SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) →FARC: new section |
||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
::OK. I'll transfer this to the talk page, slightly refactored, and reply there. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
::OK. I'll transfer this to the talk page, slightly refactored, and reply there. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Sounds good, thank you. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
:::Sounds good, thank you. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== FARC == |
|||
Hey Slim, noticed your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FGrace_Sherwood%2Farchive1&action=historysubmit&diff=395249996&oldid=395247108 here]. While I agree that the article is still problematic, if you look at the main FAR page you'll notice that under FAR "The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates YellowMonkey and Dana boomer, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or... the nomination should be moved to the second stage". Just as a procedural point, I think you should consider reverting your edit and leaving the decision to proceed to FARC to the director and delegates. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:16, 6 November 2010
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
Sent an e-mail
Dear Slimvirgin, nice to meet you. I sent you an e-mail today, seeking your help and guidance. Thanks and cheers. Fusion is the future (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll put the article on my watchlist. Best way to deal with these things is just stick very closely to the content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. WP:COI is always worth checking too where there's a personal interest. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Well, I did not really understand your point about this: WP:COI is always worth checking too where there's a personal interest.
- With all due respect, what has to do with me? This suggestion you made, because you know something about me and my motive concerning that particular article and its subject?
- Would you please be kind explaining this? Thanks and cheers. Fusion is the future (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. Six days passed by, and I am profoundly offended by your silence. Have a nice day.Fusion is the future (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Leo Frank/Focus
I think you restored my removal of Focus as a link in the article. Could you please explain it relevance to the case? I understand antisemitism is a feature of both the book and the Leo Frank article, but there are so many other books that have antisemitism as a theme that it seems would be more closely related. I have indeed read Focus.--Jrm2007 (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- They're well known fiction works about antisemitism in the U.S., so I thought they'd be interesting as See alsos. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I feel it is an extremely arbitrary choice. There are literally dozens of films/books dealing with not only antisemitism; and there are works much closer to the Leo Frank case than Focus. The Fixer comes to mind for one. I really feel it is a poor choice. You want to restore it, I will not get into an edit war with you but my sense is that you are unfamilar with the field.--Jrm2007 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Slim, I left some comments for you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions and comments. I did some work on the lead, I think you'll find it much better. Please check back :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping with the lead. I corrected that line and did some more. If the lead looks okay can you see what you think about the rest of the article? Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Um, can you check back to the nomination page? Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping with the lead. I corrected that line and did some more. If the lead looks okay can you see what you think about the rest of the article? Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
RE Roger Scruton's article
Hi, I have commented on your recent Scruton edit, I would be grateful if you could respond. 129.234.156.152 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Current debate at WT:FAC reminded me about a long-range (ie. not now!) project I have had in mind, to try and get HIV to FA standard. My intention was (and is) to ask whether you would be interested in collaborating on it. I haven't been a main content contributor there - I am probably the article's current main vandal and POV patroller. You will see some issues with the article got a bit torrid of late but things have settled down (in part since the blocking of an editor). The article hasn't had a very happy history at FAC: archive 1 and archive 2. There are a couple of other active editors who seem to have some content knowledge: User:Scray and User:Mastcell who I was also going to approach when the time came. I'm not sure how you choose your articles to work on, but I have noticed that controversial content in need of neutral treatment and sound referencing is a bit of a theme, and HIV may fit that bill. This is probably an early-next-year thing for me, but thought I'd drop a note and see what you think. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It would certainly be a challenge. I'll read it through and look at the previous FACs, and let you know. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's raining thanks spam!
- Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
- There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
- If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Quest for the historic Jesus
Hi SlimVirgin,
I noticed that you merged the Quest for historic Jesus article without any discussion. Presumably all Wikipedians have to play by the rules--even Admins! :-) Let's talk about this.
Webbbbbbber (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- My recollection is that it was discussed on the Historicity of Jesus talk page, W, but it was several months ago so I can't be sure. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- See discussion here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! I was having a hard time finding the discussion. Looks like you were having a hard time reaching consensus; maybe you could put one of those "See main article here" at the top of the segment you want to add to the HoJ article? BTW, may I ask why there was no notification made on the Quest... page? I wasn't even aware that the HoJ article existed until I got redirected there. Webbbbbbber (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Your FAs
Run a few of them through the peer reviewer if you need something to do.
