User talk:SlimVirgin

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Offline

File:Animalibrí.gif

2010 #1 country hits

• Please help us. NOWucme(NOWudont) _{talk 2 me} 03:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me some background? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For the last decade on the years in country music pages, when a number one song is written or co-written by a well known country music artist, that artist is given credit in the note next to the song. With this weeks current song, it was cowritten by well known, number one country artist, so I added it to the note as always. User:CloversMallRat has now decided that it isn't important, and keeps removing it, while I feel it is important, and in trying to keep consistency, I keep adding it back. Another user agrees with me, we have not conducted a poll. NOWucme(NOWudont) _{talk 2 me} 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it. NOWucme(NOWudont) _{talk 2 me} 04:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

eritr

litenin-ta!:)--pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Animal rights#Changes to lede - removal of political jargon

Ive commented at the talk. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And FYI there is now an ANI thread under the heading "User:SlimVirgin on animal rights". —DoRD (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of List of Carpenter named articles

Hello,

Would you be so kind to review and comment List of Carpenter named articles which is pending a deletion review [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Carpenter_named_articles here.] I would be happy witha merge back to the way it was with partial listings. But any comments welcome. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking help.

You've helped me before, so maybe you can help me again. There's this user named Bread Ninja who will not leave me alone. We got into an edit war on Phantasy Star Universe that started on January 21st, 2010 and ended on February 17th, 2010, which Bread Ninja started with his/her edit here. Anyway, we both received a 3RR warning, and since then no more trouble between us happened. Well, it started again with this edit by Bread Ninja on April 27th, 2010, which I reverted on April 29th, 2010. He's now been harassing me on my talk page again, so I banned him/her from my talk page, though he/she didn't listen. With all that said, since you're an administrator, I was wondering if there were any way to block certain users/IP addresses from said person's talk page. Well, sorry for the rant, and I hope you can help. Also, if you're interested, here's the history of the Phantasy Star Universe article. - Donald Duck (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I left BN a note about posting on your talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and by the way, this is Zhang He. I was renamed again. =) When I created my account, I was actually Eugene Krabs. - Donald Duck (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The person has taken my edits personally, giving obscene reasons for his edits whenever i revert his edits. I try to talk to him, but will not listen. though really it's all for the efforts of helping him, he still does not go into reason, thinking back on it now, Eugene krabs is also a user i remember that fell into a few problems before without me that had been mentioned a few times in wikiprojects. despite that, i just want him to understand, it's not personal, and i do wish this is something small, but i happen to revert his edits quite a few times and do not want to get reported for edit war, so i try talking to him before i make the third revert. there is third party disputes, but as i remember, donald duck happened to ignore the third party last time, so i can't think of anything elseBread Ninja (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues seems to be whether Vivienne is a character. [1] It seems Donald thinks she is, and BN thinks not, is that right? Are there any sources out there that can help with this? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

not exactly, we both know she isn't in the game, but donald insist to be kept because he claims the section is for the series rather than the game itself, but i told him the article is for the game only so no section should be for the series only. instead of agreeing he gave an obscene reason why he stopped putting Vivienne back.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that, if she isn't in that particular game, but only the series, she shouldn't be included in a list of characters in that particular game. She could perhaps be mentioned in some other list on the page (list of characters in other games in the series). Donald, can you give your reasoning for wanting her in the list of characters for this game? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have left a talkback on my talk page. =). I just noticed this. Anyway, I gave my explanation to B.N. plenty of times; he/she refused to listen. Take a look at the history of Phantasy Star Universe for my explanation. It was basically the same each time I reverted him/her - Donald Duck (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether this article is about one particular game or about the series. If it's about one game, the list of characters in that game shouldn't include characters not in the game. However, you could have a separate section listing characters in other games in the series, characters that don't appear in this particular game. Would that seem like a reasonable compromise? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually did that, but it was redirected to "Phantasy Star Universe". - Donald Duck (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is not about the series, it's about the game only, i already told him if he wanted a list of all the characters in the series he should put it in the character section but was ultimately removed and called for WP:HARASS, but then i warned him about WP:HA#NOT and still insisted on it, by this i can already tell he didn't read one word of what i said.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

it was redirected due to not meeting the general notability guideline.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean a separate section within that article. A section called "Characters" with two subsections: "Characters in this game" and "Other characters in the series." That would give you both what you're looking for. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that wouldn't be right. I'm not looking for both worlds, I'm looking for whats right. it doesn't make sense to include characters that don't appear in the game in the article that didn't include them, its best to move them to their respected articles, there is an article of each game of the series. as i said before.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How many characters are there that might be listed for the series, but not for that game? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There are currently two that i know of, and I'm sure there are more that Donald knows of.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are a small number, it would make sense to mention them in a separate section. Compromises need to be sought for disputes like this. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

the characters that i know of are already mentioned in it's respected article, and any other new character can be moved as well to it's respected article. Plus the characters that i know of appear in a sequel/spin off that is not directly related to the first game and are the main characters. the reasons for keeping it in the article would be confusing. i would understand characters that only PSU and PSU-AotI characters in there due to it being an expansion version, but any characters of PSP-PSP2 shouldn't appear because they have a separate list of main characters and those characters aren't related to the first series directly.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion is that one of you could create a List of Phantasy Star Universe characters, so long as there are sources for it, and list it summary style at the top of the characters section in that particular article. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That could work, though really, a table is not the way to make a character list, instead summary of the characters is good and it wouldn't get AfD so fast.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of lists, but in a case like this it might be a good compromise. I agree that the table idea is not so good, and each entry would need to be sourced in some way. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, i fear mainly about future edit wars. so discussing with him without constantly reverting is the only option i have, other than third party, but he wont listen to third party. plus taking my edits personally. i know it sounds all minuscule, but last time i almost got reported for an edit war. i want my record to stay clean.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of Contessa Brewer page history after semi-protection]]

Can you please review the article for Contessa Brewer which was modified after it was semi-protected. Someone is sure quick to undo things that trigger their POV. If a mainstream media person says something, they said it. What exactly would need cited unless the person was quoted out of context which she was not in this case.

Contessa seems more protected then Jimmy Wales.Woods01 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Woods, the edit was unsourced, which was why it was reverted. Supply a reliable source, keep the tone of the writing disinterested, and all should be well. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR feedback, thanks!

