User talk:SlimVirgin

Madeleine In the first place, you are duplicating information unnecessarily. In the second, you're clashing with User:Xezbeth, who is diligently going around splitting off name entries from general dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I also notice that you've unlinked Madeleine (given name). Why? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC) (ec) Hi, I think readers will go to that page looking for names. It doesn't make much sense to direct them elsewhere, especially when it's not done prominently. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I believe you're going against the consensus here. How is this any different from Tropical Storm Madeline (disambiguation) and the other dab links? Madeleine (given name) could be listed more prominently as one of the entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I don't mind where you put Madeleine (given name). I placed it under See also, as that seemed easier to find (for a reader glancing at the page, trying to find the link) than buried in a sentence at the top. But if you disagree, you're welcome to move it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I'm going to move this discussion to the talk page, if that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC) FGM progress? Hi SV, it looks like progress toward GA on FGM has stalled... I'm pretty sure Doc James had said that article is on his priority translation list. Anything blocking the path at this point? Is there anything some random editor out there (me) might be able to do to help? Zad68 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Hi Zad, I got a little burned out during the issues with Middayexpress and had to take a break. If you're interested in working on it, please feel free. I was in the process of checking text-source integrity, which is always a dull business. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I certainly understand that! Did you obtain all the resources you needed or were you waiting on anything else? Zad68 01:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I can't remember, to be honest; I just suddenly had to take a break from it, because the arguments had been going on for over a month and were leading nowhere. I will definitely return to it, though, and if there's anything you want to add/change in the meantime, you'd be most welcome. I'm not at all sure how much more work it needs for GA. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Relationship between Christian Science and medical treatment Hi, I had noticed your question to the IP user on the Christian Science talk about Christian Science and dental treatment. I wrote a lengthy response explaining the relationship between Christian Science and medical treatment. I was about to post it when I saw the most recent post: I'm tempted to hat this interlude - it is not compliant with WP:TPG. Personal stories and testimonials have no place here. -- Scray (talk). My feeling is that most of the regular editors on the Christian Science page aren't really interested in understanding Christian Science or presenting a factually accurate portrayal of the subject. However, you seem genuinely interested in both understanding the material and presenting it accurately on Wikipedia. So I figured I would post here. Hopefully I'm not violating one of the many confusing Wikipedia rules by posting here (hat this interlude??). From what I read their is more leniency in what is allowed on personal pages. Anyway what I had originally planned to post to the Christian Science talk page follows: In general what Christian Science teaches is that what we experience as human life on earth is a distorted view of the spiritual reality. Christian Science says that any discordant condition which is observed in the world is really a distortion of the spiritual reality, and that this discord can be corrected right now in our human life, simply through a change in thinking. The idea is that things which are recognized as good are expressions of the perfect reality. Whereas bad things are the result of erroneous beliefs. An analogy that is often used to explain “error” (a word frequently used to categorize things like sickness, poverty, etc.) is to compare “error” to a false mathematical statement. For example saying that 2 + 2 = 5. The idea is that even though someone might mistakenly believe that 2 + 2 = 5, the statement is never true. Likewise although some discordant condition (such as cancer) may appear to exist, the argument is that it is never really true. This background is important for understanding the relationship between Christian Science and medical treatment. Christian Science does not teach that there is anything bad about medicine per se. However, Eddy argues that medical treatment is ineffective because those in the medical profession do not understand that the root cause of disease is mistaken thinking (and of course in her day medical treatment was much less effective than it is now). Eddy says that doctors should be treated with respect, she just claims that their methods are ineffective. However, Christian Science treatment and medical treatment are never allowed to be combined. This contrasts sharply with the role of prayer for most Christians. Eddy's view was that Christian Science and medical treatment operate from radically different perspectives. Using the math analogy, the doctor is essentially trying to fix the problem with 5 in 2 + 2 = 5, while the Christian Scientists is realizing that the 5 never existed as a result of adding 2 + 2. Eddy's view is that any success that medical treatment seems to have is only the result of the general belief of society in the effectiveness of medicine. However, she taught that the root cause of disease is erroneous thinking, and that only by addressing the root cause in thought could the problem really be healed. If someone wanted to have Christian Science treatment, then she expected them to put their full faith in the power of Christian Science to heal. Only by doing that could the underlying erroneous belief, which manifested itself as disease, be healed. If a patient wanted to have medical treatment that was fine, but medical treatment could not be combined with Christian Science. She