User talk:SlimVirgin/May 2014

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --

Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thanks for letting me know about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slim Virgin,

I've got my head in other things at the moment, would you mind explaining to me the issue at the RfC? petrarchan47tc 00:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left you an explanation at the other page. Hope it clarifies things. Will explain more if not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear now, after your most recent post. To be honest, when I check my watch list, it's always in the hope that there will be fewer things needing my attention, and I probably subconsciously avoid added noise. The only time notices posted to the top of the watchlist page caught my attention was when there were 3 simultaneous ones running. It was then obvious something was different - but one RfC doesn't change the look of the watchlist page enough. If a different color of font was used, maybe just one word in red, the notices would be noticeable. I didn't want to further clutter the other page with this, but wanted to touch base. I can surely post this at the other page too, if you think it would be helpful. petrarchan47tc 18:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. (Got your ping.) I should have more time tomorrow. petrarchan47tc 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep on trying to outline some background on that page, though I'm a bit lost myself as to how this unfolded. I'm hoping others will fill in more details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep assuming WP is a way-shower for transparency, but I'm not seeing it in this case just yet. I still wonder about the source of pressure to rush the process. I am increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of my WP-metadata presented in the way you described. The watchlist, if it is to be used for announcing RfC's that will have community-wide impact, should not also be used for less important matters (like the recent "Hey, you can use this online library for free!"), especially when the font and appearance are unchanged. This waters down the whole 'announcement' feature, and busy editors will quickly get in the habit of ignoring it. If the watchlist is to be used to make uber-important as well as random announcements, one fix might be to additionally offer an email opt-in feature. I would happily accept announcements via email if I could select the content. For instance, I would choose to receive any RfCs that affect the community; I might select certain categories like paid editing, while ignoring other categories. Either way, the current system isn't quite working, and this particular RfC needs a do-over, no question. I do look forward to seeing your questions answered as well. petrarchan47tc 08:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of asking someone to review the close of that RfC, and take it from there. You're right about watchlist notices. They used to be very effective, but they're over-used now so people have stopped paying attention. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping I hear about the new RfC. If you don't see me there, maybe a ping? petrarchan47tc 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related?

Just saw this at Jimbo's. petrarchan47tc 18:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Petra, I missed this. Yes, definitely connected. :-/ SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SlimV, I see this has already been enacted. I think a few things are obvious: It is not serving the user in any way (especially if we aren't given an opt out choice, and a second chance at discussion). It is exposing things in a way that is arguably worse than having one's real name revealed. And we weren't asked, nor has there been a user-friendly explanation of this change and ramifications with regard to privacy. I will stop using other wikis now, as I don't really want to feed this tracking process. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going to give this a bit before talking more on its talk page, given the SPA running around, but I think the article takes rather too long to label his crazier theories as pseudoscience, and doesn't really include enough commentary on his theories or make it clear until very late in the article how fringe a lot of his later work are. For example, I think it says at one point that "it was dismissed by most scientists at the time" - that's a phrasing better for things like continental drift, where scientists were shown wrong later, and not for cases where it remains dismissed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, thanks. I'd prefer to discuss this on talk if you don't mind, just so that it's all in one place. I'll keep a look out for anything you post. I think if you sit down and read through the whole article you'll see that it makes clear at every point how odd Reich's views were, not only on science but on everything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that's the intent, but it sometimes delays a little too long to clarify a point and such, and the lead could use a little work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that, sorry. I think the article makes it really clear at every point. Can I ask whether you've read it all the way through? I think if you were to do that you'd see what I mean. It's not just his views on science, but on everything at every point of his life, to the concern of his close colleagues from very early on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin,

I was wondering if I could get you to look at an article that I have written on Vanna Bonta:

It's a collaborative project, and I know some of the references were not coded correctly, but I was wondering if you think it meets notability criteria.

Lynn --

Lynn, sorry to be so slow to respond to this. On the surface it looks notable enough, but I haven't had time to look at it in detail. It might be a little long and perhaps a bit promotional. It might be worth going through it and removing some of the extra details, some quotations, etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your edits on Deepak Chopra. I appreciate your work there very much.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Olive, nice to see you on my page, and thanks for the feedback. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - someone has pointed out to me on my talk page that it will be 50 years since

Hi

Bencherlite, I can't promise to have looked at it by then, though I will try. It does seem like a good date. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

summary-style sections on the key issues, which would include the articles above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Truly appreciating your uncompromising neutrality on a very challenging subject. SAS81 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, SAS81, much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend. I am writing about the need for more administrators. There are probably many good editors who would like to run for adminship and would probably succeed, but fearing failure, do not dare try.

So, I thought that maybe an "opinion page" might be a good idea. I am talking about a page where editors considering running could ask for feedback about their RfA chances to get an indication of the likely outcome.

You've been around for ages, so seem like the right person to ask. Does this exist? Has this been suggested before? Something tells me this is a bad idea, but I can't figure out why. Best wishes, and many thanks for any thoughts on the matter. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna, that might help to ease people into it, though we do already have Wikipedia:Editor review. That can act as an pre-adminship run. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I'm aware of Editor review. I considered it for myself before my RfA, but felt it really wouldn't help me know what my chances were. Maybe I ought to suggest such a page at Village pump to see what the community at large thinks. Again, thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to suggest it at the pump. I suppose I would worry that it'd be yet another process for people to go through, but anything that helps nominees feel less nervous would be good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they could bypass it as a step in a process. It would be optional, of course. Anyway, I took the next step and posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Pre-RfA opinion page. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your patience far exceeds mine. I was reminded of this page by something and circled back hoping it had died down enough for regular editing. It looks like I was off by a longshot. I just finished an essay I was working and I'm still waiting for a GA reviewer for the history of PR article, so I've sort of been poking around for my next volunteer project, just doing nick nacks in the meanwhile. CorporateM (Talk) 03:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regular editing is but a distant hope and not only on that page. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you're waist-deep in other stuff, but do you think I could get you to look at

James T. Butts, Jr.? For example, the article includes accusations of "bias, bigotry, and sham investigations" cited to an op-ed. I have a COI and was contacted by a concerned relative. You'll see on Talk that at least one editor feels the current article is neutral and shouldn't change. CorporateM (Talk) 00:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I took a look, but it's really hard to judge without delving deeper. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've gotten a lot of "I'm busy"-type responses, so I finally pinged Jimbo and he interject right away. The discussion string is here. CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorporateM, I'm not too busy, it's just that I can't judge after a first look. I'd normally say no to that op-ed, for example, but then I saw the context and wasn't so sure. I'll try to find time to read the other sources and chime in on the talk page at some point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the most obvious BLP stuff has been cleaned up, though there seems to be a lot of undue weight on a lawsuit in which he is only briefly mentioned in the sources that is the focus of strong opinions by another editor. Question, do you know what it means for the Supreme Court to "disapprove" a ruling? I suspect it is specific legal jargon. Does that mean they overturned the appeals court's decision or does it mean they declined to rule on it? CorporateM (Talk) 02:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin. Respect. Lots of it. I'm a genuine fan of your writing and approach to building an article and I'm studying more of your contributions. I have a lot to learn from you. Would follow you on twitter if i could :) SAS81 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SAS. If this continues, I may need to take up meditation! :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I've been telling myself the same thing :) SAS81 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments