Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:19, 3 September 2009

Images

Slim, for some reason the microscopic images issue has passed me by. Perhaps this is another issue where WPians can set preferences that blind them to how our readers see the pages. In any case, I've written a proposal here, which I'd appreciate your feedback on. Please note that I'm no expert on images, even though it's plain to me that we have a serious problem in the current MoS text. Tony (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rorschach

I appreciate your comments, but sorry, but I disagree. I specifically said I do not think anyone should "go after this doctor". I am simply discussing his professional conduct and ethics without advocating that anyone take any "off wiki" action. If you will carefully read the comments on the talk page it is apparent that others have raised the issue of off-wiki action, but I haven't. If you think I have specifically have suggested off-wiki action, please give me the diffs in which I have done so, and please not my responses to others who have suggest off-wiki action. I do not consider discussion his professional conduct (without reference to off-wiki action) to be "over the line". This doctor decided voluntarily to go public and identify himself by name in the New York Times, a newspaper that is read worldwide. I have no control over his decison to "out" himself very publicly, nor do I have any control over other editors' raising the issue of making complaints about him to his professional licensing agency. I have not done so. If you think I have engaged in these behavior (and I mean specifically about suggesting complaints to his licensing board) please give me the diffs in which I have done so. Otherwise, please direct those comments to the appropriate editors. Essentially, he has made claims that are not true, he has identified himself publicly, and now he is upset because others are challenging him as a public figure, not simply as a Misplaced Pages editor. So please be very, very careful in your assessment of who exactly is suggesting off-wiki action. I have not done so; I have only responded to those who have. As for the issue of my stating that this doctor has claimed expertise that he does not have, I have provided a link to his comment "Actually I am an expert" regarding the Rorschach, and he, in fact, as an emergency room physician has little if any expertise on this test. If you think he does, please explain this to me. Note that other editors also have commented that he has claimed expertise that he does not have. Being a "doctor" does not give him any expertise in psychological testing. He also has by his own admission denigrated psychologists ("I have not denigrated your profession. Only certain members of it."), so that is not a false accusation by me. Thank you again. I don't mean to minimize your comments; but I do think you incorrectly assessed this situation and need to read very carefully about who is saying what. Thanks, and have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have terribly misinterpreted. First, this issue has moved beyond the images; the images will remain in the article. But more importantly, I fail to see how asking a question about a licensing board, or asking an editor to confine his comments to the issues being discussed, or simply discussing professional ethics and conduct is "coming close to the line" of suggesting off-wiki action. The section in question was created by another user who made suggestion of off-wiki action. I simply sought information about issues unrelated to off-wiki action. SlimVirgin, with all due respect, I have to wonder why you targeted me in your comments when someone else made the suggestion of off-wiki action. I have to wonder why you did not make such comments to anyone else. On the one hand, I can believe that you have Misplaced Pages's best interest and my best interest in mind. On the other hand, given that I did not "come close to the line", and (by your definition) another editor did cross the line, and given that the doctor in question voluntarily chose to reveal his identify and thus make himself a public figure subject to action by anyone in the world ... I have to wonder if you have another motivation (perhaps unconscious). Could you be trying to protect an editor (the doctor) who gave Misplaced Pages lots of publicity in the New York Times? I think you have not taken a good look at this situation. If you see your role as simply a Misplaced Pages editor trying to discuss these matters with me, your motivations really are not very relevant, and you and I can continue this disucssion. If, however, you see your role as an admin who possibly might intervene with administrative action, I wonder if I need to raise this issue at WP:ANI. That's not a threat. I'm simply trying to maintain a productive discussion between you and me. But if you are considering targeting me for a block or some type of complaint when I have not really suggested off-wiki action and another editor has done so, I question your judgment. I hope you don't take offense because I don't intend it, and I apologize if I have misinterpreted. I simply want to be treated fairly as an editor, not be accused of something I have not done, and not take the blame for things this doctor and another editor have done. Please try to understand. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this with me. Ward3001 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I would have preferred that this be a discussion of one editor with another editor, not editor an admin. But that's your choice; it may limit how well we can communicate, but I appreciate your efforts. The IP is the main editor who made the suggestion of off-wiki action, followed by Fremte (who later claimed someone was using his/her username without permission). You may feel that there's no point in messaging the IP, but I fail to see how an anon IPs action should implicate me in anything. I disagee with your police officer scenario under two circumstances. First, if someone else made the suggestion of off-wiki action but you then asked questions, I wouldn't consider you to have stepped over the line. Secondly, if I voluntarily identified myself by name to the world, then I (not you) would have placed myself in a position to be examined by anyone, not just Misplaced Pages editors. If you disagree, I respect that, but I ask you to afford me the same respect. If I as an editor am told that I should not ask questions about an issue, I think we are on a very slippery slope. Thanks. (I'll be offline for most of the day in case you respond but get nothing from me any time soon.) Ward3001 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(Well, I haven't quite gone offline yet). I understand your point about the images. As I said, the images are only a distant secondary issue now. I do think, however, that an editor falsely claiming expertise and using that to try to affect the content of an article, and then to publicly reveal himself as not having that expertise, is fair game for discussion on the talk page (without suggesting off-wiki action) because it directly relates to the content and quality of the article. The doctor has made many comments about the contents of the article and the quality of the Rorschach in general, irrelevant to the images. In that context, not only can his claims of expertise be discussed, they should be discussed. If I claimed to be a leading expert in astrophysics, made sweeping changes to the article, then publicly revealed that I have no expertise, that is very relevant for discussion on the talk page. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss. Ward3001 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"If someone seems to have claimed an expertise that wasn't quite what it sounded like, point that out once and leave it there, or AGF and assume they made a mistake, or that there was somehow a misunderstanding". Respectfully, you really need to read the talk page and archives in detail. I understand your point, except this doctor has repeatedly presented himself as an expert (including suggestions that he has reviewed the exisiting scientific literature on the topic), has repeatedly been challenged on this, and has never corrected that false impression. Yet he continues to make many unfounded comments that fly in the face of the evidence that exists. If he made a claim of expertise one time, then acknowledged that he is not an expert when challenged, you would have a very good point. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If he continues to suggest that he is an expert, continues not to respond to challenges to his bogus expertise, publicly identifies himself in a way that his non-expertisie is apparent, yet he continues to challenge others (including a leading expert who was identified via email as such by admin Xeno), then that doctor should be challenged every time he misleads, not just the first time.

