The truly weird thing is that I don't actually care about religion. I'm a writer and photographer, possibly with too much time on my hands. I like literature, art, history and the humanities in general. Religion isn't my thing. So why do I edit it? I'm not sure. But yes, I'd love to look up Olivia's skirts again. PiCo ( talk) 06:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Collapse somewhat unproductive discussion
|
---|
I will stop reverting edits as soon as the information presented on Msgr. Williamson's page reflects truth and not libel. This article should be locked, bottom line. The allegations of friendships with notorious anti-semites is unfounded. The quotes I added are easily found on his Grace's own blog. To ignore them constitutes a deliberate, ideological assault on the bishop's character which--I think we can agree--is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Best, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.202.74 ( talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
p.p.s I included the blog as a source only as a courtesy since material unavailable on the internet--which is generally more credible by the way--is, well, unavailable on the internet. The "perfidious enemies"--if you'll allow me to style them--of Msgr. Williamson aren't going to actually go verify a source that they can't find on the internet; they'll just undo the revision and question its "verifiability" while having no qualms about citing, I don't know, a questionable article by the Catholic Times in Britain that decontextualizes a scene in a lecture by the bishop where he is railing against modernism and recaption it as if he were bitterly lambasting jewry. I admit that I am angry right now, but I hope you will seriously consider what I am saying nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultaforte ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you do not understand what is at stake, many of the sources are disreputable; many of the sources plainly mischaracterize the truth. Abraham Foxman and his cronies have no authority within the Church, and their understanding of what the aims and intentions have no bearing on what it means to be Catholic. The fact that I do happen to be Catholic is irrelevant, I realize, as far as the content of this article is concerned. That said, the perspective is offensively stilted. I have no issue with any of the content of the Janzen interview; the bishop's attitude is not anti-semitic insomuch as it is not directed at the Jews as an ethnicity. The Janzen interview perfectly reflects the Catholic attitude that those who profess and prosyletize Judaism are enemies of the Church and that they should be converted. People can interpret that through whatever lens they want, but until his actual disposition is accurately and truthfully, a word that you are free to chafe at, conveyed then the judgment that anyone reaches about him is bound to be biased. It is regretful that his blog is no longer available--since it is his blog, I think it qualifies as a verifiable and relevant source--but the Janzen interview is definitely more conclusive in articulating his personal opinions than the hearsay present in a majority of the other sources. I encourage you to listen to it, and if you find a damning statement, then I also encourage you by all means to use it. What I mean by "hype" is that the article as it stands now might as well be ADL propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultaforte ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) p.s. As for the alleged incendiary nature of other things said in the Janzen interview, a word from Jerome: If an offence come out of the truth, far better it is that the offence come than the truth be concealed. Aultaforte ( talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Your responses surprise me. You must think I'm some backwards fool. If I were trying to promote an ideological interpretation, as you are accusing me, then it follows that I would want to remove everything that conflicts with that interpretation. I have not done that--paraphrasing the words of the Pope and pretending like its a direct quotation is just not reliable journalism. I don't think you are grasping what I mean by "truth," and I think if you did then you'd realize that it does not conflict with the wikipedia project. If that quote, which is directed at Catholic girls, were properly contextualized (i.e. if his words are made to reflect the audience he is speaking to), I would have no issue with it. The article that is up now is written by the Bishop's enemies--enemies refers not only to the ADL but secularism as a whole; it's like if the wikipedia entry on Reverend Wright (which I also have qualms with) were written entirely by Fox News. This is the very reason Scalia is opposed to cameras in the courtroom. Article's that label the bishop blankly as a "holocaust denier," perhaps the most ignominious label possible in our culture, are just not true. These articles are written with agendas and use extremely inflammatory language--the word "sacked" connotes a sense of disgrace with his seminary far beyond the actual motives. No one in the seminary said it, and it wasn't an inference but an attack. That's what I mean by truth. Why is it right for a wikipedia article to falsify direct quotations and to infer malicious intent where even the secondary sources, if read neutrally, you call it the NPV if I'm not mistaken, suggest none? Aultaforte ( talk) 21:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You aren't getting it. This is the last example. The following text would be patently untruthful: Booth killed Lincoln because he was a racist. Booth was a racist, but it doesn't mean that he killed Lincoln for that reason. A broader biography would not impose that reductivistic interpretation on the reader. If you listen to the interview, the context is provided. When the context is available, it should be used, and when it is not then malicious inferrence should be avoided even if a secondary source (which is original research) comes to that conclusion. Because a secondary source is generally biased, I do no think that means that a wikipedia article should be permitted to echo that bias. Bias should be omitted wherever possible. If that means that an article is only a paragraph long, so be it. 64.77.202.74 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC).