Thanks for the help at FAR, SV: see User talk:Dana boomer#FAR.2C general stuff and guidance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

re Bishop Hill (blog) AfD

The result was "no consensus", which of course defaults to keep - but is not quite as definitive as that result - just in case there is any question regarding the removal of the notability template. Also, since the article falls under the remit of the Climate Change Probation I have a notification template for your attention.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Bishop Hill (blog), is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful edits to the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why you've restored content that has been discussed at length before and for which there is no consensus to include, and why you've not discussed any of your changes on the talk page? I refer specifically to the Delingpole reference, but there are problems with the other material you added/restored. Please see Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Edits by SlimVirgin. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Climate Change Articles!

I am watching your edits at Bishop Hill with interest. Good luck and I hope you are able to improve some of the CC articles. Speaking from my experience, I find that the subject matter is so sensitive that many editors will interpret attempts to clean up a page, or simply improve the quality of copy as supporting one view or the other. I'm pleased to see a new face there, especially such an experienced one. Thepm (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Thepm, but I find it unlikely that I'll last the pace. If The Daily Telegraph has turned into a fringe source, then I'm afraid it's abandon hope all ye who enter here. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please (seriously) don't give up so quickly! If you feel this way, imagine what a -relative- newbie (like me) feels :) Thepm (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection of the page Martuni (town)

Good morning. You've protected this page as Khojavend according to the claim of User:NovaSkola. There is a big discussion in the Talk page in which this user have not participated. However there is a discussion in this page NovaSkola twice moved the name of article during the discussion. There is no consensus yet. You've protected the version of NovaSkola accrording to his claim. So I think that this user must be blocked, as he twice moved the name of article during the discussion even not participated in it and the article must be protected on the previous name. Regards --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

Hi, Slim. :) I was looking at the Wikipedia:Words to watch RfC this morning. It closed before I could get to that point. Well done. :) I just wanted to remind you, though, that when you copy content, even if heavily modified, from one Wikipedia page into another, you need to attribute with a link to the source to meet the terms of CC-By-SA and GFDL. I've taken care of attribution at Wikipedia:Words to watch for the sources I saw, but if you know of any others that have been merged into that page, please add them to the list. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reduce clutter

I've just see this where you removes the template {{cite news}}. A better way of "removing clutter" or metadata as I call it from the running text is to move the reference down to the ref section like this. See also Wikipedia:LDR#List-defined_references and Template:Reflist#List-defined_references. Thanks for the involvement in this quit difficult area (some of the Climate articles). Nsaa (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw what you did with references there. I'm not too sure how to use those, but I'll take a look at it later. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave Hill (professor)

I notice that you have initiated "semi-protection" of the Hill article. I have no particular interest in Hill and simply arrived there to insert his election result.

I notice that what you call "vandalism" is an IP user repeatedly trying to draw attention to an unsourced claim in the article, stating that Hill was removed from his post due to his left-wing views. The IP has posted several times (in the article itself) material that is appropriate for the article's talk page: but being an IP presumably s/he doesn't know what the talk page is for.

My point is that if the added remarks have to be continually deleted as unsourced, so should the offending paragraph in the 'original' article, possibly inserted by Hill himself, that says 'arguably' Bognor sacked him for his politics.

Interested in your view. Sussexonian (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and get back to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of the edits you feel were legitimate? This is the kind of thing the page was protected against. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits were legitimate as comments that should have gone on the talk page. If you look at the "vandalism" which was reverted on 30 April, and that which was reverted on 6 May, you will see that a user has made comments, seemingly with personal knowledge, to question an assertion in the main article. If these comments had been put on the talk page then hopefully someone would read them and removed the unsourced part of the main article that says "For a time, arguably barred from teaching student teachers because of his left-wing politics, ...".

So the solution is to remove that part of the article which reads as if DH himself wrote it. Nothing should be added in this section without sourcing. Sussexonian (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see now, thanks. I've left a note on talk requesting that it be sourced or removed. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikicookie

For promptly handling the WP:RFP requests. Brandmeister[t] 12:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Brandmeister! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

FYI, there is a DRV about Nicholas Beale at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 8. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your quick semi-protection of the Apollo 13 article. Let's hope the vandals are deterred by inaccessibility. Your talk and user pages have some cool features! Regards, Yopienso (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to let me know if the problems start up again when the protection ends. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There was vandalism 5 1/2 hours after protection ended.  :( --Yopienso (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just one edit, so let's watch it for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, and thanks. Yopienso (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Status.

Is there any way to have your status automatically change from online to offline if there's no activity at night for 30 minutes? Every now and then I fall asleep before having the chance to do all my night things, such as brushing my teeth, shutting my PC down, etc. I need it only for night, though. Most of the time I fall asleep earlier than usual it's anywhere between 10 to 11, so I need something that if there's no activity from me for 30 minutes after 10:00 P.M. at night that my status gets changed to offline automatically. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert (unmarked) without explanation

Please don't just revert-n-run at the CRU incident stuff, it is deeply unhelpful William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

William, you removed from an infobox what the event was about by adding a parameter that wasn't in the box. [3] It's difficult to know what else to do with that but fix it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. You removed what happened from the infobox, leaving the reader none the wiser. That's why I undid your edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect Game

I edited the MLB Perfect Game page to include the box score and play-by-play of the May 8, 2010 game, and it was removed (used the Baseball-Reference site that others have also used in that page). Why? TyVulpine (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's this edit you're referring to, it looks fine, so please feel free to restore it. I apologize if it got caught up in reverting the vandalism. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jane Velez Mitchell

Thank you for your help with this article. After the protection block expires, what should I do if anonymous editor returns to vandalizing the article? If you check his editing history, he has been warned about his edits in which he referred to one administrator as a "douchebag". I'm afraid he'll be back to vandalizing the page after the block expires.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If he keeps on vandalizing it, we can keep on protecting it, or we can explore range blocks against his IP addresses. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Now he is vandalizing my user page. He/she seems like a very angry individual and put a 3RR warning without evening signing it on my user page. I have warned him/her to stop but I am sure he/she will erase my warning and continue to vandalize the velez-Mitchell article and my user page.--XLR8TION (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He posted that on your page before the article protection so let's wait to see how things go. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He just vandalised my User Page today using an IP address of 208.100.204.162.

• [5]

Anonymous editor seems to be both disgruntled and homophobic. Is there anything we can do to block this vandal?--XLR8TION (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your user page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

As a follow-up to our discussion some while ago... I left it alone but no admin or bot RFCs have gone live since we spoke... So I still think it's an unnecessary waste of vertical space: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList#Segregation. –xeno^talk 12:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the admin or bot RfCs, Xeno. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

moving posts

I see that you have moved my message off your user talk page and to a Wikispace talk page.

In the past, I have seen people violently protest the moving of comments. Are they correct and you are wrong? I think that you are right. Moving of comments with a notation that it was moved from a particular page is ok.

