→thanks: new section |
|||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::::{{U|SAS81}}, I missed your question above. Normally what I would try in this situation is writing a draft and proposing it to the community for consensus. It would have to be significantly better than the current version so that people could easily see that it was an improvement. That would be quite a lot of work, with no guarantee that it would be accepted. A lot of our BLP-focused editors have left or are editing less because of burn-out, so I'm less certain nowadays where consensus would lie. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
::::{{U|SAS81}}, I missed your question above. Normally what I would try in this situation is writing a draft and proposing it to the community for consensus. It would have to be significantly better than the current version so that people could easily see that it was an improvement. That would be quite a lot of work, with no guarantee that it would be accepted. A lot of our BLP-focused editors have left or are editing less because of burn-out, so I'm less certain nowadays where consensus would lie. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} thanks S V. I'm very disappointed we lost your voice on the page - right now there is an RfC and was hoping you could at least give your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Move_criticism_up_lede.3F input.] There's also an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SAS81 AE] that was just put against me too, apparently there are a number of editors who are quite unhappy with the progress that was made on the article when you arrived, and are trying to make it worse than before. How can Wikipedia work this way? If neutral editors are harassed away or too frustrated to even try, BLP's representatives, working with WP policy get blocked from participating in Talk - it seems like all the WP policies that allow for self correction get stopped. I see how Wikipedia can correct this problem, but if editors try to own a page and stop the natural process I'm worried that the problem is unresolvable. I'm hoping you can tell me I'm mistaken. [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81|talk]]) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Books & Bytes, Issue 6 == |
== Books & Bytes, Issue 6 == |
Revision as of 06:06, 10 June 2014
16 May 2024 |
Your GA nomination of Brian Josephson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brian Josephson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
NEJM
Hi SV - I was just at WP:RX and saw an old request by you for a few NEJM articles. Do you still need them? Sunrise (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Sunrise, that would be very helpful if you have access. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
disappearing quote
The quote I added re Rennolls commenting on Wiseman seems to have disappeared in your edit (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Josephson&diff=next&oldid=611186700). Was that intentional? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Brian, I'll reply on talk shortly. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brian Josephson
The article Brian Josephson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brian Josephson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
BLPN
Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Smallbones, I'll take a look now. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Work on Deepak Chopra Greatly Appreciated
In case it wasn't clear on the Talk Page, I just wanted to express my appreciation for all the work you've done on Deepak Chopra. It's been a frustrating place at times, with either extremes of the skeptical or fringe POV's duking it out, and it's been a relief to have a reasonable, neutral, proficient editor come in and go gangbusters on quality control. Thanks for all your hard work there, and I hope the endless bickering over trivial details doesn't chase you off! The Cap'n (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Askahrc, thank you for saying that; it's much appreciated. I've given up on the article for now, because it doesn't seem possible to make progress. But I wish you all the best with it, and I may look in from time to time. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've given it a fresh read and it looks really good. The images are fantastic. I think there are a couple places that come off as promotional or too watered down, but it's "good enough". CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- CorporateM, I didn't mean my reply to be so abrupt. I just re-read it and it looked impolite. I meant that I don't see the article as good the way it's written. There are prose issues, sourcing issues and the structure is kind of all over the place. It's better than it was a few weeks ago though, I think, but some of the issues that were causing problems back then have been re-introduced. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- SAS81, I missed your question above. Normally what I would try in this situation is writing a draft and proposing it to the community for consensus. It would have to be significantly better than the current version so that people could easily see that it was an improvement. That would be quite a lot of work, with no guarantee that it would be accepted. A lot of our BLP-focused editors have left or are editing less because of burn-out, so I'm less certain nowadays where consensus would lie. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thanks S V. I'm very disappointed we lost your voice on the page - right now there is an RfC and was hoping you could at least give your input. There's also an AE that was just put against me too, apparently there are a number of editors who are quite unhappy with the progress that was made on the article when you arrived, and are trying to make it worse than before. How can Wikipedia work this way? If neutral editors are harassed away or too frustrated to even try, BLP's representatives, working with WP policy get blocked from participating in Talk - it seems like all the WP policies that allow for self correction get stopped. I see how Wikipedia can correct this problem, but if editors try to own a page and stop the natural process I'm worried that the problem is unresolvable. I'm hoping you can tell me I'm mistaken. SAS81 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 6
Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)
- New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
- TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
- TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
- New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Walter Somerville
Hi Slim Virgin - thank you so much for the Talk message. Glad you like the page, though it is a work in progress and hopefully others will chip in. It came a surprise to see that someone as renowned as Dr. Somerville had never been written about. It is very heartening to have some positive feedback - it sometimes seems that half the people on here just want to criticize! Picknick99 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, Picknick. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Peyton Sawyer article
Since you WP:Semi-protected this article before, will you consider WP:Semi-protecting it again and/or giving Sahyadrisingh a stern warning about his or her WP:Disruptive editing, including his or her constant IP-hopping to WP:Edit war and disregard any attempt at discussing the matter? I recently requested page protection for the article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. It might be a good idea to start a discussion on talk about the issue, just to make sure the anon doesn't have a point. It does seem as though s/he's just being disruptive, but it's worth a check. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. As you saw, I further commented here. And like I just stated there, now that the article is WP:Semi-protected again, if I were to revert again, the editor would simply use his or her Sahyadrisingh account to revert again...like last time. As for discussing it with the editor, I tried that. See this discussion. If the editor were truly interested in discussing the matter, then the discussion would not have ended with my reply while the editor continued to edit disruptively. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Ezra Pound
Just drawing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Ezra Pound to your attention - someone else has suggested it for 2nd July for the 100th anniversary of Blast, and I thought the three of you would like to know. Comments welcome. BencherliteTalk 16:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Bencherlite. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thanks
thanks for your edits and good participation at Talk:Brian Josephson about edits to that article. it seemed embarrassing to me, a short while back, about how wikipedia had been treating him. your considerations there help a lot. sincerely, --doncram 02:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)