User talk:SlimVirgin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:55, 15 January 2016 editBeaflowers (talk \| contribs)29 edits New talk section: Hi AdministratorTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:51, 15 January 2016 edit undoMontanabw (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,492 editsm Reverted 2 edits by Beaflowers (talk) to last revision by SlimVirgin. (TW)Next edit →
Line 153:		Line 153:

	] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)		] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

	== HI ==

	WONDERS
	GREAT
	YEAH GO
	LOVELY OH SWEET TOKNOW YOu WRITR ] (]) 08:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

	== Hi Administrator ==

	You know .. i am new here and getting closely with topics when i write on talk
	well my sister wants to sell her car can you help me put that on discussion topics is it okay by the standards of this domians?#] (]) ] (]) 08:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:51, 15 January 2016

Template:NoBracketBot

Archives
2013: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2014: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2015: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec


24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

24 December 2024

News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"

Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything

Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject

In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case

From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?

Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality

Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies

Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

Traffic report: Was a long and dark December

Single page

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC) –

Thank you, Cullen328, and all the best to you for 2016. SarahSV 23:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Gnu Ear Greetings

Hopp(y) Gnu Ear

Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Hoppy Gnu Ear to you!
Be Safe!

Buster Seven Talk 07:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoppy Gnu Ear back to you, Buster. :D I really hope 2016 is a good one for you. SarahSV 23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year! Be well, be safe, and a hug and all my best wishes...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Modernist, and all the best to you back (and a hug too!) for 2016. SarahSV 23:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested...

In Talk:Antony Bek (bishop of Durham), as I recall you've had some issues with people changing reference styles unilaterally. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ealdgyth, I missed this earlier, but it seems to have sorted itself out. SarahSV 04:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy 2016

	New beginnings
	Hope you have a wonderful and productive year. I know we've disagreed in the past about the best way to present information about the cultural aspects of meat-eating, but at the risk of WP:CGTW#7 I'd like to offer a fresh start. Looking forward to seeing more of your fine work— FourViolas (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, FourViolas, and a very Happy New Year to you. SarahSV 04:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Gender template

I completely agree with your suggestion about a gender template. I was actually looking for one yesterday and thought we should have one. How about we try starting one up. How about {{genderPOV}}?

Peter 10:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter Isotalo, I agree that we should do that. I began one yesterday, but didn't complete, so feel free to start one, or I may do it if you don't. I'll look out for it. SarahSV 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Created. No idea what to do next.

Peter 22:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you! I suppose the thing to do is start adding it when we see these problems, just as people add {{globalize}}. Also, let GGTF and WikiProject Feminism know about it, and perhaps add it to the main GGTF page. SarahSV 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to add some guideline as to when and how it should be used? (I know the "globalize" tag is frequently misused...) Montanabw 09:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: yes, we'll get something worked out. I tried to add some words yesterday but wasn't sure how to approach it. Discussion at GGTF. SarahSV 21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HitlerRealschule.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HitlerRealschule.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete empty WP:MEDRS talk archives?

Hey, SlimVirgin. Do you mind deleting Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 23 and Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 24 as empty? I emptied them when moving material, and I don't want the bot or OneClickArchiver to skip over them right to archive 25 when it archives the next batch. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: done. SarahSV 22:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks a lot. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Threat

I've been threatened with a block ~~by an wp:involved admin if I participate further in the SPI. That seems highly improper - irrespective of the merits. No?~~ Apparently, he's immune to wp:involved violations.

As for the merits, he claims it's because I've insulted folks. I've done no such thing. I've called him out for violating policies and pointed out that he's blown me off, big time. That I have done. And that's what he's done. And I've called out the refusal to ban the IPs back when they were not stale AT ALL. I've tried hard to respect policy. I've done well, I think even though, among other things, I've got Jytdog, who frequently jumped to Formerly 98's defence whenever needed (examples, analysis) following me around. (analysis 2).

Formerly 98 still has 3 unblocked named accounts -User:A_Bertheim, User:Alfred Bertheim, User:Formerly 98 User:A_Bertheim / User:Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6, but instead of blocking them, Vanjagenije told me 4 days ago to drop the stick! (See link to 2 sections of 's talk page, above.) He doesn't seem to care in the least about following policy himself. Now he's removing my comments - this one for the second time and it was directed to you.

Also, would you be willing to at least tag or give me the go-ahead to tag the talk pages of the ~~IPs, and~~ accounts, so, e.g. it would be easier to ID if this is the same guy?

What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary". It took many users and months of edit warring (not by me) to get any info at all about the incredibly lousy PARADIGM-HF trial despite lots of damn reliable media coverage of this very important topic. This edit of mine finally got a little bit to stick. And I think big pharma does lots of good work. But the whitewashing is harmful.