Let me know. Wikipedia has a culture, much like other websites and forums have their own culture, that I seek to understand and follow. Since you are a long time administrator, this suggests that you do have experience in these things. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Suomi, it's fine to move posts from your own talk page to article or project talk when the post is about the article or project page; it's always best to post to article/project talk page in the first instance, unless you think the person might not notice it or there's some personal aspect to the post. Moving posts within talk pages is fine too, though if someone objects you should move it back. Hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Aetna needs protection again

Same vandalisms, new user id's..... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Aetna&action=history

Thanks, Danieldis47 (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, three months this time. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

CMT

Sorry I disappeared. Dad died completely unexpectedly 3 weeks ago so real life has been way too busy to think of anything else. In reality I'm not sure I would ever be able to keep up with Eugene, who seems to have plenty of spare time and the patience to wait his chance. Any changes made will be swiftly undone as soon as others take their eye off the article as it is a real mission for him. This is one of wikipedia's weaknesses. Sophia ♫ 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on your talk page. Just want to add here too how sorry I am to hear that, and that I'm wishing you all the best. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WilliamBayliss1.jpg

local file File:WilliamBayliss1.jpg is being discussed for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WilliamBayliss1.jpg. Any chance we can confirm this was published before 1923? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Spinoff

Thank you for unprotecting User:Spinoff. I hate to bother you, though I was probably not clear enough when I posted the request, but I want to post to User talk:Spinoff, not User:Spinoff. I would have made that the header for the request, but there wasn't a template for it (that I could find). Would it be possible to unprotect that page or should I ignore the usurp guidelines and post it on the main page of the user? Thanks again! ▲ MANATH The Mage Singer (talk) ▲ 02:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see King of Hearts has now unprotected the talk page too, so you should be okay. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I wouldn't have noticed that. Have a good day/night, Slim. ▲ MANATH The Mage Singer (talk) ▲ 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yr background in climate change

I'm always interested when an experienced editor comes along and gets involved in the climate change article space, and even more interested if it's an admin. I'm interested to know if you have a science background, and from where you are deriving your views of climate change. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 06:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no view on climate change, Ratel, and so far as I know I've never made an edit that might betray a view. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. If you're not a scientist but curious about this topic, an easy introduction is via mp3s, such as the ones you can listen to here. ► RATEL ◄ 07:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the issue for me is how to write articles in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. There's no need to focus on the details of the subject matter to know how to write an article about a blog. Less focus on the issue and more on how to edit would help all round, in my view. If I had an mp3 on the latter I could give you a link too. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies would indicate that we not give equal weight in scientific articles to fringe theories. That's why evolution trumps creationism, and why climate change science, in which there is remarkable consensus amongst the relevant scientists (over 97% agree on the main points), should trump sceptics. But because the broad public do not like what the scientists are telling them on this issue, there has arisen a popular movement to discredit the science (esp in the UK and US), and the article about this inconsequential blog, written by an accountant, is one such example. It's saddening to see admins support and encourage the spread of this shit in the encyclopedia. Something for you to ponder, perhaps. Cheers. ► RATEL ◄

Deucalionite / 71.172.192.37

This [6] probably settles it - he is, as predicted, not willing to heed any restriction. If you need more proof that this is in fact the banned user, I'd have to dig out the earlier instances of disruption from the same IP range. I wouldn't be claiming this if it wasn't 100% certain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Some initial data is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite/Archive, which lists a few of his early sock IPs. Among IPs that were socking immediately after his main account was blocked are

• 96.225.115.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.172.185.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.172.189.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.172.186.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 96.234.84.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.172.198.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 96.225.105.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 96.225.111.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 96.225.112.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.172.198.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 96.225.107.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 96.225.105.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The behavioural profile is also quite unmistakable (including the obsession with formal minor edits, adding project tags to image pages, etc.) About the present edit to Arvanites, I removed that passage on content grounds, because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to an outdated and trivial study. The summary and sourcing isn't strictly speaking wrong; in fact, I wrote the paragraph myself a longish while ago, in an attempt at compromising with D., who had been insisting on a much worse POV version based on the same source (prior talk here). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs that show the 71.172 range making the same edits as the banned editor? The problem is that the CU was declined, and I'm not getting New Jersey for any of those IPs (I'm not getting any location at all). SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No time to dig up more detail diffs right now, but there are plenty. I can get you some later on if you insist, but until then I recommend you could just take my word for it. BTW, there was in fact a CU, on the first request, which came out as "possible/likely", explicitly implicating this IP range. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A link to that CU would be helpful, or any diffs showing that the 71.172 range made the same or similar edits as Deucalionite. If I'm blocking or semi-protecting over what he's claiming is a simple content dispute I need to be able to show that he's a banned user. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm seeing a NJ location (Bayonne, NJ for 71.172.192.37 and NJ for several others) for the 71.172 range of IPs. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. Can you show me where you found it? I tried a couple of sites but I keep getting the address for the ISP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, RP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here for another. Patterson and Bayonne are close to each other. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Slim, the CU link is right on the SPI archive page I linked you to, the first of the two cases (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite/Archive). As for comparable edits:

• POV edits about "Greek" vs. "Albanian" ethnic attributes, especially about Souliotes and Arvanites: Deuc. [7]; IP: [8]
• POV edits regarding prehistory and Byzantine identity of Greeks: IP: [9], [10], [11], [12]; Deuc.: [13], ,[14], [15], [16]
• related to the above, an obsession with "Minyans": known Deuc. sock [17]; Deuc.: [18]; IP: [19], [20]
• fixation on "minor tweaks" to references (everywhere in Deuc.'s contribs and in the recent IPs)
• tagging image talk pages: Deuc. [21]; IP: [22], [23], [24]
• adding DYKs to a Wikiproject showcase: [25]
• Edit-warring over the same passage of text: Deuc. [26]; IP: [27]

Sufficient? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting these together. I have to go offline shortly, so I'll look more closely later, but at a glance it looks like enough. That IP's currently blocked for 24 hours anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in at the Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#LessHeard_vanU LHVU affair. While it is understandable that an editor would be unhappy with LHVU’s action, proposing sanctions is really over the top.SPhilbrickT 17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, SP. I've only dipped my toe in the water, but it's clear there are serious problems. Not sure if I have enough interest in them to stick around, though. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I half-seriously wonder if there ought to be a process for sysops to draw straws; short straw has to monitor Climate articles for a couple weeks. Automatic barnstar for the duty, and rotate to the next "lucky" sysop.--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Cabal....

