User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 41

Talk archives

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

[edit] Request for your wisdom

Hi SV,

[Assuming you don't mind, I am scrubbing my first question.] 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, SV, but you have deleted the alleged "attack page" per [1] when it was not nominated for speedy deletion. renominated them for "speedy deletion". Can you please explain to me (1) what is an "attack" page? (2) why did you perceive these pages as "attack" pages, (3) how did this page fall under the category for "speedy deletion" and (4) is this related at all to my request for advice? Please respond promptly. --Otheus 09:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response to the above query. either of the above two queries. If you are not going to answer the first one, please say so, and I will find someone else who can be objective about that discussion. --Otheus 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC); 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swine Image

Hi SlimVirgin, perhaps I jumped the gun a bit on removing the swine gestation photo. Sorry if I moved a bit fast. There are many modes in which swine is gestated and this photo is certainly be the extreme (even in industrial agriculture). The photo undoubtably paints a negative image of the idea of industrial agriculture (maybe it is difficult ot paint it iin any other light). As you well know, this article is about objectively explianing what industrial ag is and not critisizing it.Perhaps another shot of a nursery or a growing barn might be more objective? What do you think? Can we collaborate on finding another shot?--Agrofe 19:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Monkey:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA pronunciations

please stop removing them. If you find them difficult to understand, see International Phonetic Alphabet and IPA Chart for English. If you have a problem with the guidelines regarding use of the IPA, discuss it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). --Krsont 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

*actually stops and looks at what other people are doing for a change* ah.. I see you didn't actually delete the IPA transcription on the page Shih Tzu as you did wth Piri Reis... I apologise for my pointless reversions then. My emotional state. --Krsont 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 172. vandal

Notwithstanding our differences elsewhere, thank you. CJCurrie 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT Synthesis example

Hi there. I see you've reverted my removal of the example of synthesis in WP:ATT again. Please could you respond to my request for you to clarify your objections on the article talk page, which I had left there a couple of days before you reverted, and which you still haven't responded to. Thanks, Enchanter 11:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] e-mail

sent you mail. see this: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/12/atzmons_triumph.php Zeq 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

well? Zeq 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Cannings

Hi, Slim. I'm glad you removed that speculation from the talk page. I nearly did. I was looking at it doubtfully, wondering shall I?, before adding the BLP box. I eventually decided not to, but I hope you didn't think that my adding a header for a section was an endorsement of what was there. Also, I wasn't quite sure of the correct way to tag a BLP talk page, so I asked a question here. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits to header

I'm not understanding your edits to the header, they are needed to remind of policy. Please clarify. Navou ^banter / _contribs 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets discuss these changes on this talk page. I disagree with your changes and have chosen to revert them, they are bold, but I disagree with them. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Islam and slavery lead ==

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [3] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for UserTalk archive removal

I recently set up a more efficient numbering system for my archives and, having transferred my data from the old ones to the new, would now like to remove the old archives. The archives in question are named as follows:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2: CoM edits & Learning Curve
• /Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve
• /Archive 3:More Learning Curve

I remember that I am supposed to ask an admin to remove them for me, and simply deleting them from my Talk Page doesn't actually get rid of them. If I could impose upon you to do this, I would appreciate it, :) -Arcayne 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

• You may wish to protect the user page as well, let me know if the way I did it was appropriate: DIFF. Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mothers accused of killing babies

Hi, Slim. Thanks for your note about Trupti Patel. It was funny, because I was intending to ask you to take a look at the article, and mercilessly remove anything that might not be in accordance with WP:BLP. (I had slight doubts about using "controversial" for Sir Roy, when we don't use it for a certain scatologically infamous person, but I felt it was important to report that he was someone who had a bit of a reputation for giving evidence that helped to convict women who were later cleared.) I need to expand on the grandmother section later, as it's not clearly stated at the moment that part of the case against Patel and others was that people believed that a second baby dying of natural causes in the same family was automatically suspicious, unless there was some genetic defect. I seem to recall that when Angela Cannings was appealing, new evidence came out that her grandmother had lost children in infancy. That hadn't been known at the time of the original trial.