I recall you recently saying somewhere that Formerly 98 had reactivated his account. ~~I see no evidence of that.~~Ah, I see Doc James deleted his page at his request. And yet it hasn't been blocked. Based on policy, it should be, don't you agree? Any reasonable policy interpretation supports blocking a VERY RECENTLY ACTIVE, CONFIRMED sock, no? I'm really tired of this case; I wish the minimal reasonable action would be taken so I could feel comfortable moving on. --Elvey 04:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elvey, I'll reply over the next day or so. There are a few issues I'd like to check first. SarahSV 04:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
SarahSV, I should still be expecting the promised reply, yes? The issue below is of less import, IMO. --Elvey 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) TIA! I'm curious if you agree with this- a false accusation of OR. His removing cited material (cited to an FDA publication) on the basis of "OR" is defended; no apology. I value your opinions for being grounded in policy. I've been getting a lot of grief lately from folks who support whitewashing and are known for trying to make others look bad by making accusations that when investigated, hold little or no water. Looking at the GMO ArbCom case, it seems like this sort of abuse is typical, and ArbCom's response is to punish the victims as much or more than the perpetrators. --Elvey 08:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Hi, I can't see how it's OR or medical advice, but if the text is elsewhere in the article, I suppose the argument is why highlight that source and not another. SarahSV 00:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC) I see that evidence was presented to ArbCom of him doing what he's just done again - use novel misinterpretations of policy (in this case OR) as a weapon. If the argument is that, we want sources on both sides of the is suicide a big problem issue for NPOV then, well, hmm: I agree... and... I see the conservative/mainstream view (of the FDA) kicks off the section, though without the content of the black box warning. Then we have Donald Klein's minimization slant. Then ... nothing. Nothing from the folks who think this is a really big deal, like professor and whistleblower David Healy/David Healy. None of the quotes I added cuz I was reverted. We can balance the quotes I added by restoring them and adding ones from Healy. (That was a joke.) But note - though there's a pretty strong argument for including Healy's POV, I haven't gone there (and he's hardly extreme either - he prescribes the drug). But seriously - What to do? Well, I said, "I don't think policy supports you so I'm restoring the user's content unless you can show otherwise. " and I don't think his reply comes close to showing otherwise, so I'll restore momentarily. --Elvey 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, Elvey, it's not an article I'd want to become involved in, so I don't know what to advise. SarahSV 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC) OK. (partisan JzG weighed in.)

Extended content

SarahSV, I should still be expecting the promised reply, yes? The issue below is of less import, IMO. --Elvey 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

TIA! I'm curious if you agree with this- a false accusation of OR. His removing cited material (cited to an FDA publication) on the basis of "OR" is defended; no apology. I value your opinions for being grounded in policy. I've been getting a lot of grief lately from folks who support whitewashing and are known for trying to make others look bad by making accusations that when investigated, hold little or no water. Looking at the GMO ArbCom case, it seems like this sort of abuse is typical, and ArbCom's response is to punish the victims as much or more than the perpetrators. --Elvey 08:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see how it's OR or medical advice, but if the text is elsewhere in the article, I suppose the argument is why highlight that source and not another. SarahSV 00:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that evidence was presented to ArbCom of him doing what he's just done again - use novel misinterpretations of policy (in this case OR) as a weapon.

If the argument is that, we want sources on both sides of the is suicide a big problem issue for NPOV then, well, hmm: I agree... and... I see the conservative/mainstream view (of the FDA) kicks off the section, though without the content of the black box warning. Then we have Donald Klein's minimization slant. Then ... nothing. Nothing from the folks who think this is a really big deal, like professor and whistleblower David Healy/David Healy. None of the quotes I added cuz I was reverted. We can balance the quotes I added by restoring them and adding ones from Healy. (That was a joke.) But note - though there's a pretty strong argument for including Healy's POV, I haven't gone there (and he's hardly extreme either - he prescribes the drug).

But seriously - What to do? Well, I said, "I don't think policy supports you so I'm restoring the user's content unless you can show otherwise. " and I don't think his reply comes close to showing otherwise, so I'll restore momentarily. --Elvey 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Elvey, it's not an article I'd want to become involved in, so I don't know what to advise. SarahSV 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. (partisan JzG weighed in.)

Again,SarahSV, I should still be expecting the promised reply to the section above the <hr>, yes? The issue below (here) is of less import, IMO.--Elvey 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I revised my comments above.--Elvey 15:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we're down to 2 named unblocked accounts. Maybe DoRD noticed my comment - Any reasonable policy interpretation supports blocking a VERY RECENTLY ACTIVE, CONFIRMED sock, no? ?--Elvey 04:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

#!$^%$#&

Wow that's some incredible #!$^%$#& around this and the SPI. As you know, I've been threatened with a block if I participate further in the SPI, based on what I've argued are trumped-up charges. If that's not an enforcable threat, let me know. (I've just been mentioned by name, twice; surely I have a right to reply? I've seen that right invoked but can't recall where or under what policy. Perhaps you could urge the admin who threatened me to drop the threat or at least allow me a curated reply?) Did you notice that Jytdog backed down, which I've never seen and

Elvey, I think it's better to leave this for now, and to keep it at one page as requested. Enquiries are being made and there's no rush. I'll leave a note on your talk page if it ends up being resolved. SarahSV 04:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing Creationism Talk Page

Why are you messaging me, exactly? Please notice that I cannot even manage to make any comments on the talk page without having them censored by others. It's a lost cause. Mob rule here means that these articles can only ever reflect what is the prevailing opinion of the editors on this site, who have no real regard for objective and neutral reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbei85 (talk • contribs)

Carolyn Merchant

Please ignore this message if it doesn't interest you, but our biography on Carolyn Merchant could use your help. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, thanks, I'll take a look. SarahSV 04:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of MEDRS

Long, wide-ranging discussion of equine-assisted therapies across multiple areas and articles (basic spat here, here, etc.) now appears to be consolidating at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy if you want to pop over and watchlist. Best for a bit of new blood to pop by. Your call, of course if you want to weigh in. Montanabw 06:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, thanks, I'll certainly take a look. SarahSV 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you've made comments regarding Martin Hogbin's edits

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rose (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)