User talk:SlimVirgin

GA Review for Elixir

Hi SlimVirgin! I wanted to notify you that I have addressed all the points you had laid out in the GA review of Elixir. I am curious to know why you took up the review. I assume you have a bottle of the perfume, how does it smell like? Being in India, I can't buy it since it's not available here. Plus I'm a boy, and it's a women's fragrance! I decided to create the article since I'm a huge Shakira fan, and I was tired of working on music articles. Anyway, thanks for the review. Are there any further comments? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WonderBoy, I'll reply on the review page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science

Please see the talk page, I added an entry per your request. WilliamKF (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not feel it is appropriate to revert fact check entries together with other edits, perhaps this was an oversight. WilliamKF (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll comment there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard concerning pages at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I which you deleted. You may be interested in commenting there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:George Habash.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:George Habash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Wilhelm Reich in his mid-twenties.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wilhelm Reich in his mid-twenties.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FGM

Hi SlimVirgin, perhaps the prof (and the student) could be pointed to the education noticeboard? I'm not sure how that board works, but it seems to me that it's been set up for these type of incidents. Also, wanted to mention that I did send you email quite a while ago but not sure whether it went through (I thought my email was activated but it might not have been at that time). During the Thanksgiving week I had a chance to review the images I spoke about regarding the article and sadly none are of good enough quality for Wikipedia. So sorry about that - I had better hopes. Victoria (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, I'll check my email, and thank you so much for looking for images. As for the prof, I was thinking of writing something up for the education noticeboard incidents page, but it's all so time-consuming. If you look at the material another of his students added to Nike, it was even worse (almost 5,000 words). [1] Yet he (the prof) reverted when it was removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd simply report with the link you have above and the one from FGM - I'm not sure what the remit is for that board, but I'd think since it's an "incidents noticeboards" this is exactly the type of thing to report there. These two examples (Nike and FGM) are essays with a specific POV that wouldn't survive here regardless of the editor (and regardless of any other issues with the edits). But, yeah, I know. It is time consuming. I didn't want to get involved myself but see my talk page, [2]. Victoria (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jbmurray has reported it, so I wrote up the report I'd started. See here. That's a very good post from you about the program on your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP article RfC

I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rfc is unfocused and therefore useless. Why bother sending a lot of messages out so that a poorly thought out Rfc can be answered? Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McCann Right Eye

Hi SlimVirgin. Are you satisfied that this reflects consensus or policy and is appropriate for a non-admin close? I'm not, because it fails the "Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file" criterion for a NAC. Seems to me that the closer has presumed to issue a ruling, rather than a reading of consensus. But I don't feel confident enough to press it, as this was my first visit to WP:NFCR. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't seem right. I've left a note on the closer's talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello SlimVirgin. Just a note to inform you that the user named Wereith, someone who you seem to be having a few disputes with, is a reincarnation of the banned user Betacommand (a.k.a User:Δ). I'm sure I don't need to tell you how to spot/report a sock, but let me tell you what I've observed. He has the same narrow but obsessive interest in enforcing WP:NFCC. He has the same disinterest in fixing even the most obviously trivial errors in other people's attempts to comply with the NFCC (seeing this as not remotely his responsibility). He has the same side interests in non-article technical issues, such as the spam blacklist. He has the same complete disinterest in 'normal' editing to any great degree - and what little work he does on article text is the same repetitive and gnomish type work, such as the cite books expansion task, revealing the same fondness for scripts/tools. He has the same affinity for the ignore/template/threaten/report approach to WP:DR - properly talking an issue through with someone (as opposed to simply repeating the same point over and over in different ways) is an alien concept to him. He has the same difficulty (or deliberate tactic?) of frequently over-stating the case for WP:3RRNO#5, already earning two blocks for edit warring - indeed he has the same approach in general to edit warring, seeing it as a means to achieve ones goals rather than something to be avoided completely in the course of normal collegiate editing. He has the same difficulty with (or deliberate tactic?) distinguishing between policies, guidelines and essays in NFC disputes - inevitably, all disputes are presented by him in terms of him fighting against someone who simply doesn't know or care about NFC, even when the issue is, for example, a genuine disagreement with a knowledgeable established user over the subjective meaning of a part of a guideline. He has the same approach to warnings about his approach/behaviour/edit warring, even from admins - completely ignore them. He has the same approach to short term blocks - say absolutely nothing until it expires, then just carry on as if nothing happened. He has the same approach to disputes he might have lost in the past - wait a few months and try the same edit again, hoping nobody notices. He has the same blind spot in disputes as far as admitting he might have got something wrong or made a mistake - being informed of such things by others is either greeted by silence, or by simply changing tack and finding another angle of objection. He has the same frequent difficulty with basic English (mixing up where and were, for example). I doubt there will be any technical evidence linking the two, but imho a properly written up SPI will expose the fact that Wereith is obviously not a brand new user, and based on the similarities between the Wereith and Betacommand on all those fronts, a block for ban evasion on the grounds of WP:DUCK is well in order - it is simply inconceivable to me that there could be two users out there who are so similar on so many fronts. He has been challenged about this before - perhaps most damning is the fact that the only thing Wereith has ever said by way of reply to these allegations, is either to just flatly deny it, threaten to report the accuser, or point out that because he (Wereith) uploaded a few book covers, he obviously cannot be Betacommand. Funnily enough though, those uploads stopped suddenly many months ago (and if they resume soon, it will only be because he's been accused recently again, and needs to refresh the 'cover story', pun intended). I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but as far as denying sock accusations goes, that's a pretty lame defence. I'm bringing this to your attention because the only response I ever get if I try to report this myself, is the entirely predictable response that because I am a sock myself, the accusations are obviously not true. (I'm also trying to persuade Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) (see #FYI also) to stop wasting time trying to reason with him as if he was just another user and file an SPI, but he doesn't seem to realise that the sheer amount of similarity between Wereith and Betacommand amounts to hard evidence as far as SPI goes). Arnhem 96 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I was going to let you know about the AN discussion, but I see you've found it. I'm at a disadvantage because I know almost nothing about Betacommand, so I really don't know how to compare them. Perhaps the best thing to do is open an SPI page and lay out your concerns there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but if I file the SPI, someone like Black Kite would delete it faster than you can say 'evil SPA sock'. No, it has to be someone with an established history for it to have a chance of even being seen by the clerks. I tried Baseball Bugs, as he knows all about Beta, but strangely he seemed not to remember his own concerns regarding Wereith, even though he filed an SPI report on Wereith in March - perhaps you could remind him of the case page - or get him to admit he's been paid off/threatened to keep quiet (joke! joke!). He was dismissed due to lack of diffs, but they are not hard to find, you just need one or two for each similarity I've outlined I would imagine. Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I somehow mixed up Baseball Bugs with Less Heard Van U - he was the one who filed the first SPI on Wereith and knows a huge amount about Betacommand, although sadly he seems to be inactive. If he ever comes back and I don't notice, perhaps you can inform him that Wereith is still around and under increased suspicion. You can see the problems I'm having in exposing this though. I'm sorry to say that because there are corrupt NFCC admin hardliners here (Kww, Black Kite), as well as incompetents like Floq (who would rather block someone like me who has done nothing just for being ILLEGIT, instead of investigating whether someone else who has already racked up thousands of edits is also ILLEGIT), sadly you're doomed to repeat the entire Betacommand saga with Wereith (if you aren't able to just pretend he doesn't exist). Take the recent 1R deal - Beta also used to agree to abide by conditions where, funnily enough, somehow in the drawing up phase, it gets missed that the original concern was never actually addressed (he still gets to decide for himself what is unquestionable or not before deciding to edit war). And even though on the face of it, he seems to have been forced by this agreement to commit to a discussion/consensus based approach for debatable cases, you will see from the way he uses NFCR that it is nothing but a form filling exercise for him. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Balangoda Man

Hi SlimVirgin,

Thanks for starting the GA review of Balangoda Man. I didn't expect someone to take it up so soon! I'll take a look at your comments/suggestions whenever I have an internet connection.

Cheers, Ldesilva (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the quick review and for your feedback! Much appreciated. I'll definitely have a look into your comments over Christmas. Ldesilva (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]