Anyway, I have two questions. One concerns Donna Anthony, about whom there is currently no article. Although Trupti Patel isn't as famous as Sally Clark or Angela Canning (they were both in jail for years, with husbands and support groups launching appeals, whereas Patel only had media attention between being charged and being acquitted, or shortly after), I did feel she was notable enough for an article. I don't feel that Donna Anthony is equally famous, and yet it's the same kind of case — a woman who reported more than one cot death, was arrested for murder, convicted partly through Sir Roy's evidence, imprisoned, and subsequently cleared. You can read about her here. I think the reason she's not more famous is that she had no husband or family fighting for her (her mother died while she was in prison), so she was just forgotten about, while people were making big noise about Clark and Cannings. Do you think she's notable enough for an article? If you think there should be one, I'll give it a go, but I don't want to clutter up Wikipedia writing biographies of people that nobody has ever heard of.

The other question relates to a suitable category. I feel that there should be some category in Trupti Patel that would also include Clark and Cannings, and Donna Anthony, if I or someone else starts an article about her. Clark and Cannings are both in Category:British wrongfully convicted people, and Donna Anthony would be there as well, but Patel can't be, as she wasn't convicted. I think there should be some category for cases of mothers accused of killing their babies. It would include Lindy Chamberlain, who is in Category:Wrongfully convicted people. While I realise that Wikipedia is not meant to decide that anyone is innocent just because she was acquitted, I really have in mind cases where the mother was clearly innocent, or where a lot of people believed her to be so. I don't have in mind cases like Andrea Yates. But I'm sure there have been many cases of mothers accused of murdering their babies because people didn't believe the explanation they gave for the deaths. I can only think of the four British cases, though, and Lindy Chamberlain. Do you think it would be appropriate to create Category:Mothers accused of killing their babies? How many articles would normally have to be in a category to justify that category's existence? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've created Donna Anthony, but it still needs a lot of work. I'm fairly happy with Trupti Patel now, except that when I get a bit more time, I'll add something about how she attended a cot death conference, and how she had a baby monitor but brought it back, saying it wasn't working. If you have time, I'd appreciate your thoughts about this question. I know you're very experienced with Wikipedia policy about things like original research and verifiability and synthesis of published sources. I worked out her year of birth based on one reputable source saying that she was 35 at the time of the trial (June 2003) and another reputable source saying that he family moved to Britain in 1965, and she was born two years later. Then I had doubts, because there was no month given, and if the family moved in December, "two years later" could be January 1968. So I took it out.

I've created Category:Mothers wrongfully accused of killing their babies. I think it's better than "falsely accused" (even though I don't have any doubt that the accusations were false), because if someone is guilty, the accusation wouldn't be "false", but it would still be wrong to make an accusation when the evidence is flimsy. I'm not quite happy with the category title, though, because ideally, people like Angela Cannings and Sally Clark would be able to go into that category even if they were still in jail, because there was a lot of public support for them, and many people believed they were innocent, even when they were "legally" guilty. The same applies to Lindy Chamberlain. Something like Category:Controversial accusations of filicide would be more accurate, but sounds horrible. ElinorD (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverting

Slim,

I've read the source, and it doesn't argue that the Netanyahu protest was anti-Semitic. I'm not "changing what the source says"; I'm removing material that isn't directly related to the subject matter. Please stop returning it. CJCurrie 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can we discuss this calmly, please? It's evident that there's a content dispute here; I don't appreciate your efforts to portray my edits as somehow "disruptive". CJCurrie 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your second question, it does appear as though I misread the source document on one particular point. The U of T speaker was referring to events at her own university, and not to Concordia. My apologies. I'll fix the wording post-haste, unless doing so will put me over the 3RR (though I'm fairly certain this would be a self-revert, and hence not be counted).

I will not, however, apologize for removing material about Netanyahu's appearance at Concordia. An anti-Netanyahu protest, even one which involves low-level violence (ie. furniture being smashed), is not an inherently anti-Semitic act. (It may interest you to know that there were a number of Jews involved in the protest, and at other anti-Netanyahu protests in Canada in this same period.)

More to the point, the source document does not claim that the Netanyahu protest was anti-Semitic. Unless you can find a source alleging that it was, then the material has no business being in the article. CJCurrie 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The source article does not argue that the Netanyahu protest was anti-Semitic. It presents the demonstration as an example of hostility toward Israel, but it's by no means clear that this represents is the same thing. CJCurrie 04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "The point is whether the source includes it as an example of antisemitism, and he clearly does, given that's what his article is about." In fact, the article is about academic boycotts of Israel. CJCurrie 04:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim: I have no problem with the content of your last edit, but I should point out that "Ramsey Cook" is a common misspelling of "Ramsay Cook". CJCurrie 05:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is no "Toronto University" -- it should read University of Toronto. Obviously, I can't make this change myself at the present time. CJCurrie 05:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InShanee dispute