- Death of Ian Tomlinson has 4 dead links, and numerous issues with WP:MOS
- Muhammad al-Durrah incident has numerous WP:MOS issues
- Marshalsea has many, many MoS issues and deadlinks
- Stanley Green uses a gallery, which MoS discourages
- Abu Nidal has DABs and Dead Links, and uses weasel words, and needs to be made consistent with either American or British spelling
— GabeMc (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- As this is a response to my review of the Roger Walters FAC, I'm going to copy it over there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm very picky about how my FAs, Gabe. If you don't want your work to be reviewed, don't submit it to FAC. And don't post here again about this, please. You need to respond on the FAC page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Brown Dog affair has numerous MoS issues and dead links
- Rudolf Vrba has MoS issues, deadlinks, DAB links, and weasel words
- Night (book) has many MoS issues and needs to be made consistent with either American or British spelling
- Joel Brand has MoS issues and a redirect that needs to be fixed
- Bernard Williams has many MoS issues and needs to be made consistent with either American or British spelling
SlimVirgin, is case you didn't know, Waters changed the film in his show, and the star of David is no longer juxtaposed with a dollar sign. — GabeMc (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is not pretty, GabeMc; without reviewers, we don't have FAs, and MOS issues are easily fixed and won't break the 'pedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I periodically check my FAs to fix any dead links; I'm quite happy to do another round of checking. But the Star of David comment is odd, and I'm not happy that a source request, or a suggestion for fixing the writing, has triggered this response. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, you really seemed to have it our for me, or the article, and I noticed your interest in the subject, and since Waters was accused of anti-semitism by Foxman last month, I made an unsupported assumption. I apologize. You did question Blake 43, and you were wrong. You questioned 1965 as a date for the Pink Floyd name, you wee wrong. You rode me on a bad day, and I apologize if I insulted you. — GabeMc (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I periodically check my FAs to fix any dead links; I'm quite happy to do another round of checking. But the Star of David comment is odd, and I'm not happy that a source request, or a suggestion for fixing the writing, has triggered this response. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Slim, you can install {{featured article tools}} on article talk pages to check for dead and dab links periodically. I hope this is settled now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ps, if you remind when I have some free time-- oh, say, about 2011-- I will MOS check your articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. I'll also start a round of checking myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you got what you wanted. I lost my cool and the Roger Waters FAC is over, not because it's not a good article, but because Wiki is a popularity contest and you and SG are buds. Well, that's fine with me. I would rather the article is good, and accurate than a FA. Why did you have to push my buttons? I ma having a very, very bad day, and you helped make it bad, so thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
SV...I didn't read every detail here but I think Gabe should understand that FAC and FAR are two different things...anyway, I just redid much of the Glacier National Park (U.S.) article this past spring and already (though I haven't verified it) the tool Sandy mentions above says there are more than 5 dead links...so even a revamped FA doesn't stay completely current or can't be improved, even after peer review, FAC and even FAR....this is Wikipedia, afterall. Not sure if Gabe clarified but the Star of David issue at the Roger Waters concert The Wall was due to a complaint by the ADL about visual effects where the Star of David and dollar signs were being dropped (amoung other things) from bombers...Waters took a bit of heat for this ADL complaint...Rolling Stone story...I saw the concert in Omaha, Nebraska last week but do not remember seeing any of this stuff...I wasn't on booze or dope either, so maybe I missed it.--MONGO 03:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, MONGO. I hope you enjoyed the concert! I was hoping to see it myself, but I think I've missed all the dates I could have managed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Somebody cut some video from the concert at Omaha...[1]...[2]....--MONGO 04:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Tech support
Hey Slim,
I tried uploading File:ABDmay2005.JPG but for some reason the thumbnail image generated does not seem to work. Any chance you could help me or point me in the direction of some help.
Many thanks, NickCT (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can see it, so I'm not sure I've understood what's not working. Is it when you add it to an article that there's a problem? You do need to add a source too. I'm a funny person to come to for tech support, given that I barely know which side of the computer is up. I will treasure this header. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, I just noticed on the Foundation mailing list that there's a thread about images loading slowly for some people today, or not at all, so if you're having problems seeing an image that could be it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Lynching of Laura and Lawrence Nelson
Can I ask why you keep removing the country from the beginning of this article? If someone isn't familiar with US geography, most non North Americans, they won't know Oklahoma is in the US unless they click on it. The only clear indication it takes place in the US is found in the fourth paragraph of the lead. In fact a reader may even think it's in Canada based on the third paragraph, which mentions North Canadian River, if the country hasn't previously been mentioned. The country should be mentioned when the location is initially brought up. Also them being listed as African-American doesn't do it either as people can travel. Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Canterbury, I'd be amazed to find any Wikipedia reader who doesn't know Oklahoma is in the United States. I don't think we should always have to add "Paris, France," or "Rome, Italy." Should the lead of Marshalsea be forced to say: " ... a prison on the south bank of the River Thames in Southwark, now part of London, England"?