taught that to do so was unethical, and in fact would reduce the probability of success for the medical treatment, because the Christian Science practitioner was busy trying to correct the false material belief, while the doctor was relying on the belief that material laws exist. Eddy taught that direct manipulation of things like broken bones was at times necessary as a temporary aid, but she although taught that in future even things like broken bones would be routinely corrected by Christian Science treatment. Furthermore she argued that Christian Science had already demonstrated those types of cures in some cases (including ones she was personally responsible for). But for a broken bone it might be possible for a doctor to set the bone, while the practitioner was not praying specifically for that part of the procedure (although perhaps for the patient in general). Then after the bone was set the practitioner could directly address the underlying error in thought that appeared to be manifested in a broken bone. Other examples are similar and thing like glasses were regarded as a “temporary” material aid which would be discarded in the future when the underlying false belief was healed. How the church has interpreted these teachings over the years is another story. At some point in church history there was a strong resistance to any medical treatment (except dentists). The theory was that Christian Scientists should be approaching spiritual perfection and so medical treatment should be unnecessary. For an individual to rely on medicine was an indication of lack of sufficient dedication to the task of seeking to understand man's spiritual perfection. In recent years the church has made an effort to move away from that position. Individuals are allowed to choose any “temporary” medical means that they want to deal with specific problems without being judged. Individuals were always allowed to make the choice, but in the past they were more likely to be viewed negatively for accepting medical treatment. And while the Mother Church never required members to be free from medical care, some branch churches did have this requirement in their rules. For instance in one branch church I know of applicants had to have not used medicine for at least 6 months before they were accepted as members. I don't know if that rule is still in place, but my guess is that it is not. However, although the church is more lenient in allowing individual choices, the fact that it is a choice remains. Which is why the NY Times article is wrong when it says “ the church now seeks to present Christian Science healing as a supplement to conventional medical care, similar to biofeedback, chiropractic and homeopathy.” Christian Science remains a distinct choice and the teachings of Christian Science prevent it from ever being used as a “supplement.” To do so would be unethical according to what Christian Science teaches. Of course in practice this still leads to complications, as is likely to always be the case when dealing with issues related to disease. I knew someone who had been a Christian Scientists for a long time. Then at some point he got cancer and eventually decided to have conventional medical treatment including chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Unfortunately I guess that did not go so well. I was told that at one point before he died that he asked a good friend of his, who was also a Christian Science practitioner, to pray for him. But the practitioner had to turn him down because he was relying on medical treatment at the same time. The person who told me this story (his daughter) had some resentment about this fact, although I can understand the theological reasons which prevented the practitioner from taking the case. In any event this anecdote illustrates why it is factually incorrect to say that Christian Science is a supplement to conventional medicine. I don't know if this helps clarify the relationship between Christian Science and medical treatment. I don't plan to try editing this part of the article unless I find some secondary source material to support my interpretation. I saw that Robert Peel wrote a book called “Health and Medicine in the Christian Science Tradition: Principle, Practice, and Challenge” which sounds like it might provide some explanation of the points I've described. I haven't read that book yet, but I read a review of it and I think it might be a good source to explain what I've described here. If I get a chance to look at it I'll see if I can incorporate any of its material in the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, this is very helpful. I did write to the Christian Science church at one point to ask if they could clarify their position toward traditional medicine – it was regarding the New York Times article – but they didn't respond. I agree it would be good to use Peel. There's a discussion on the talk page about the placebo effect in case you're interested. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Article drafts as a COI Hi Slim. I thought I would share this as an example of our prior discussion about a PR person offering re-writes of controversial material. Naturally the editor is a little speculative that my motives as a paid editor may have led to some "positioning" or cherry-picking, however there is no better route for me to take. I can't complain at COIN and expect a volunteer to swoop down and spend a dozen hours turning a stub into a 100-cite GA. The only practical option is to write the material myself. Also, who else would order an actual hard-copy book for a source and read it? It is natural that this should make Wikipedians uncomfortable and if it doesn't, we're doing something wrong. My clients are uncomfortable too and they should be. If we're not all a little uneasy about it, then that's when we know something is wrong. You pointed out that BP had written 40% or so of their article, but I wrote 100% of the article on YouSendIt. It was a stub with a banner saying "Reads like a news release" and now it's a GA and includes balanced reviews, two mild controversies and images, as well as material from an analyst report no volunteer would ever have access to. Offering content is also the de-facto at AfC. I don't