Re your comments on the talk page of the decision, I support you in the strongest possible terms. I'm sure that a lot of other admins will be horrified - and somewhat rattled - if the arbcom goes down the wrong path on this one; I know I will be. Metamagician3000 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missed a page

In deleting the pages listed at the MFD, I think you missed the main one, User:Otheus/sarfati; I've deleted it for you. Feel free to restore it if I am mistaken or out of line. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Animal testing:

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthyism

Slim, you may remember me from such great articles as Dawson's Field hijackings. Maybe not. In my years at WP I have yet to experience as difficult a situation as I find myself in now, at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Trying to stay as neutral as I can- it is possible that I have just lost my marbles on this one, but OTOH I am in an argument with an editor who is repeatedly nasty and has a history of such with more than a few others. Can you take a look and leave a comment for me on my talk or if you are inclined at the above page? Maybe I just need to take a break, but reviewing the archives pretty much everywhere this guy has been you find a trail of bitterness and frustrated editors (ok, that's again to some degree my subjective opinion, I could be wrong). I am generally unfamiliar with the requirements for User conduct RFC's but I find myself reading up on it a lot in the last week. Any advice, even "take the day off, man" would be welcome. Regards, Kaisershatner 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header

I have attempted to discuss these with you on Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard/Header and commented on your talk here. It appears we are revert warring, can we discuss this at the talk page of that header. v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need for some mediation

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to pick a fight and who constantly makes changes and deletions, even while I am writing and editing. --Metzenberg 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is benefiting from a source of pain to you

At Talk:Daniel Brandt I said "Small attacks that cause defensive measures to be enhanced are protective against larger attacks. Wikipedia Review's gang is a vaccine against billion dollar threats that would subvert us." I wish I had better people skills at moments like this. WAS 4.250 05:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I need your mediation on these articles.

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing sourced materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CEM

It looks like you missed my comments from this post.[5] While I understand the changes you made at the project page are well-intentioned and standard practices at nonbinding mediations, there are specific reasons why they wouldn't be compatible with this process. The proposal already has a different mechanism to handle the scenario you described at the talk page as the reason for your edit. Other people have raised similar scenarios multiple times at the proposal's talk and been satisfied with the existing solution. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your question

It appears to me that you are helping Cberlet and Dking "own" a number of articles, and make them showcases for their theories. I can't see anything in the ArbCom decisions that says that PRA is considered a valid source, and I have asked you to point it out to me, but thus far you have not done so. --HonourableSchoolboy 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Crumbs, you must have done some pretty smart talking to turn Jimbo round like that! (I wish he'd paid attention a bit earlier, though.) I did say yonks ago that the pages should run alongside each other till pre-eminence was achieved through usage (which might take ages). Unfortunately change takes time to sink in, and some people catch up slowly (there's a greengrocer in my town who still labels in pounds, shillings and pence, despite being taken to court over it repeatedly: needless to say, some people think he's a hero).

I hope you don't feel all your work was wasted. For what it's worth, the discussions on the proposal page taught me tons and made me a much better editor. Many thanks. qp10qp 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation completed

See my talk page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

Scott Adler added several 'alleged's throughout Muhammad al-Durrah. Please revert. KazakhPol 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that al-Durah ever existed. Find his birth certificate, one that wasn't post dated. This is POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scott Adler (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WP:ATT

Please note my comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Strong objection. I've requested you specifically (and two other editors) to acknowledge recognition that I have an objection and that there is a dispute. Thanks in advance for your reply. --Coppertwig 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User Crum375 has said: "And by the way, I am not in 'content dispute' with you - I have not decided even on the merit of your changes - my only point is that a wide consensus is needed prior to making them. Crum375"

This leads me to wonder: Is there anyone at all who is actually against inserting the sentence "Not everything that is attributable is worthy of inclusion"? Also, if you think a broader discussion is needed before making this change, please tell me where I should post notices (or what else I should do) to stimulate this broader discussion. Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Thanks! --Coppertwig 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] excuses

among the excuse used by new antisemite is that "arabs are semites and I don't hate Arabs": [6] Zeq 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silence

I remain a little concerned at the dead silence. As I said in e-mail I'm not trying to tick you off, just to answer your question as forthrightly and completely as possible. Also as I hope you will notice at Wikipedia talk:Attribution I am trying very hard to be a voice of reason today, and not to have a partisan stance about anything, other than I think that the page protections were (good faith but) conflict of interest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] Éc 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)