- In addition, the first sentence of the lead says they were African-Americans (and to imagine them going on holiday during that period, and somehow getting lynched elsewhere is stretching things), and the last sentence of the lead says they were among 4,743 people lynched in the United States during a certain period. And in case there are people who still don't understand this is in the U.S., I've added United States to the infobox. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- The example you illustrate, yes the country should be added. I know US is mentioned in the last paragraph, but people shouldn't be expected to read right to the very end of the lead to figure out what country the location is in. And yes you'll get Wikipedia readers who don't know Oklahoma is in the US. Strangely enough not everyone outside the US knows all the US states, just like people in the US aren't expected to know all the Cantons in Switzerland, the counties in England or the provinces in China. Canterbury Tail talk 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have to disagree. That Oklahoma is in the United States is common knowledge. We can't get into a situation where we're having to write: "The 7 July 2005 London bombings ... were a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon London, England's public transport system ..." Or "The World Trade Center ... was a complex of seven buildings in Lower Manhattan in New York City, United States, that were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." We have to assume some basic common knowledge of readers. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pardon me, SV, for butting in, but I think you may be mistaken. Comparing world-wide English readers' knowledge of London to the same readers' knowledge of Oklahoma is like comparing oranges to, um, cherimoyas (custard apples). Yes, we can assume all will recognize London, Paris, Rome... but not Oklahoma, Chiapas, and St. Gallen. --Yopienso (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd have concerns about any adult reading Wikipedia who didn't know that Oklahoma was in the United States. But if they don't they can click on the link, or look at the infobox. There's no need to overegg the pudding.
- The written has to be factored in too, and in my view the lead looks odd adding "United States" when it's already made obvious in several ways. This is an article I'm half-thinking of submitting for FA status if I can ever pin down the sourcing, so I'd like the writing not to be too laboured. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who would have to look on a map to work out whether Saskatchewan (which I can't spell either) is in the US or Canada, I think we need to be careful not to make assumptions of a worldwide readership. Do you know (without looking) whether Berwick is currently in England or Scotland? That said, putting the information in the infobox should be adequate I would think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Master stroke, Elen. And although I would not think ill of the intellectual level of a Scot (or Australian or a Russian who learned English in school, etc.) who didn't know Oklahoma is a U.S. state, I can see including the fact in the first sentence could be overkill. Bottom line: I concede the point in this case to SV. --Yopienso (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who would have to look on a map to work out whether Saskatchewan (which I can't spell either) is in the US or Canada, I think we need to be careful not to make assumptions of a worldwide readership. Do you know (without looking) whether Berwick is currently in England or Scotland? That said, putting the information in the infobox should be adequate I would think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- The written has to be factored in too, and in my view the lead looks odd adding "United States" when it's already made obvious in several ways. This is an article I'm half-thinking of submitting for FA status if I can ever pin down the sourcing, so I'd like the writing not to be too laboured. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see the comparison between Berwick and Oklahoma. The latter is well-known, if for no other reason because of the song, the musical, the film, and the bombing. The bombing article doesn't tell us it's in the United States, just as the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack doesn't tell us it's in Scotland in the first sentence, though it does soon after. Same with the Nelson article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
courtesy note
User:Eugeneacurry is requesting unblock and there is a thread at ANI here regards - Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Night (book)
Hello. I think placing (1960 in English) immediately after the book title, aside from being somewhat inelegant, is slightly misleading, or at least inexact, since the book was first published in 1955 in Yiddish and later in French, as more fully explained further on in the lede. Is there a better way to word this? Station1 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not ideal. For most of the article's existence, I had no date there, but it started to look like a significant omission. Giving a year helps the reader to orient himself. I'd normally give the first date of publication (1955), and maybe we should do that here. It's just that it was a significantly different book that was published in 1955; it's not just that it was translated into different languages, it was completely rewritten. So I don't know how to handle it. Perhaps we could discuss it on the article talk page, in case others have some ideas. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I'll transfer this to the talk page, slightly refactored, and reply there. Station1 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thank you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I'll transfer this to the talk page, slightly refactored, and reply there. Station1 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
FARC
Hey Slim, noticed your edit here. While I agree that the article is still problematic, if you look at the main FAR page you'll notice that under FAR "The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates YellowMonkey and Dana boomer, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or... the nomination should be moved to the second stage". Just as a procedural point, I think you should consider reverting your edit and leaving the decision to proceed to FARC to the director and delegates. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)