think there would be any practical way for PR people to make meaningful improvements without being able to offer draft material, but the issue is most Request Edits where PR content is offered are not remotely acceptable. CorporateM (Talk) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I would like to share a somehow similar case with Puma Energy. The original article was a mess of pieces copied from the company's website. It needed to be rewritten; however, it was not in my priority list and not any other editor's list either. It happened that a representative of the PR company representing the company (COI was declared at the user page, article's talk page and the COI notice board) redrafted the whole article. Although the first proposed draft had some issues (for details please see the article's talk page) and although this is not a GA-class article, it was an improvement compare to the original article. It was further improved during the vetting. By my understanding it was a positive example as the quality of the article increased significantly. I don't know how the original article would be improved without a new draft. The proposed draft also triggered me to spend hours working with that article which otherwise probably should not happen. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I find that in most cases, PR-written content is not acceptable. In fact, I find it very frustrating that the Request Edit queue has so many requests asking us to reword content into a more promotional version. And I know on my side that it's a lot of hard work to persuade clients to be genuinely neutral. On the other hand, there have been cases where I copy/pasted large amounts of content and was very content that it made a huge improvement to the article. So I consider the analogy. If the New York Times lacked authorship, PR people would ask if they could write their own articles. In general, NYT would say "yah right" but they would also be occasionally surprised. Additionally, much of Wikipedia's content is so awful, it's not difficult even for a bias PR pro to do better. It seems appropriate to discourage it generally and ask PRs to point out errors, provide sources and let us be the editors. But we should also be willing to be surprised. Also, going back to Beagel's point. I find it more useful in most cases for other PRs to draw my attention to the problem and let me fix it. In one case every sentence of the article was factually incorrect, which I was happy to fix, while completely ignoring the proposed copy. But it would be good to encourage PRs to point out problems instead of offer re-writes. The current Request Edit instructions are the opposite. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The test is whether a reader would feel betrayed if she were to learn that the company had written the article. In the case of a controversial multi-national, that's clearly the case. With other companies, less so, and sometimes not at all. Do you think HSUS ought to write Humane Society of the United States, or Pfizer Pfizer (whether directly or via drafts)? I would say absolutely not, even if their versions were in some sense an improvement, because we'd lose the trust of our readers. Sometimes it's better to have a bare-bones, poorly spelled honest thing than a beautifully constructed PR job. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) "The test is whether a reader would feel betrayed if she were to learn that the company had written the article." I think that's an excellent guideline! One thing though, I think BP is the best person to author content regarding their operations and the reader would not feel betrayed in this case. But the oil spills meet the criteria. For example, I know that Kiethbob prefers to re-write any material offered by a PR person and I know there are certain controversies that are adequately sensitive such that I could be subject to endless scrutiny no matter how impeccable the edits are. So I suggested to him I might work with an editor willing to do proxy editing for the bulk of any given article, while asking for his participation in those areas that are best-left entirely volunteer written, to avoid even the appearance or speculation of cherry-picking and slanting. CorporateM (Talk) 14:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Have you seen this? A PR person got a DYK on the front page (possibly without pay; it's not clear), and is rewarded with an ad on the subject's website. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC) RM/user rights/etc. Thank you. I dunno if I'm perhaps overusing RM lately. I try to do moves myself if it's obvious, but given an overall tendency to overuse certain sources and not use other sources at all, certain things may not be as obvious to other users. Also not sure if the lack of discussion on most of these moves are due to the aforementioned, or declining lack of interest in actually doing this amount of maintenance. Cheers. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 02:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Hi, I think in the case of Crystal Snow Jenne, I'd have gone ahead and moved it myself. If someone then objects, you can always hold an RM discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Christian Science Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marrante (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Marrante, it's all very interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. I would appreciate an answer to my question, though (first note; hope it was clear). It would be great to get the answer via WPmail, that failing, on my own talk page. Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It's probably best to keep the discussion on article talk, Marrante, so that others can join in. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I wasn't actually planning on discussing anything. I just asked a question and was hoping for an answer. Marrante (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC) RFPP unprotection requests Hi SlimVirgin. I saw that you declined all the requests that I had made to RFPP and quite honestly, I don't think that was the right way to go. I'm not sure if you know that there is a section regarding my requests on WP:AN. But if you have not yet seen it, you should take a look at that section and see what other users think about it. Anyways, i'm not understanding why you declined my requests to unprotect and or to add pending changes to the pages instead. I choose to add those requests because I truly felt it was the right thing to do. Those pages were originally semi-protected indefinitely because of BLP violations or excessive vandalism. Then an admin removed semi-protection and added indefinite pending changes instead. After the pending changes trial was over, an admin replaced pending changes with indefinite semi-protection. Now that pending changes is back, why not re-enable it to those pages? These pages cannot be protected from IP users forever. Please clarify why you declined my requests and please tell why you think these pages should remain semi-protected and not pending changes protected instead. Webclient101talk 02:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) If the pages were protected for BLP reasons, there may be no pressing need to unprotect them, and bringing lots of requests at once means people may feel under pressure to unprotect without checking carefully. It would be better if you were to bring pages individually if you really think semi-protection isn't needed, although bear in mind that semi-protection is almost always better than PC for BLPs. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Pressuring admins into unprotecting all of those pages was not my intent at all. I just thought it would make logical sense to unprotect and enable pending changes based on all of the protection reasons on those pages. But if you don't want to unprotect or enable pending changes on those pages than I absolutely understand. I'm just going to request unprotection to those pages individually as you suggested. Cheers, Webclient101talk 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I've been looking out for your request on RfPP, but haven't seen them yet. Please feel free to post one or two, although prominent BLPs should probably be avoided. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC) RFPP of Eurovision Song Contest 2014 Hi SlimVirgin, Apologies for the delay, but you asked for examples of problematic edits on the above named article via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#05 June 2013. I thought I would highlight that the article was semi-protected a couple of weeks ago due to problematic editing from a wide variety of IP's. This is becoming a normal thing every year around this particular time of the contest. IPs (who one can only assume are Eurovision Fans) have tendencies to add countries to the article stating that they have confirmed participation for the next contest. However, they do not provide sources, or they quote original research as their "source". Some have even used Wikia as a citation in the past. These edits got so disruptive at the early stages of the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and Eurovision Song Contest 2012 articles, that the official website 'Eurovision.tv' as well as 2 other websites published reports accusing Wikipedia of publishing false participation details; even though the false details were being added by IP's and quickly removed by project members. The Eurovision Song Contest 2013 article was semi-protected at the same early stage last year until 1 December 2012, and disruption/vandalism was reduced 100%. Now the 2014 article is a victim to IP editing, with most adding countries that do not even have EBU membership (which is a requirement for any country to take part in the Eurovision Contest). Some IP's have also engaged in edit warring by repeatedly re-adding previously removed disruptive edits. Problem edit examples 1 - Unsourced content. 2 - Unsourced content. 3 - Unsourced content. 4 - Unsourced content. If semi-protection is not feasible, then perhaps pending changes protection could be a better solution!? I look forward to your response in due course. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page just in case. Wesley♦Mouse 12:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Wesley, thanks for the explanation. I've semi-protected for three months, which can be extended if needed. Hope it helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Talk:Sarah_Brown_(wife_of_Gordon_Brown) I happen to agree with you substantively, and you have a whole week to make your argument to the community. However, until that time, I think it is unfair to move it right now, without a discussion at the Requested Moves board. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Bearian, sorry I didn't notice this, and didn't intend not to respond. It's a moot point now, but just to say that I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Possibilities template removals Resolved For circum and cut you removed Template:R with possibilities through a simple undo without explanation. In both cases when I added the template, I provided an explanation for why it was appropriate. I don't think it was right for you to remove them like that. The FGM article is about a broader topic matter than cutting so both of these terms do have potential for expansion. What justifies their removal? Ranze (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Those articles would be POV forks if created. The dominant term is female genital mutilation and there's consensus for that title. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (tp stalker) I happen to agree with Ranze here. (1) not using edit summaries for a revert like that is a bit rude and (2) it wouldn't necessarily be a POV fork, instead it could be a split out of relevant content. In any case this discussion is best moved to the talk pages of the redirects in question. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Please raise it on Talk:Female genital mutilation, rather than spreading the discussion across different pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) see WP:SPINOFF for a description of a valid content fork. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) canvass I suggest per WP:canvass that you notify a broad spectrum of projects if you are notifying individual projects. You should start with all of the projects listed on her talk page. Then you should consider balancing the other selected notifications with equivalent projects that might take another view. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Fourth Round Hello! I've found that you semi-protected this page indefinitely, but, per your comment on WP:RPP, it looks like you meant to semi-protect the page for 1 week. Please fix this mistake. Thanks! -- Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for pointing that out, Cloudy. I've fixed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Erected defences Haha. And your attempt to drag in erections is also incredibly inappropriate. :-) Bishonen | talk 16:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC). That was the red mist writing, not me. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC) fwiw Your assertion that I was dragging FGM into something, or that my edits to FGM were somehow related to the Sarah Brown article, couldn't be further from the truth. You should know better than to make baseless accusations. I make many edits to many articles in many domains, and just because you happen to be watching two of them doesn't mean my edits are therefore linked. So please stop your accusations which only serve to poison the editing atmosphere and make it a non-welcoming place. Thanks for your consideration. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC) help with page move Hello SlimVirgin, I noticed you're editing now. I'd like to move the page Coronavirinae back to Coronavirus. Someone moved the page in May thinking that the two are the same. They are not. One is the species of virus in the subfamily Coronavirinae and it's an important distinction. I'm writing the separate article for Coronavirinae so I would need that to show as a redlink and not be redirected anywhere. I tried moving it myself but the message came back that the page Coronavirus already existed. Can you help? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Malke, I see this still hasn't been done, so I can look at it now. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake, I see Malik's got it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Citing sources - going too fast? I read your last comment at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources as indicating you didn't read the comment directed specifically at you that starts "I think I know what..." [ - and not much of anything I wrote after my first post.]--Elvey (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I think you're right. I'm finding it all a bit bewildering. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Page you protected Hi -- you protected the entry on Harold Bloom after an edit war between 174.49.172.92 and some editors who'd worked on that page for a while, and suggested that 174.49.172.92 try to come to some more accommodation with people who'd been working on the page. Unfortunately, you protected the page AFTER 174.49.172.92 once again cut 7k characters from the page. Would it be possible to revert that before protecting the page? Nightspore (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Nightspore, I've left a note on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC) User:Nathan Johnson In light of the continued discussion on Nathan Johnson's talkpage, I have posted to ANI requesting review on the unblock request. Please feel free to comment on the thread, here. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Teamwork Barnstar For efforts at promoting teamwork on the BP article where teamwork and trust were broken down. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Robert, that's very much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Question In regards to this edit Those discussions need to be closed. calling them "Stale" isnt a good reason to ignore them. Werieth (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Werieth, these were old discussions that didn't seem to need formal closure. If a discussion needs formal closure, one of the participants will request it when the discussion ends. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC) WP:NFCR is just like a XfD, all discussions require closure. Werieth (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC) These discussions are old and the participants didn't request closure. I looked at a few and there didn't seem any reason to comment on them. It's best to leave closure requests to the person who initiated the discussion, and if she doesn't do it, then one of the other participants. If there's a discussion you think is not stale and needs closure, by all means bring it, but bringing a lot of old discussions at once means they're unlikely to be dealt with. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC) What about other templates? Since the cons you listed concering citation templates at WT:CITE also apply to {{Persondata}} and {{Authority control}}, I wonder whether edits like [1] and [2] are actually discouraged. If so, I will no longer waste my time on doing this, because it takes a lot of effort and I wouldn't do it if it gets reverted after all. --bender235 (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Bender, I can't see how those edits would be problematic or connected to citation templates. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Not connected to citation templates, but if citation templates are bad because they slow down load times or clutter up the source code, then these two above are, too. And basically all three templates have the same purpose: create hidden machine-readible information, whether it be unique identifiers, hCard microformat, or COinS. --bender235 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC) The difference is that citation templates are repeated many times in the article, sometimes hundreds of times, which can seriously slow things down. In addition they produce an inconsistent style in read mode, and often have unnecessary parameters filled in, leading to extra citation clutter that makes the text hard to edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Advice Your protection of Abkhazia has expired, and the first thing that has been done since then is a user reinstating again their disputed very bold edit. Lfdder opened a discussion on the talkpage before your protection, but the users supporting the edit have failed to do anything other than point to the article history and give a general accusation of bias. If a user fails to follow BRD in any way, then what is supposed to be done? CMD (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC) I've restored the protected version and added another week's protection. Someone should start another discussion on the talk page, perhaps via an RfC, so that a consensus can emerge. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Nice advice. RfC should be OK. Recent info (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Message added 16:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion. I appreciate it's a big ask, and no worries if you find you haven't the time or inclination, but your opinions are respected and valued, so input from you would be helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC) User:Bender235, cite templates, harassment I've repeatedly asked User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, he persisted, I brought it to WP:ANI, and instead of instructing Bender235 to stop contacting me (which is a simple request), the microscope is turned on me rather than stopping his harassment. If you're interested, please help at WP:ANI#I have asked a User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, user persists.. It was obvious the AN/I post was ridiculous. Trying the WP:MEAT tactic won't help. --bender235 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC) RfC on including the 2008 percentage of women's vote You recently closed this discussion. Could you clarify your close a bit? I read the consensus as not including the 2008 statistic. Two editors are claiming that the consensus is to not include either the 2012 and 2008 data. Thank you.Casprings (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks. That does help.Casprings (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC) If you look at the response by RightCowLeftCoast they said that none of it should be included. Several other editors agreed with RCLC. There is no way you can come to your conclusion based off that. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC) That's not my reading of the replies, Arzel. If it's an important issue for the article, you could set up a second RfC that explicitly asks about the 2012 figures. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Surnames? Has there been a larger discussion on matronymic/hyphenated or combined surnames somewhere? I found it unimaginable that our naming policies and guidelines seemed to completely ignore the concept, and had planned to raise the issue after the move discussion at hand was resolved... user:j (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not aware of one. It would be a good idea to raise it somewhere once this latest example is dealt with. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Chennai Express Hi SlimVirgin, I saw on WP:RPP that you have protected the article for two weeks but unfortunately you've protected indefinitely, which is not necessary in this case. So, I am requesting you to unprotect the article. The article has been protected since June 3. If the vandalism starts again, I'll request for protection again. Thanks — Tolly4bolly 11:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Hi, that's unprotected now. Thanks for letting me know about it. I've been finding recently that the drop-down box is sometimes not registering the chosen protection length. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Matzoon Hi, Thank you for the block in the article. However, you are protecting the conflict version of the article. You can not bring her back to the beginning of the conflict.--Lori-m (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Lori, if you want a particular version to be protected, I would need a reason, such as vandalism, serious error, or sometimes 3RR violations. Without something like that, it's the latest revision that's protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC) AC Omonia Ηello SlimVirgin, I saw that you protected the article AC Omonia, and that today the protection has expired. If you please can you re protect it would be very useful because only this will help avoid vandalism. Thanks – Cyprus 22513 Football 12:05 (UTC +3) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Hi, what length of protection did you have in mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Maybe semi-protection. Look on the edit page how many edits had been made after the end of the protection by non wikipedia users. What do you suggest for such kind of situations? Cyprus 22513 Football 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I can't really tell what's happening here. If it's vandalism or people constantly adding mistakes, we can semi-protect for a period of time – usually starting with one or two weeks – or longer (even indefinitely) if it's very persistent. That will stop IP addresses and very new accounts. If it's a content dispute – that is, a legitimate disagreement – we can fully protect for a few days or maybe a week, to start with anyway; that effectively stops all editing, which is why it's only done for short periods. So you would need to give more details, and the best place to do that is with a request at WP:RfPP. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC) The Mind the Gap Barnstar ...is awarded to User:Slim Virgin who has dilegently worked to close the gender gap on Wikipedia and related projects through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Mind the Gap Award For saying the right thing, at the right time, in the right place, to the right people. Bravo!! Not only does Slim say "the right thing, at the right time, in the right place, to the right people", but also, in the right way. I continue to watch, learn and enjoy. petrarchan47tc 22:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Petition to Pardon Bradley Manning and/or commute his sentence time already served. Greetings, Why did you delete my post? HaroldHarold Darling (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Harold Darling (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)