See [deleted - link provided on request by email] (towards the end). Apparently William is a paid stooge, I'm just a stooge, and you're both "a fascinating story" and "connected" with WMC and me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You previously commented on a prior ANI thread involving this user. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pedant17_disruption.2C_after_two_RFCs. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. Will take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Media Matters" RS/N

The parameters for use of "partisan" or "biased" sources within BLP articles is currently being addressed within an RS/N on "Media Matters". In that RS/N, I recently commented...

Until this recent diff, WP:BLP read as follows...

If an editor appears to be promoting a point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the subject's notability.

I'm not sure just what rationale supported this deletion (the edit summary reads "tightening some more, removing repetition, wordiness, overlinking"), but it is the ONLY Wikipedia "Policy" on BLP I've found that provided some buttress against the wanton introduction of POV biased, quasi-RS content into BLP's. I believe this is a dreadful policy deletion and Wikipedia will be the worse for it.

As you were the editor who deleted that particular verbiage and as you are obviously deeply involved in the formulation of WP:BLP policy, I thought you might be able to provide some valuable insight to the current discussion. Any contribution or consideration you might care to contribute would be appreciated. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jake, that was removed as part of an effort to tighten the wording of the policy, because it had mushroomed a little. The reason I removed that particular sentence is that we have the same sourcing requirements whether we feel an editor is promoting a point of view or not. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem

I see that we're stepping on each other's toes here.[28] No problem. I'll take a break for the night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on policy

There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sedef Avcı birthday problem

Sedef Avcı is a Turkish actress, in her Wikipedia page she seems to be born in 1978. According to her interviews on Turkish Hurriyet and Milliyet newspapers, she was born in 1982, not 1978, she says that the her birthday on her Wikipedia page is in error. (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/magazin/magazinhatti/14180853.asp?gid=222) I found a news about her that she graduated from high school in 2000, that means it is likely that she was born in 1982 since generally students graduate from high school at age 18 in Turkey. Therefore, I changed her birthday to 1982. But, a single person who uses the IP addresses 94.110.39.36, 94.110.2.189, 94.110.68.217, 94.110.82.16, 94.110.7.211, 94.110.78.97, 94.110.18.208, 94.110.92.201, 94.110.74.74, 94.110.67.218, 94.110.13.187, 94.110.86.21, 94.110.86.21, 94.110.29.152 change the birthday to 1978, he claims that she lies in the interviews. I asked him to provide a reference, he found this http://www.guncel-haber.com/5103386/haber_17_10_dizide_abla_karde%C5%9Fler_ama/, it is written that "Sedef Avcı İse, 1978 Doğumlu Ve 31 Yaşında" (Sedef Avcı is born in 1978 and 31 years old), but it is likely the information on this page can be taken from her Wikipedia or IMDB page. As she says that she was born in 1982, not in 1978, we should trust her. Finally, the person who used 94.110.29.152 address called me "stupid" (aptal in Turkish) on his last edit summary. Can you help me, can the page be protected, or what can I do? Kavas (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the year and left a note on talk. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ari89

Hi SlimVirgin,

Several Wikipedians and I have recently expanded the article Zakir Naik. I have painstakingly taken the time to continue revising and editing several other articles which Ari89 purposefully and without any indications of wrongdoing reversed my edits.

I understand he has persuaded you to lock the article Zakir Naik. I kindly request you open the article to editing. The article in no way was vandalized as can be seen in the History pages. I appreciate your concern for locking the article from further editing but I do strongly suggest you make a decision based on the point of views represented here. Please do not hesitate to look through my and Ari89's talk pages. He did not approach me with the several concerns he had about my revisions. Once again I do urge you to take a look at these before you judge whether the article should be locked. Thank you, and I apologize for the inconvenience.

I would like to point out that Ari89 has been blocked by an Administrator for editing previously and therefore burdens himself with a 'black' history on Wikipedia.

Awliya (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a difficult decision, Awliya, because it's an article about a living person, and I wasn't sure from looking at the diffs what was going on. I did see that two new or little-used accounts were adding material, and I saw that at least some of it was unsourced or poorly sourced, both at Zakir Naik and the related article Ari requested protection for. That's why I reverted to his version before protecting, just to be on the safe side. Please use the week to reach an agreement with Ari on the talk page, and make sure you have high-quality sources for any material you want to add (see WP:BLP for our policy on edits about living persons). If you do that and find after the protection lifts that you're still having problems, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Awliya, many of your claims against me are clearly not true. For example, you state that you were not approached with concerns, yet the discussion page and edit summaries show the identification of numerous problems in your edits. This was by myself and multiple other editors. Rather than attacking and threatening me, do join the discussions on the talk pages and address the issues!

And I am sure SV knows about my block, she was the one who I was in conflict with to get the block! But if a block is a black mark on my name, imagine the glowing stars surrounding my name with regard to thousands of edits and the creation and expansion of multiple pages. --Ari (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi SlimVirgin, I would like to thank you for your advice and suggestions for the future. I will contact you once the week has passed. This is an excellent opportunity to reconcile any disagreements Ari89 and I have. I will keep you posted.

Awliya (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pashto

Hi. I have replied here. Tajik (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Documentation for Request for enforcement

Can I draw your attention to The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. There is no need to thank me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, regardless of the tone Dr Connolley is correct that there are some outstanding diffs and so forth that should be added to the section format. It isn't so urgent that the request will be denied, but should be attended to if there are to be sanctions, restrictions and the like applied to accounts or articles. Simple unformatted requests to block proxys, such as in the section above the one you instigated, are rather the exception. May I take the opportunity to comment on your talkpage to WMC that you are more familiar with bringing articles to GA / FA standard than completing the forms unique to the CC Probation request page? I am sure you will master these matters, as you have so many other areas of the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure you'll also master the art of ignoring baiting comments. ;-) ATren (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nil carborundum, anyway :-) Pointillist (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP

short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event main, long version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event

You are an administrator and I do not seek to make you mad.

The BLP1E is written to say two main things. One is a link to the longer version and another is not to write articles about people known for one thing, except for people like John Hinckley. Yet when you click on the main, longer version, it is more neutrally written.

For the deletionists, it is easy to make up an excuse to keep the current short wording. For people like me who seek to improve Wikipedia by improving the consistency, this discrepancy is bad.

The long version is only 4 paragraphs, much shorter than the BLP page. You took it out entirely. Even when I summarized the 4 paragraphs in a neutral fashion, you had a fit.