I have concluded that your motivations here are sincere, and I do apologize for any earlier suggestion of ulterior motives. But I do think that in some ways you are operating without full knowledge of the issues, especially the behavior of the doctor in question. I hope you'll read the archives, but I certainly understand that it is a massive amount of information.

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to follow these comments and any that occur later. The doctor's comments could help bring this issue to a close, or (if he is vague) make it clearer that he does not wish to deny expertise on the Rorschach. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

re:

Wow, didn't think that would attract any attention once I realized Radiant! had left. Sometimes I need to remind myself that no matter what our emotions get us into, at our best we're here for purpose that benefits society writ large and for that deserve at the very least a shared respect between us. Since I'm of a mood to shower earnest goodwill tonight, I suppose I can take this opportunity to let you know that you've always been an inspiration to me Slim, and are an amazing asset to the project. Have a great night :) -M 09:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI - courtesy notice

Your name has been mentioned in a report at WP:ANI. --Philcha (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Improving WP writing

Hi SlimVirgin,

After reading your comments on Talk:NPOV I am extremely glad to find someone else who cares about good writing. I left some comments on Misplaced Pages Talk:Areas for Reform#Possible suggestions about improving WP writing, mainly on the structure that an encyclopedia should use, and thought you might be able to provide some helpful insight. Zaereth (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Slim, it appears that you are trying to whip up sentiments to block an otherwise good editor who has had a problem with difficult communications. It is our job to try to approach problems calmly, and avoid stirring up "drama". Please, I have moved the thread to a more appropriate forum, WP:WQA, where the matter can be discussed fully. Jehochman 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Brain Gym Department for Children, Schools and Families

Hi I have put back the Brain Gym thing you deleted in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I think you might have deleted it with the other unrelated thing. Hope is OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

You might want to take a look at Michael Jackson

I believe you've done a lot of work there, and it's not under attack from a particularly dedicated POV pusher. I've disengaged, as it's just becoming more frustration than it's worth to me, but I thought you might like to have a look. UnitAnode 18:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in FAs

Thanks for the note, and I appreciate the fact that your goal is to avoid needless work by article writers. I support efforts to make FAs (and indeed all articles) easier to write. Although we may disagree on the costs and benefits of alt text, perhaps we could find another area in the FA criteria where the cost to editors more obviously outweighs benefits to readers, and work on improving the criteria in that area. Eubulides (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I reverted your edit to WP:NOT. I looked up the original discussion from 2008 that led to the present wording: . I was surprised that you made this change, which any experienced policy editor would know is controversial, without discussion, when you have been arguing very recently at Template:Policy that policy pages should not be edited unless there is clear consensus for the change being made. The lack of edit summary for your change also caught my eye: . — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just want to thank you for being civil to me at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Yes, I know WP:CIVIL is policy, but it is nice when somebody follow it. Sincerely, Jehochman 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg

File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hogarth's Southwark Fair.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Hogarth's Southwark Fair.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Augusta, Lady Gregory

