huffington Post article to your attention, but if not I thought you might want to see it. CorporateM (Talk) 02:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, thanks. How are the new terms of use going to affect you, by the way? I was surprised to see the need for employment details. I'd have thought declaring the COI would be enough, so I wonder how that's going to work out. PR companies might have confidentiality issues, so for example a BLP subject might not want people to know he has employed company X. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That is true - I do not disclose agency partners that may be involved, which would be a violation of their NDA (corporate privacy). Another example is the Butts page, where I was hired by a concerned relative, not Butts himself, and I think it would be a privacy issue to disclose who that is. However, the terms say they are to prevent "deceptive practices." They were basically created for Wiki-PR and whoever chooses to fill their shoes. I have a hard time imagining anyone but outright trolls giving me any grief over the technicalities. CorporateM (Talk) 00:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I just posted at the COIN talk page some thoughts on that. They are discussing if Wikipedia will have an alternative disclosure policy as allowed by the ToU. It would be great if they ended up with an alternative that just required a disclosure, but not necessarily requiring so much private information. CorporateM (Talk) 01:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yay! Getting mentioned in the MSM means you can have your own BLP! Yopienso (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Slim has been mentioned before but this is pretty detailed. So...where are your decorations? ;-) Makes it sound like you're a five star general.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get your joke. Yopienso (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't really that funny. Now...if I said it made her sound like a Christmas tree it might have been funnier. They refer to Slim's "decorations" or Barnstars and FA, GA icons etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't get my joke, then. Yopienso (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, nope.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For keeping an eye on Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion, especially with respect to Romanian sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Robert. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias task force

I’m sorry to see the disruption on gender bias task force page. I agree with your assessment that making it heavily about categories tends to make it contentious. I’m interested in finding out more about task force and direction you think it should go in to achieve goals. I hope you don’t mind me bringing this to your talk page, instead of article talk page, but unfortunately, it seems like it’s becoming wp:battleground over there. Is there anything I can do to help with task force? Despite the assertions of one editor, I'm not on page to argue with him. Although, I have crossed paths with him on other gender bias related pages. My interest is the actual gender bias related pages themselves and the gender bias issue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bobo, thanks for your note and offer to help. I should probably have called it the gender gap task force, because that's the real focus. I was hoping for a warm, collaborative space to discuss it, whether in articles, behaviour, policies, or anywhere else. Just a place to hang out, exchange ideas. I was going to work today on making the page more inviting, but didn't get far. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Can the task force be renamed? I agree that a task force related to the gender gap seems needed. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)