Can you recognise the issue that I bring up? I do not seek to change the meaning, only make the prose more consistent between the main, long version and the different shorter version. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page HTML

Hi SV. Just wanted to let you know that the HTML in your talk page is causing it to prevent wrapping by my browser and thus widen each line of text way off the right side of the browser window. Apparently you use a wide computer screen. Many of us use 1024 x 768 screens as I do, or yet smaller than that--for those of us that do, the code needs to let the browser wrap to the appropriate width or it's impossible to read without scrolling left and right for each and every line of text. Hope that helps. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Kenosis. Do you have any idea how I can fix it? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's due to code that you inserted, you'd need to remove that code and allow browsers to default to the page width of any open window. It sounds more likely to be a glitch in the code for the newly designed page view, in which case the developers would need to have the browser of the person viewing the page specify its width. If the new page software is the problem, the simplest solution is to simply go back to the old page view until they resolve the issue. Problems can be reported to the developers on the feedback page (though I imagine there's no guarantee they're reading them all, and I haven't the foggiest idea what the inside track is to call their attention to obvious software bugs--and this is not the only glitch at present). ... Kenosis (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm out of my league here, but I notice the same thing. On my wide monitor I can see it fine, but not on my other one. FWIW, I think it was fine on the 13th, when I posted something and did not notice the problem. Obviously, if you've made any changes since then, they are worth reviewing. That's also the tine we got the new look. Could that be related or just coincidence?--SPhilbrickT 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether people seeing the problem are using the new interface. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing it with Safari on MacOS. Also, the RfA box is misplaced badly. I have a wide screen, but I use it for more than my browser ;-). I'm using Monobook, not vector. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried archiving all the text, as it could be an issue there, at least it is a good start Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears correct now. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Leading white space is bad; fixed Jack Merridew 21:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm not even sure what it would mean to archive all the text. My user page consists of several pages, that's the thing. If any of you know what might be causing it feel free to fiddle. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Last time I was trying to fix it (but apparently messed something up in the process) it was because of a line that started with a space character, and was therefore getting formatted as code. Such lines aren't broken, so the screen widened to accommodate it. If it happens again, just browse through the page until you find one long line that just fits the enlarged width of the display, that's the one that causes it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's good to know, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer article

Just curious, were you approached by a certain highly-placed Wikipedian regarding this article? If you'd rather respond by email (or not at all) that's OK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no one approached me about the article, but I don't mind you asking. I was looking at something else, I believe Talk:Bishop Hill (blog), and someone mentioned the Solomon articles; reading them prompted me to look at the Singer article, and I didn't like what I saw. That may not be the precise sequence, but it was something like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hope you didn't take the question amiss but there's a certain history involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not familiar with the history in this area for the most part. Getting to know it a little now, though I'd actually prefer just to get on with editing. By the way, if you really feel that last sentence in the lead is worse than nothing, please remove it. I only added it as a holding thing to make sure the lead wasn't devoid of criticism. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

re:Nature fakers controversy

Hey, SlimVirgin, thanks for the kind words re: Nature fakers controversy! It was a lot of fun to research, so I'm very glad you enjoyed reading it. I also appreciate your little tweaks here and there, especially since I'm tired of looking at the thing. :) Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Last warning

Stop writing lies in edit summaries [29] and reverting without any attempt at using talk William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Respect

SV, I dropped by to say that notwithstanding the Hooha and Palaver on odd words your work on finding loads more material and improving the Singer article is greatly appreciated and respected by me at least. Aah, saying that felt good... --BozMo talk 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and if Singer's BLP doesn't burn you out, I hope you take on some of the other BLPs in this topic area. Singer's BLP is now what it always should have been: describing Singer's climate change skepticism without defining him by it. ATren (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind removing [30] or moving it to another place, e.g. a separate section? We seem to have a chance to come to a constructive solution on the "Dean of" problem, and your general comment seems likely to derail this discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundant now - I inserted a new header to separate your more general concerns from the concrete case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jane Velez-Mitchell

Vandal has returned to vandalizing the article after your temporary block expired. Using new IP address. This article needs permanent lock for unregistered users. I am reverting it too many times and do not want to get penalized. Do I need to submit a formal request somewhere? If so, what pagge? Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a month for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help. I apologize for troubling you so often regarding this article and vandal, however, I know you are very diligent in maintaining the site's reputation and content. Once again, thank you so much.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't protect it for longer, but we're limited in what we can do when the vandalism is relatively infrequent. Let me know if problems continue when protection expires. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fred Singer

Slim, please note discussions at Talk:Fred_Singer#Editprotected_2 and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fred_Singer. Cheers, --JN466 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stale ANI

Just a small note about this ANI report, which you contributed to, and which dropped off the main page through inactivity. As a non-admin, I don't think I'd have much to gain by restoring it to the main ANI page and continuing the discussion (I've hit the "I can ignore WP:CONSENSUS because my argument is better than everyone else's" brick wall with Pedant17 before), but if you could take another look at it as an admin, it'd be good to get this cleared up, whichever way it goes. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Zakir Naik redux

Hi SV. Looks like Awliya (talk · contribs) is back in the shape of sockpuppets and changing IP addresses, one of whom got blocked for being rather impolite. I have requested semi-protection for the article, but as it looks like you have been involved in firefighting on this article, I also notify you directly. Favonian (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three months. Please let me know if it crops up elsewhere too. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CMT Further reading

Hi, SlimVirgin. For your information, an editor has suggested deleting the Further reading section you added last month. Anthony (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Absent everything else this is not acceptable. Almost directly quoted material needs to be used as quotes or totally rewritten, not merely removed from the quotes with a few words changed. I'm not getting involved in the content issues, but your behavior in this sole instance is highly problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC) rewritten Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Banned editor McCain at it again

The permanently banned editor Paul McCain is at it again, editing Book of Concord with the sock-puppet IP address of 75.8.92.141 [31]. I know that the edits are plainly his, so I would propose protecting the Book of Concord page if you deem it advisable.--Drboisclair (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Semi-protection has been imposed by administrator JPGordon.--Drboisclair (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer thanks

Thank you for expanding the Singer article and the patient responses to other editors on the article's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to redact:

Where have i ever[32] "..that the same Wikipedian has criticized on and off-wiki."? (the off-wiki part).

That particular part is very much construed as a personal attack, and for someone who puts policy above anything else, this really shouldn't be something that you do. Whatever critique i have had about Singer is completely verifiable, and has always been with BLP and a specific editorial context in mind. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that WMC was one of the people who ran the RealClimate blog, and that the blog had criticized Singer. Is any part of that wrong? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I misread the text, and for that i excuse - you weren't referring to me. But the reference to WMC is just as much a personal attack - since first of all he hasn't ever "controlled" Realclimate - nor was he (afaik) even a member at the time of the articles referred to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the article history I find you defended it too. I've just posted this to article talk:

"You defended the use of RealClimate as a source. Not ABC News as you write above. Here on December 3, 2009 ATren removed material that called Singer's work dishonest, and that was sourced to RealClimate, a blog partly controlled (at that time or formerly) by William Connolley. Stephan Schulz restored it. He was reverted. You restored it. You were reverted. Atmoz restored it. He was reverted. You restored it again. You were reverted. William Connolley restored it. He was reverted. WMC restored it again. He was reverted. Atmoz restored it again. Then the page was protected by 02 on the version containing the BLP violation.