Thanks for so nicely fixing the problems outstanding at Augusta, Lady Gregory. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for your work on this. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hey

Thanks for your comments. I hope you also messaged Chillum, who accused me of telling someone they are laughable when, in fact, another editor told me I was laughable. It's in the edit histories, as are many other false accusations and misrepresentations by Chillum. Either way, though, thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

Hi there - i've made some comments at the FARC, currently in favour of delisting - you may wish to check them out and respond. Thanks for your work to date. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your comment

Without regard to whether the warning for me is justified, did you warn Mirafra, who first called the editor a troll? Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I understand your intentions. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Thank you

Well aw shucks, I meant it. :P Cirt (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

Hi there - thanks for your excellent and swift responses on this FARC. I have responded at the FARC discussion to your queries on my initial points, and am happy to discuss further if needed. I am optimistic that I will be switching to 'keep' soon :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

so my post won't obscure a direct question to you...

• question from Philcha Ling.Nut (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mamet

I think the Mamet photo holds up well when reused. --WatchingWhales (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why deleting Analysis of the term intrinsic value in the article on Animal ethics?

It is the core of the article and it is sourced:

• Edward van der Tuuk: Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Animals, APS, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1999; ISBN 90 232 3469 3
  

So can I put it back up there?

Analysis of the term intrinsic value

The cause of much confusion in the discussion over intrinsic value in relation to the moral status of animals, is the diversity of meanings and connotations associated with intrinsic value. Broadly speaking there are 4 main positions in this debate defining intrinsic value. One can adhere to a meaning of intrinsic value of animals in a sense that is:

• behaviouristic, as a morally neutral value (like in parameter) that the animal's own species-specific behaviour seeks to satisfy (see also ethology)
  
• utilitarian, as a formal basis to grant animals specific rights, based upon the idea of sentience and interests, defined by ethological knowledge, and defines corresponding human obligations (see also animal welfare)
  
• deontological, as respect for the animal's telos or striving and consequential fundamental rights (see also animal rights)
  
• attitudinal, as prima facie respect for all living beings, regardless of qualities like sentience (see also Reverence for Life)
  

Mirrormundo (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Intrinsic value / Animal ethics

Animals want to exercise their species specific behaviour. If they can't they develop stress and in the long run trauma's. So they have an interest, they are stakeholders. If the term intrinsic value refers (according to someone) to the animal's urge of exercising its species specific behaviour, then that urge is a value. The animal 'measures' the difference between the actual situation, and the desired situation, and seeks to minimize this discrepancy (satify its needs). That is a behaviouristic, a morally neutral meaning of the term. It doesn't presuppose a moral actor, just the animal by itself...

intrinsic value

the source is an academic book about the subject:

• Edward van der Tuuk: Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Animals, APS, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1999; ISBN 90 232 3469 3
  

Mirrormundo (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

chapter 2: Intrinsic value & the struggle against anthropocentrism (page 29 to 37)

Categories

But I am not recategorizing (and I don't wanted to do that) all articles from "Animal rights movement", only the articles that I see belongs of a organization. I think "Animal rights movement" have so much articles and is a little ambiguous and would be great specify a little more with categories "Animal rights organizations" (the same that "Animal welfare" has subcategory "Animal welfare organizations") and a future "Animal rights activists" (if Hip-hop or Cannabis have their own category for that I think is more than suitable create a new category for A.r. activists). In any case I think that categorizing by "Animal rights organizations" is really necessary so I will doing with the time. If you don't want I will not remove more "Animal rights movement" category, but I think that in that situations keeping that is having redundant categories.

And Great Ape Project is also an organization, so I think it must be also categorized in this way.

Greetings. Akhran (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not removing any category. I know that "Animal rights movement" cat. is necessarily so I don't want to remove it, but in some situations in necessary to categorize more deeply.

I am really sure about one thing: Vegans are Vegetarians. All of them. Are vegetarians in addition to another things. But his diets is strict vegetarianism.

In any case, do what you want. I will not spent more time in a thing that for me is a no sense. For me is obvious that organizations must be too categorized as organizations. Akhran (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Intrinsic value (animal ethics)

you wrote:
Can you tell me what it says exactly that was the basis of -- "One can adhere to a meaning of intrinsic value of animals in a sense that is ... behaviouristic, as a morally neutral value (like in parameter) that the animal's own species-specific behaviour seeks to satisfy ..."? And the exact page number. If I have a page number, I can perhaps look it up.

Another interpretation of intrinsic value however, rather views the animal from a scientific (biological and/or ethological) perspective. In this conception, certain (non-moral) standards can be formulated concerning the animal's bodily functions and its interaction with the environment. Suffering can be defined as a discrepancy between the animal's actual condition and these standards. The animal's natural behaviour basically aims at minimalizing this discrepancy. The greater the discrepancy, and the longer the animal remains incapable of reducing it, the more it suffers. Baerends (1973) calls these standards expectancy-values. In this sense intrinsic value is a descriptive, rather than an moral term, and as such has no ethical dimension to it. It refers to preferences and needs of animals which, if satisfied, contribute to the animal's welfare, and if frustrated, leave the animal suffering. The animal's mental state constitutes a balance between satisfaction and frustration. There is nothing beyond interests, needs, satisfaction and frustration. (page 35)

Mirrormundo (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sincere request

Dear SlimVirgin,
While I accept that I was edit warring, I feel that after I added the dubious tag and attempted a 2nd compromise, it was unnecessary to report me and get me blocked. While doing so was within your rights, and I admit that I was in the wrong for edit warring to begin with, I feel as though doing so without even being warned was not a very thoughtful thing to do. Throughout our disagreements, we have always maintained a level of civility, trust, and respect and I would hate to see those virtues shattered over a momentary lapse in both of our otherwise honorable behavior on Misplaced Pages. I welcome you to join me in vowing to try harder not to behave in the petty ways we both exhibited yesterday. --GHcool (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am proud that we came to a compromise. I am glad we were both able to overcome our more base emotions to do it. Well done and happy editing. --GHcool (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

redirecting Animal ethics to Animal rights

I'm sorry, but but this is just not correct. Animal ethics is the general study of moral concern for animals, Animal rights is a specifiec outlook on / school of thought in / approach to Animal ethics. And then referring to Animal liberation for other meanings is ridiculous! Animal liberation is also a specific outlook on / school of thought in / approach to Animal ethics. Why not make a simple disambiguation page for Animal ethics, referring to animal welfare, animal rights, animal liberation, vegetarianism, anti-vivisection, etc... Mirrormundo (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern?

Hey - I was just wondering what your main concerns were in this editing policy issue. My main concern at the moment is that policies should not give contradicting information, and that the best way to do this by having policies stay within scope (for example, wp:admin is directed to those doing admin tasks, which is why wheelwar was merged there and not 3rr etc.) I'm worried that such policy forks might lead to serious confusion, or even inappropriate policy changes. My other concern, not presently as important, is that our policy pages are in serious need of cleanup, and that discouraging editing in any way is one of the main reasons. I recall being very worried that I'd mess something up when I started doing policy cleanups, which actually prevented me from doing any work on policies for a long time. What sort of concerns do you have, and what sort of situations are you worried about that may result from the discussed changes?    M   20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Still looking for input here :) By the way, it's invisible because it was redundant with the section below.    M   20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a concern about my editing, such as:

M, you're doing the forest fire thing again.

please take it to the appropriate forum. If you'd like to formally accuse me of editing in bad faith, you are able to do so, and you have. This is inappropriate, and doesn't help with out discussion at all.    M   21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ian Stevenson article and a past RfC

Has there really been an RfC on that talk page? Isn't there a certain procedure that must be followed in order for a discussion to be called and RfC. Was that implemented on that page? __meco (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Policies and guidelines

Hello! Still a question open for you there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Still open today too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are still questions to you open at Wikipedia_talk:Editing_policy. Hope to hear from you! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Best Selling Artist

I was wondering if you could bring your input onto this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#elvis_and_beatles_sales_are_inflated_too . One editor changed record sales for one artist and didnt do it for otheres that are in the same boat as he. Its leading to harsh debates. Can you please lend a hand to what you believe? ITalkTheTruth (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seven Jewish Children

Now that you've edited the article, would you care to express your opinion in this long-running thread Talk:Seven_Jewish_Children#WP:LEAD_and_WP:UNDUE on the talk page?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One editor User:Kasaalan wants to highlight in the lead that the accusations of anti-Semitism against the play all came from Jews. Three other editors, User:Iron Duke, User:RolandR and myself think that this is sailing rather close to the edge of anti-Semitism in itself. The three objectors are all Jewish but we have rather different political views including on the Israel-Palestine dispute and the play itself. There are additional issues such as Kasaalan's not having produced an RS that makes this point. For that reason I believe that a summary saying that all accusations of anti-Semitism against 7JC come from Jews would be a violation of WP:OR and in particular WP:SYN. I am however having great troubel in getting Kasaalan to ackowledge of this. The intervention of an experienced person who has been an admin might be useful in pushing things along somehow whether or not you agree with me.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Modi'in Illit

Hi SV! I would appreciate it if you discussed your edits before making them, like this edit. The dispute is both content-based and style-based: even if these is consensus that settlements are illegal (and there isn't), should this take up half of the lead for the article Modi'in Illit, even though it's a minor point in the actual article? Per WP:LEAD. Please talk it out before making more similar edits. —Ynhockey 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I noticed that you are participating in the discussion. I have unfortunately taken your own 3-minute rule and assumed bad faith. My apologies, and I hope that the discussion yields good results. I also invite you to contribute to the article in issues not relevant to the legality dispute. Cheers, Ynhockey 00:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfC

Dailycare already did. Cheers, Ynhockey 18:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Answered :-) — Jake Wartenberg 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Followed up. — Jake Wartenberg 04:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Vision Thing - serial plagiarist, serial WP:PRESERVE violator

Details on the talk page for Paul Krugman.