"The above is bad enough. But now you are arguing that a New York Times blog is not an RS, when it's quoting Singer saying something entirely harmless that explains his views. That discrepancy requires an explanation."

Please don't focus on who controlled the blog. Please focus on the fact that you were using a blog as a source to call a BLP subject's work dishonest. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to focus more on context instead of cherry-picking. That particular instance where Realclimate was used, was agreed upon in this thread[33]. The context for it was that it was about the NIPCC report, and not about Singer - thus it constitutes a "gray area" - what we agreed upon in that thread (and earlier) was that as long as it was attributed properly - it could be used. Especially since RC wasn't unique in this assessment of the report (in fact they were quite moderate in comparison to the scientists quoted by the ABC article).

What exactly does Tierney have to do with Realclimate? I can follow ATren here, since he is just digging up old conflicts - but why aren't you focusing on Tierney - which is the item at hand? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm focusing on the inconsistency, and I can't see an agreement in that thread—and even with an agreement BLP violations aren't allowed. Calling something that Singer wrote "dishonest" is an attack on the person who wrote it, obviously—I hope things at CC articles haven't reached that level of hair-splitting. Please explain why you defended the use of a self-published blog for that claim, but now oppose the use of a New York Times blog for an entirely harmless quote. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb regarding BLP has always been: Iff the content is acceptable in a general article, and that there wouldn't be BLP concerns attached to it within such an article - then the content is BLP compliant. Of course that is too generalized, but it confers the gist. In real world situations there are nuances which go one way or the other.

In the example case, the statement from RC would be completely acceptable within a general article where the NIPCC report was discussed. They are experts on the subject, and what they are saying raises no WP:REDFLAG, since we have ABC article (a real RS), that states things even harsher. Therefore whatever BLP concerns that may be left would come from the context within which the report is addressed (the gray zone as i stated) - this was a section entirely dedicated to the NIPCC report (in fact it originated from an AfD'd article on the NIPCC report), it is attributed, and written so that we aren't in doubt that it is addressing the report (on which Singer is only one of the authors). Biographies are not excempt from critique, where it is pertinent.

Another thing that you have to keep in mind, in that old situation, is that generally i am opposed to having content such as the section on NIPCC in a biography, because such has a tendency to become WP:COATRACK's for fringe viewpoints. We should address the person and the persons view, not whatever topics the person is interested in (ie. focus on person, not on topics) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That source isn't acceptable for that claim anywhere on Wikipedia, because it's self-published and it's calling a living person's work dishonest. It doesn't matter that the sources are experts in some field. They're not experts on journalism or libel law, and that's the kind of expertise you need if you're going to call someone dishonest. That's why we'll take that kind of comment from The New York Times, but not from self-published blogs with no independent, professional editorial or legal oversight.

It's inappropriate to re-interpret BLP to suit whatever edits one happens to agree with. The spirit matters as much as the letter. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your interpretation is novel (correction: not entirely[34]), and not in accordance with real implementation of BLP and the BLP/N board. And within the CC area, it would mean that would have to strike quite a fair bit of the critique of the IPCC reports, since "dishonest" is rather meek compared to what some of the blogs quoted are saying about the AR4, which is written by living persons.

And it is not (under any law i'm familiar with) libel to state something about a work.... otherwise most literary critics would be in constant court battles.

Do please stop with your insinuation that RC or anyone has called Singer "dishonest", when everything is referring to a specific work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no point going back and forth. I can tell you that your interpretation of V and BLP is not one that would gain wide support. That's why that blog is no longer used as a source in the Singer article.

I've been stunned by some of the editing and talk-page posts I've seen since I first looked at this a few weeks ago. You, WMC, Stephan, and Guettarda are not going to be able to keep it going for much longer, because increasing numbers of people are objecting. My advice is to give that some consideration. I don't know what else to say. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You might find this blog post on Singer interesting reading. It's by WMC and is dated the 25th of May this year (today, well after the current situation calling his editing on Singer into question began). To be fair, it doesn't call Singer "dishonest". Just (by implication) "wacko" and "used to be sane". ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this. It speaks to the issue of WMC having contempt for WP's processes, including the probation. Either that or this is him on his best behavior! His parting shot before he was temp-banned from the Singer page was to post the URL of another of his blog posts in an edit summary on the talk page. [35] The blog post wasn't too bad, but the title not too pleasant. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, by some analysis I've seen, that blog post of his that I referenced is making an allegation of tax fraud, so linking to it skirts some of our restrictions, or so it could be argued. It's rather concerning. As is the diff you gave. But perhaps best to let it go for now and hope for the best. This matter has been going on for a while, it won't be sorted in a day, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

There are major changes being made on the Serb cleansing in 1995 by anonymous users. Can we semi-protect the page? Alatari (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be worried about semi-protecting in case it's a regular content dispute. The second anon's edit, for example, [36] seems to say what the source says. [37] Is material being added that's clearly wrong or unsourced, or anything that's clearly sourced being removed? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I follow the page and it seems to have regular controversial edits made by anon's. His edit both made more neutral the phrasing but then added unsupported content about Croatian government asking them to stay. Maybe verifiable but, wow, anon's don't seem willing to cite sources and leave it to established editors to do the leg work.

Anyway, I'm not sure how to properly judge the need for limiting anons and leave it up to your judgment. Thanks. Alatari (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PBSKids

Hello SlimVirgin, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

Please make it stop

I've been finding myself agreeing with you rather a lot more than I care for lately. Do you think you could see your way clear to doing something about that? It's really disconcerting! Thanks. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking when I came online today that I ought to sign the RfC in your favour, so things may be about to get even more disconcerting. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Dispute tag required

You recently put full protection on the policy page WP:DICDEF. As the disputed content is flip-flopping, please could you add a tag to indicate this such as:

{{Policycontroversy|talk=Discussion|section=yes}}

It's the third paragraph, starting Each article... which is disputed.

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

IP address proposed block

Hello there. My school's page, Sir Thomas Picton School, is constantly being vandalised from inside the school network, which used a shared IP address. I'm constantly going on there and undoing stupid edits by people who really have no respect for the page. I propose that you block this IP address: 195.195.223.177. If you look at the history you will see what I mean. It was blocked until recently, but it has obviously been lifted. Thank you.