An editor who felt that those details were inappropriate for the Talk page deleted them. I've moved them here Yakushima (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Email

I have a query by email. Nice chocolate BTW! Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Professor_Carl_Hewitt_.28repeated_violation.29

You're being name-checked at the above location. You may wish to check it out. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz deletion, ages ago

Howdy, I saw you deleted User:MyWikiBiz back in 2007. One of the revisions contains a Jimbo quote which a user requested. Any reason why it couldn't be posted? I don't see anything that might be an issue (the revision is 05:01, 5 October 2006), but thought it best to check with you to ensure there weren't any privacy issues or other issues which might be a problem. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also be interested in possibly reopening the edit history of that page, so that we can be "open" and "transparent" for the world. Did you have a response for TeaDrinker, SlimVirgin? -- Thekohser 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Teadrinker, I'm sorry not to have replied to this earlier; I only remembered to do it when Thekohser posted again today. Which user has requested undeletion? Personally, I can't see any point in undeleting it, particularly if the user already knows what was said. SlimVirgin 20:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking IP range

Greetings SlimVirgin! I need some advice on how to block a number of very related IPs from editing for about 24-31 hours for continuous disruptive edits at Jenin, List of cities in Palestinian National Authority areas, and a few other articles. I warned 94.249.19.169 and he/she apparently has ceased editing, but then other related IPs have begun disruprive editing: 94.249.15.126, 94.249.2.70, and 94.249.46.11. I also suspect this new user of being the same person: Maher shalbak. How should I proceed here? Do I individually warn and block all of them? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, intemperate talk page stalker here. Those IP's fall into the same /18 range, but that would be 16,384 IPs. If there are only those three, I suggest you block those three individually for now. -- Avi (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As for suspicions of sockpuppetry or using IPs to circumvent 3RR and the like, I suggest you file a request at WP:SPI, and if necessary, a request for checkuser if it is warranted. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to block those IPs individually then. If it continues (and I pray it doesn't) then I'll file a request at SPI. Thanks for your help Avi. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

ah, the scalpel not the hatchet ....

you're going to explain your reverts at the talk page right? We're trying to discuss the merits. Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 05:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bridge collapse

Thank you for fixing the link. I didn't know how to get it to work right. Cla68 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gregory

Please don't until we can determine which took the text from which. This source is an exact copy of what was on the page. It does not attribute Misplaced Pages and the writer claims to be a scholar who was working on this for a while. I have already contacted a few people about figuring out how to deal with the matter. She either took from Misplaced Pages without attributing or the Misplaced Pages page took from her without attributing. Or, they both took from the same third party. Either way, this needs to be dealt with. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jake Wartenberg

Hi. Though I don't believe we've ever met, I usually find myself agreeing with you; however, I was a bit surprised by your vote in Jake's RfA. While it's certainly a legitimate concern, it is an exceptionally strong claim, and I'd expect some more conclusive evidence. Therefore I was wondering if you had such evidence to present. While the RfA has closed and he has been promoted to admin, I'm concerned that your claims might cause potential issues for Jake down the road. Perhaps you could explain your position a bit further? Regards, –Juliancolton |  01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slim. I was about to come here to ask you the same thing. If you do have conclusive evidence, it may warrant a discussion at the 'crats noticeboard. Tiptoety 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of doing that. I would like to hear from Jake first. I wanted to e-mail him, but he doesn't seem to have an e-mail set in his preferences, which is surprising for a vandal and sock fighter. SlimVirgin 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence, I am of course willing to join in on-wiki discussion of my close. This was, clearly, a situation with little precedent. I have been following the discussion, and did read and consider your comments before closing. -- Pakaran 02:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pakaran. Jake and I are in touch now, so it may get sorted without need for further onwiki discussion. If I end up appearing to be wrong about this, I'll post a public apology so that no lingering suspicion remains. SlimVirgin 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. You've got mail. -- Pakaran 02:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this came to my attention this evening. Looking over what you've posted I think I can demonstrate conclusively that he is not a returning/desysopped user. Durova 03:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

John Vandenberg is our acting intermediary. Durova 02:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I send him a copy of the email I sent to SlimVirgin and Rlevse (essentially, just the reasons I felt her concerns weren't sufficient reasons to delay closing)? I'm happy to do so, or happy to have either of you forward it to him. -- Pakaran 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and sent. -- Pakaran 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Per your offer above, would you be willing to retract the accusation now? Durova 21:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thank you for your help in sorting it out, and to the others who did too. SlimVirgin 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In light of a few past cases the basic need for caution is understandable. Perhaps if something like this arises again there would be a better way to raise the concerns? Kudos to both you and Jake for settling this sensibly, and many thanks to John for his assistance. Durova 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Email

Email sent. NW (Talk) 02:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:NPOV

After a few days of mucking about, I've had an opportunity to discover that 1) you're quite a veteran around here, 2) you do know what you're talking about, 3) you are an ally with the forces who prefer clear writing. Just letting you know that I appreciate this, and that I'm not trying to make your work harder.

Even though I started the latest round at WT:NPOV, my real life responsibilities are preventing me from contributing more actively there, but I will watch the unfolding discussion and try to make productive comments. I admit that I'm not familiar enough with the history of the page, the nuances of NPOV policy, the ways it's been abused, etc. But, when I do have all that information at hand, I am very good at simplifying, clarifying, removing redundancies, etc. Let me know if there's a way I can offer this service at WP:NPOV without destroying important information. Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 19:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Modiin Illit

I expect much more from an experienced admin. Shuki (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Green

Good luck - I'm not sure how well FAC like "short but complete" articles, but you're certainly right there isn't going to be much more out there. I'll have a trawl through the newspaper databases in the next few days and see if I can turn up any more incidental details for the last section. Shimgray | talk | 11:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not much luck, I'm afraid - the Newsbank databases only really become comprehensive in in the late nineties, so we only get contemporary stuff from the Times - and that's of his death. Lynne Truss wrote a column on his passing, and they published an obituary, but otherwise the only appearances for him seem to be trivial passing references comparing someone or other to "that man who used to walk up and down Oxford Street...".
• One intriguing note - a brief mention in the Sunday Times, February 18, 1990, has him down as a tourist landmark:

THE Illustrated London Map (Nicholson, £2.75) is for visitors who like their maps with a touch of visual and verbal colour. Apart from the usual tourist details, the map also gives the location of central London's curry centre and the burial place of Mrs Tiggy Winkle, and it even mentions Stanley, the anti-protein sandwich-board man who has been patrolling Oxford Street for 17 years.

• Perhaps too trivial to mention, but it amused me! Shimgray | talk | 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi SV, nearly 60K edits under my belt and it's the first time I actually have to contact one of the bigwigs ;-) Well, see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_to_do_when_a_reliable_source_is_wrong.3F - in a nutshell, what to do when the scientific community drops the ball bigtime. Part of the underlying phenomenon is outlined for example here.

The problem typically pops up when there is a high-profile secondary RS relying on statistical inference (i.e. proposing a hypothesis), which is contradicted by a low-profile (specialist, non-English etc) secondary RS relying on material evidence (i.e. stating a fact) - both being technically equally RS -, but no tertiary RS to review both. This'll eventually lead to a whole load of tertiary RS based only on the secondary RS that got it wrong, all the while the secondary RS that got it right lingers on unnoticed - until some Misplaced Pages editor comes across it. But then, any attempt to fix this according to present policy would at least border on OR because the sheer volume of (outwardly) RS tertiary sources would create an amount of Verifiability that outweighs the Truth provided by the one almost-forgotten secondary RS. In other words, the present policy may lead to verifiability enforces popular myths when issues of an empirical nature (i.e. where there may not be "absolutely true" but there is certainly an "absolutely false") are concerned.

Not that we need a quick fix, but eventually the present rule should probably be tweaked, to accomodate the empirical sciences as well as it presently accomodates the humanities. It cannot be tweaked lightly though - it is what allowed Misplaced Pages to work after all (by killing most PoV disputes before they actually occur). Any change, therefore, is liable to jeopardize the very foundation of the project, and should be done with the utmost deliberation only.

Since you were instrumental in setting up WP:V, you might give the issue a think-over; perhaps you'll come up with something workable, perhaps Jimbo does, perhaps you know someone with an academic background in the philosophy of science who's got an idea. Sorry for being so technical in the WP:V discussion - it's the arcane details this particular demon hides in most often. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Email

You got mail. FT2  12:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Joyce

The "Roman Catholic writers" bit is important because of his Irishness. Catholic vs Protestant was still highly important at the time and even if they did not adhere to dogma, he still was culturally bound. CUA has a very strong Irish studies program (and deeply connected with Trinity). They also produce many of the volumes out there on the Irish writers. They, along with many of the colleges, divide the Irish writers along these lines. Joyce was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school. His attachment to Aquinas also represents a strong Catholic bent regardless if he went to Church or not. There are also many allusions to Catholic dogma and doctrine throughout his work, and he definitely captures the modern Irish Catholic viewpoint in works like Ulysses. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have replied on the talk page. SlimVirgin 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoping there is no objection from Arbcom.

(1) Sari Nusseibeh. Once Upon a Country , (2007) Halban, London 2009 p.59. His mother was, with Habash, among those who made the Lydda march.

(2) Sari Nusseibeh. His wife is mentioned as a mere 'Lucy'. It should be noted that she was Lucy Austin, the daughter of John Austin, the Oxfordian philosopher of 'How to do Things with Words'. (Once Upon a Country, ibid. p.3.) No obligation to make the edits, of course. Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Advice on Notability in relation to a Bio

Hi SlimVirgin, I was looking for someone who might provide a bit of an appraisal or advise on how to deal with a notability question re a Bio I have recently created Claire Loewenfeld. I picked you out from the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography page for your experience with Bios and the comments re what I perceived to be your interest in the challenge of writing good bios. I found getting sufficent together to write an initial version of the article about this interesting person such a fun challenge and see it very much still a work in progress. Today it was tagged querying its notability and suggesting it needed improving (no brainer for such a new article) but that suggesting that it might not meet WP:BIO. I queried the reasoning for the latter tag with the editor on their talk page here and although I agree with some of the feedback, it struck me though that labelling several of the citations as trivial seemed a bit harsh and as was the dismissing a Obit of this multi book author in the BMJ, which appears to be reasonable evidence in support of this person's notability. As an article somewhere just beyond a Stub it does seem a bit soon to send it down the deletion slope. But I would say this wouldn't I! So if its not too much of an imposition, I would appreciate an independent view and any advice you could proffer as to where I go from here, thanks. Tmol42 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you for your speedy and direct action and the offer to help out:) Tmol42 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (P.S. the confidence boost re the article on my talk page was much appreciated too btw!)Tmol42 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I have just got in and caught up on all the excitement today. I have worked through line by line all the contributions and see not only are there some useful improvements to the article but also some further lines of research to follow. I see also elsewhere, and nought to do with either of us, a few feathers have unfortunately got ruffled on the way. The postings certainly reinforce one's confidence in the notability of the article in the face of in my view at least what was always a somewhat over-egged shopping list. I just wanted to say thanks for your diligence with the article and for your valuable support and coaching of me on how to improve a BIO. I have truly learnt a lot. I hope the following is worthy of adding to your impressive display of gongs overleaf, Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		Tmol42 expresses his grateful appreciation to SlimVirgin for taking him under her wing, for improving The Rosehip Queen and championing the cause of her notability. Tmol42 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility

From what I understand of WP:ACCESS, placing left-aligned images under headings lower than second level may disconnect the heading from the section when font size is increased, and may get in the way of screen readers. On the other hand, the current incarnation of the guideline only mentions third-level headings, and says nothing about screen readers; please go ahead and revert if it wasn't an improvement :)

Are left-/right-facing portraits still an issue? After the Joseph Priestley discussion, I zoned out completely. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Impressive article, by the way! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Carole Radziwill

Re this diff: I have pointed the IP (assuming it is the subject of the article) to WP:BIOSELF to have bios corrected. Also, the DoB is in her own published book, so what's the issue with it being on Misplaced Pages? – ukexpat (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also not sure I understand. I can see why she wouldn't necessarily want her date of birth published, but year of birth/age is a pretty common element of any biography. Since her book is the reference for the date, I don't see the BLP problem here. Nathan 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First, is the DOB in the book? I saw discussion on the talk page that suggested an editor was having to work it out. Secondly, as I said on the talk page, there's nothing at stake in the article that depends on her age being known. She doesn't want it, she has said or implied that it's wrong (but that she doesn't want it regardless), it's clearly upsetting her, she's been asking for it to be removed for two years, and yet she's being threatened with blocks for removing it herself. This is exactly how we're supposed not to treat BLPs. SlimVirgin 23:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that article subjects with legitimate concerns about accuracy, particularly with respect to pieces of information that are controversial or could potentially be harmful, should be treated with the utmost respect and consideration - even if they edit-war or speak heatedly. On the other hand, when a subject wants a verifiable piece of information removed that is of minor significance and no controversy, we should be polite and considerate but not deferential. We could potentially keep out the date of birth but include her age in the infobox - I think that age is relevant for any biography, because it places subjects in context. As an extreme example, being born in Brooklyn in 1970 or 1920 is quite a bit different than 1990 or 2000 - because the life experience will be quite dramatically different. Nathan 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from the article how old she is roughly; whether it's a certain age or a certain age plus three makes no difference to the article. She posted somewhere that her income depends to some extent on youth. This is a more pressing issue for a woman than for a man, so I would hope we could be sympathetic to that. SlimVirgin 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite news - accessdate

Hello,

For a long time until the day before yesterday, WP:CITE said:

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include: and a comment with the date you retrieved it if it is online (invisible to the reader)."