TGLewis (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that bad, TG, to be honest. I'll put it on my watchlist and help to keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi as you did such a good job on Fred Singer`s article would you consider looking over Indur M. Goklany and giving it a bit of a polish? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a bit of a copy edit, and I'll look around to see if I can find more sources. You did a good job on it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, if you have a minute could you pop over the the article talk page, there is a disagreement about the use of a document which contains the subjects address mark nutley (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

G

I see you've reverted errors and copyvio's back into the IMG page [38]. I do look forward to you discussing this on the tlak page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bishop Hill logo.GIF

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bishop Hill logo.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Razon and Similar articles

Hi there. I am inviting you to join the discussion(s) in this talk page. Considering that fact that the only persons active in discussion are yours truly, Shannon Rose, and suspicious IPs, I believe an admin who has experience dealing with these controversial articles (Daniel Soriano Razon and Eliseo Soriano) should intervene. At first glance, Shannon Rose acts as the person "guiding" the new editos about how to apply the rules of Wikipedia (take a look at at this talk page and you'll see that she mentions some rules in most of her responses). As an editor who recently "dropped in", I have no background on the article's discussion. Recently, I found out the article, Eliseo Soriano has been the battleground of many edit wars (COI editors and sockpuppets). Now, the sockpuppetry problem is over, but Shannon Rose became too "spikey" about her responses to the "pleas" of the pro-Soriano editors.

Take a look at this discussion, you can see how Shannon responses to the ideas of the "Soriano-fanatics". Looks like the editor lost good faith because of the edit wars and the suspicious anons who turned out to be sockpuppets of the "Soriano-fanatics", but I am not blaming her due to the circumstances. As a result, more anons response in an angry manner sometimes insulting me for my beliefs about the subject. See (1) (2) and here (3) One anon tried to bring the issue at WP:AN. I really don't want to deeply involved in the edit wars so I am inviting you to comment on the article's current state. Thanks! IronBreww (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Riley Keough

Hi! You protected the article (at my request); however, it's still being vandalized by user Lilsurprises (talk). I'm wondering if you could please ban the account, as it's only used for vandalism? Dugnad (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me an idea of what's wrong with the editing, e.g. this? Is it that the material's correct but needs better sources, or is it something more serious? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The material Lilsurprises removed is correct and properly sourced – it was pure vandalism. Dugnad (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dugnad, I read that diff wrong. I've left Lilsurprises a note, and we'll take it from there. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dugnad (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed [39] and I think I have understood your opinion. In practice perhaps the best conclusion we could share is that content RFCs are in general a helpful process and examples where they are misused are the exception rather than the rule? --BozMo talk 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. Personally I don't think I've ever seen them abused. My intention when I started the Bishop Hill blog RfC was to stop the aggression and the reverting, and to attract some fresh opinions during a period of calm. I can't think of a situation where that would be a bad thing so long as the RfC is worded carefully. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(aside: To be honest I only realised rather late in the discussion the Bishop Hill RFC was started by you, I just got the history wrong). There was one particularly bad case where an editor who failed to understand what a POV fork was and was adamant that two articles should merge, put up the usual merge notices and got a dozen rejections, took it to the policy pages and got no support, took it to RFC on the merge with the merge notices reinstated, had universal rejection again and the RFC was closed under WP:SNOW, complained across forums that he had a right to insist the RFC should run its 30 course and WP:SNOW did not apply, edit warred on the RFC closure, complained at AN/I that the closing admin (not me) had committed process abuse and eventually got a block warning from me (which was my first involvement in it) for disruptive editing if they did not let it drop. Needless to say the block warning also got taken all over the place. It was the worse case of NOTLISTENING I recall on WP and it left me with a bad taste but I guess that is not really to do with RFCs so much as disruptive editors. --BozMo talk 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Wikifan12345

FYI, I've taken the liberty of quoting some comments of yours concerning User:Wikifan12345 ([40]) in the context of an arbitration enforcement request concerning the same editor (WP:AE#Wikifan1245 et al). Hope that's OK with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano

Ho SlimV, if and when you have a second could you have a quick look and opine on this issue, there is a claim that the subject is notable for being an international fugitive and that it has to be the first content on the lede, which appears a bit POV and undue weight to me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Eliseo_Sorian Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for quickly reverting the disruptive edits on my talk page in my 'absence'. And that face on your main page was so not expected! --Ari (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

France national team

You protected the article with the incorrect numbers. The user posted the incorrect numbers just before you fully protected the page. No I can't change them. Joao10Siamun (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are they actually wrong, John, or is this a difference of opinion? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually discussed at WT:FOOTY. On 24 May, the FFF sent in the current official numbers to FIFA that the players will wear at the World Cup sourced here. However, in the ensuring two friendly matches, a couple of players wore numbers that contradicts the official FFF source such as Anelka and Ribery wearing 22 and 39. Regarding Anelka, players are only allowed to wear numbers 1–23 in official competition. My stance is keep the official numbers the FFF initially sent to FIFA until there is official mention that the numbers have been change. Jafdfm's stance is change the numbers to the currently unofficial numbers being worn in the friendlies without any confirmation other than the numbers are being worn in friendlies, which are currently posted. There is no difference of opinion. I told the user to just wait until it is announced that the numbers in the friendlies are official then change them. Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When an admin protects an article, we have to protect on the version we encounter. There are circumstances in which we can revert to another version, such as vandalism, a BLP violation, 3RR violation, or something that's clearly incorrect or inappropriate. What you're describing here seems to be a difference of opinion, so I don't feel I can revert. What I'd suggest to settle the dispute is that you find secondary sources that have discussed the issue e.g. recent newspaper articles about the team. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why I dislike encountering such situations on Wikipedia because it takes too long to get to the point.Listen, there is no difference in opinion in this case because as of right now, I am correct and the other user is incorrect. By the World Cup, the numbers could be changed to the numbers the user have posted, but as of today, the numbers are wrong. That's why I constantly told him to wait. I posted the source with the current official numbers that should be posted on the page. There has been no official announcement of the numbers changing. How is it a difference of opinion? Not to mention the user gave Anelka #19 on the basis of that's what he thinks Anelka will wear at the World Cup. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking it offline...