You have now amended it to read:

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include: date you retrieved it if you read it on the Web, unless it is on a stable website that maintains its archive over the long term".

Which is not quite the same thing. I cannot find any discussion leading to this change. I found the previous wording better, not least because I could point to it when challenged by other editors about commenting out access date info for a news article which itself already has a date, especially on a known-stable well-established news source like the BBC.

Did you actually mean to lose the wording about commenting it out?

Alarics (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

(Copied from my talk page to make sure the notice is received.) Since you're accusing me of ignoring objections, I ask you to provide diffs, or have this treated as a personal attack (discrediting work I've done, or making misleading statements about what I am or have been doing). Do not make such statements anymore until you have provided the diffs. I'll be more careful in making 'substantial' changes to policy pages. Getting you to discuss your very major changes to stable policy on the talk page, however, is excluded from this.    M   03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My new userbox

I know you don't need this as a reminder, but thought you might enjoy meeting Poligraf Poligrafovich. Smallbones (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wag more, bark less, Don't bite.

Karsh

yes he has, I checked in about thisTallicfan20 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

well what exactly do you need added? Misplaced Pages MUST have a picture of him here.Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Faustian

Hi, can you talk with Faustian? I have problems with him. He made a lot of problems with one-sided view to sources. For him all books publihed by Nortom (Publishing house) are not reliable, no matter who wrote them. I am afraid he is trying to whitewashing war crimes of UIA and SS-Galizien. It cant be that so many sources is named by him as no reliable. Examples: rev despite 1 source 1, rev despite 2 sources 2, removing text with 3 sources 3, removing 1 source 4. This is his edits only from 1 day. But it happens still. How can I create Misplaced Pages articles with such problems. About this book Henryk Komański, Szczepan Siekierka, Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach w województwie tarnopolskim w latach 1939-1946; 1182 pages, format B5, 379 illustrations, hard cover, I gave him many arguments: First, references in Motyka (historian) to Siekierka's book which means that their book are reliable, Second: book is reviewed by historians. Third: This book is based on reccoletions published in Karta Center. 4: I got many another sources, with number of victims mentioned. But still he refused using this book as source. Best redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity

FYI, I undid you. If you have a problem with that, maybe there should be a discussion on the Talk page. Anyway, I have copied the content to MyWikiBiz, so if it does get plowed under again through a re-direct, I still "win" via more unique content on my site. But, the main point is, why did you plow this under without any (that I saw) discussion? -- Thekohser 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

_matic 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

_matic 02:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Courtesy link. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Re: Thank you for your work on Mercy for Animals Ikip (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am really taken a back and surprised by all of your help. Thank you again. Now I see why you are one of the most influential and powerful editors on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

From:User talk:Ikip:

Thank you! That is extremely nice of you. :) Actually, I was just about to drop you a note saying I hope I'm not being a nuisance, because I saw the tag, and it just occurred to me that I might be causing edit conflicts. So I was going to stop for a bit to give you time to focus on it by yourself. Thanks again for the barnstar. :) SlimVirgin 04:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

People take short cuts in sizing up other people by pigeon holing other people in little boxes all the time. Sometimes those boxes are completely wrong and unwarranted. It appears like this was one of those times. I just wonder if the article will survive the AFD. Ikip (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

From User talk:Ikip

I'd be very surprised if it doesn't survive an AfD. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone nominated it. It's quite a well-known group, and if you look through their annual reviews, they show some of the media coverage they've had, which looks fairly substantial. SlimVirgin 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What matters is the group advocating deletion. If the group supporting deletion is organized enough, it really doesn't matter how many sources or how well known it is. Only articles that are household names are really impervious to deletion.

I hope you are right. I always see the glass half empty and gets me in trouble. Have a grand week. I need to work tomorrow morning and it is after midnight. Ikip (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron. This barnstar is awarded to SlimVigin for working to make stubs threatened for deletion better articles. Not only does this make Misplaced Pages a better site, it helps retain new editors. For all of those new editors who you have helped, and they just didn't know how to say thank you properly, thank you. Ikip (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

courtesy link.

Arbcom enforcement

courtesy link. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)