Hi Slim. People on the CC are, unsurprisingly, skittish because of a long on- and off-wiki campaign (of which Solomon is a part) to derail the climate change articles. It is a minefield. But one way of handling a minefield is to step carefully. Unfortunately, you have not done so. In this particular case, you attack William, while making unfounded claims about Solomon, who has viciously and wrongly attacked him in his column. William's alleged COI has been discussed and dismissed at WP:COIN before. If we allow any public figure to create a COI by writing about a Wikipedia editor, WP:NPOV goes out of the window. And I take exception to the "always involved in snark or insults" part. What happened to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? More constructively, I suggest we collapse everything from your comment on 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) to Guettarda's made 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC). It's off-topic for the talk page. Do you agree? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC clearly has a COI in relation to that article, regardless of who has decided he does not. The only body able to make that ruling would be the ArbCom, but I'm guessing that any sensible group of uninvolved Wikipedians would conclude that he has a COI. As for Solomon, the only thing I said about him is that he had made no effort to edit William Connolley (at least, there's nothing to suggest he has), unlike Connolley trying to edit Solomon's BLP.

I don't agree that this is off-topic for the talk page, and I'd prefer to discuss it there, if more needs to be said. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. It does not help us to improve the article. But as you wish. I'm off to bed. But let me repeat: What happened to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying I'm wrong about. The problem with COI is that the issues related to the contributor and issues related to the content can't be separated, because they infect each other. That's one of the reasons COI should be avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to your "always involved in snark or insults" snark. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's how I see it, Stephan. It's always WMC, KimDabelsteinPetersen, Guettarda, and you. A discussion involving one often means the other three arrive (for the most recent example, see Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Coffee merchandising), and the exchanges are rarely constructive and civil. They usually deteriorate instantly into snark, attacks, and lots of ums and nopes and ughs. I'm sorry to be so frank, but that's my honest perception. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

SV, I think your perception on this is largely correct, and many would chime in to agree. However, I would like to note that in my opinion Stephan is also correct to allege that there has been a lengthy "on- and off-wiki campaign" to discredit WMC (and other editors like him) and derail the climate articles. But, WMC is not doing himself or his cause any favors with his bad behavior, and it is true that there is a large clique of editors engaging in battleground tactics due to this entrenched conflict. Sadly, the only way to break this pattern is to discipline both sides. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the onwiki dispute reflects the offwiki one. I read someone today, possibly Lawrence Solomon, arguing that science relies on the free flow of ideas and that there's a perception that it's absent in the real-world CC dispute, which is partly why people are having difficulty trusting the science. I don't know whether that's true, but it seems clear that it's absent onwiki, where anyone who's not on-message is attacked. I don't know whether that's happening on both sides. So far I've seen it only on one side, though my experience of those articles is limited. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First, no matter how you see it, WP:NPA still applies. Secondly, I've been editing these articles for several years, and I have most of them on my watchlist. I assume that is the same for WMC, Kim, and Guettarda. Thirdly "disagrees with me" is different from "snark or insult". I don't think I've made any comment on you. In this instance, I have commented on one of your claims. Fourthly, "polite and constructive" is different from "I get my way". To be honest (and this is a comment on you, hopefully polite and constructive), I've not seen you defend many of your contentious edits with substantial arguments on the subject. Instead, you complain about the hostile climate and request enforcement against other contributors. I find that deeply offensive and unconstructive. Having a pleasant editing environment is desirable. But having correct content is a sine qua non, at least for me. In contentious areas, the best mechanism we have for that, short of assigning competent censors, is open debate. Here is a deal: I try to refrain from "ums and ughs" (sorry, I need my "nope"s) if you start to argue the substance instead of the persons. In fact, I'll give you my half upfront (feel free to buzz me on my talk page if one slips by, and I'll refactor). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You see, that's the problem. You personalise things. When I pointed out that your edits to Singer were plagiarism, you simply attacked me. It wasn't until several other editors weighed in, that you desisted. You can't dismiss people just because they disagree with you. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not attack you, and my edits were not plagiarism. This is the kind of smearing I'm talking about. The minute someone disagrees with this small group, the knives are out. It's not just opposition or constructive criticism, which is expected. It goes way beyond that, and it happens instantly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, how is it "personalizing things" to observe the lack of a civil, constructive, and welcoming editing environment? After all, Guettarda, I'm on your side on this topic, yet I agree with SV's observations and experiences. Coming here to make further accusations against her only proves her point. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while you and other climate editors might only have the best interests of the articles in mind, the working relationships between editors is what makes this place function. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Apropos, I found WP:GANG interesting reading. Where it falls short is in dealing with the situation where there isn't actually a tag team, it just looks like there is one. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I learn your thoughts on WP:SINGLEEVENT?

I created a page for İbrahim Bilgen who was a Turkish politician, a founder of the main opposition party (Virtue Party), he joined Felicity Party after Virtue Party was banned. He was a candidate for Siirt (population :250000) mayor, but he was not elected. He was also a candidate for Parliament in 2007 and he was not elected. In Wikipedia, there are pages for elected Turkish mayors, like Hüseyin Kalkan, Cemil Şeboy. I think that many of Turkish politicians including non-elected politicians do not have pages, as there are not many Turkish Wikipedia editors. There are pages like Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, Ben Konop in the Wikipedia, so I think we can create pages for non-elected Turkish politicians. Since he was one of the activists died in MV Marmara ship, the other editors say that by WP:SINGLEEVENT, the article should be deleted. Besides the events at the ship, he is a renowned politician in Siirt. What do you think? Kavas (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Kavas, I'm not familiar with the background. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AN3

FYI [41] - I blocked the user based on a WP:AN3 report before I saw your note there. If you reach an understanding with the user and want to unblock, please feel free. --B (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.
Message added 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

France national football team

You have frozen an inaccurate version of the page. France is currently ranked 9 by FIFA, and this needs to be changed in the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection expires shortly, Kevin, so you'll be able to fix it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected early so you can sort it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria shootings

Hi Slim, Why did you SP Cumbria shootings? There's little or no vandalism and there's been good IP contributions. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MB, there was a request on RfPP because there had been some problematic IP editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Slim. Looking at it and there'd been no more than a couple of ip vandal attacks. In fact there'd been some account editor vandalism reverted by IPs. I think the requestor was asking for protection simply as a precautionary measure, whic I believe is not policy. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See my response on RfPP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

PBSKIDS

Hello SlimVirgin, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

Daniel Razon

Hi, SlimVirgin. Sun Star is a reputable media company that publishes regional newspapers in Bacolod, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Cebu, Davao, Dumaguete, General Santos, Iloilo, Manila, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Zamboanga. The website mirrors the printed version. However, I do agree with your reversion, because an article that has nothing but information on a person's persona non grata status in his hometown is a sight for sore eyes. I will try to add more content to the article in the near future. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)