|
Hi Slp1. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Comrades I am writing to express my outrage that the link to the blog The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer was deleted from the Robert Latimer article. I notice that RobertLatimer.net is included as a link that I really don't think this is any less partisan than The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer (although they stand on opposite extremes of the issue). I have not included any information from the blog in this Wikipedia article. I just put the link at the bottom. This blog is POV, but has links to opposing views. RobertLatimer.net doesn't even have links to opposing views. The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer has an 'about me' section. Robert Latimer does not. I am not convinced that this is anything other than a grotesque double-standard and an act of political censorship and demand that whoever keeps deleting this link desist from their actions.
Trotskyist Greetings, M.G.
Leon Trotsky 16:26, 5 January 2009
P.S. Robert Latimer was convicted of murder and his site is included as a link. Censoring something highly criticle of him I think is a grotesque double standard.
Leon Trotsky 16:30, 5 January 2009
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Latimer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Trotsky ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Salomon Isacovici, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Isacovici. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeterproject ( talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I left my message to you over there, i.e. PISA on the discussion page. Thanks!
69.156.51.43 (
talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't think Georg Hurtig will explain anything over there on the discussion page. You are I both were cheated on by him. His tables were basically fake. 69.156.51.43 ( talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Did you intend to fully protect the page until October? I added a tag to let people know what was going on, but I thought that you might have meant to semi? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It was semi protected till October previously (not by me). I had to up the protection level because confirmed editors were including the info too, but decided to leave the expiry the same for simplicity'ssake. I was planning to downgrade back to the regular semi status after about 24 hours, but I'm certainly open to the suggestions of others about the timing of this. -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Mediation Award | ||
For your excellent work at Talk:Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#Debate_about_December_2009_edits:_selection_and_presentation_of_country_mean_scores TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
How broad were you thinking? I'm thinking at least PAS, PA and FRM, as well as related pages where his POV-pushing has been a problem.
Also, it's not a policy but WP:CPUSH might be worth thinking about. It's a general problem that's getting worse in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I asked Durova about waiting/going ahead and this is her reply-- Cailil talk 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the old vandalism on my user page. I hadn't even noticed it, and apparently neither did the user who attempted to revert the vandalism before (but didn't go far back enough). I haven't been paying very close attention to Wikipedia for a while, so it's nice to see other people fixing my user page. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you please semi-protect Heat (1995 film) and The Godfather? A block-evading IP, 201.68.110.70 ( talk · contribs), keeps making changes to these film articles. Erik ( talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help on User:Slp1/draft4, and I have CC'ed you on an e-mail. --- kilbad ( talk) 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a quick note to tell you that I have undone your removal from the listing: at WP:CP, we like to keep track of every investigation and what actions have been taken rather than removing items once cleared. This serves also to verify if further investigation is required, for instance in the case we're dealing with a multiple violator - or in case the same user keeps reinserting the stuff you removed, as he appears to have done several times already :)
Best, MLauba ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Good catch that the article was a Pipes opinion column (actually, the same one). Missed that. Tx for fixing it.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Slp1/Archive 7 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 09:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I just edited the WP:SPA essay, and I want to make sure it reads neutral. Basically the Identifying SPAs section had almost nothing to do with identifying SPAs. I added a paragraph and a "common misuses of the SPA label" to this section to make things more explicit, and left the old section, but made it a subsection called "other considerations". I think nothing I added is controversial because no one seemed to disagree in the 2009 discussion on the talk page. But I want to make sure that everyone who has contributed to the article knows about the changes. Its not a huge revision, but it certainly isn't minor, so I would like you to take a look. I tried to incorporate the misuse concerns on the talk page while still leaving room for judgment calls and context when labeling SPAs. The reason for adding this new misuses section is to have something to point to when when an established diversified editor gets improperly labeled as an SPA. If you think these "misuses" are too strong, feel free to edit them, discuss them on the talk page, or respond to me. Thanks MATThematical ( talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your very relevant note of caution. But it seems WP:BLPSPS is the chapter of the law relevant here, i.e. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...").."
Gazeta.pl is Poland's top news site, and it seems we can quote Mr Palikot from that. Thanks again, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! SandyGeorgia sent me this way.
Could you please review User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch64#John Thomas Idlet and then Talk:John Thomas Idlet#Editors with conflicts of interest? Afterwords, I'd appreciate some advice (if you care to give it), and a watch on the John Thomas Idlet article. This is currently at most a brewing tempest in a teapot, but I'd like someone with more experience at this to watch over my shoulder. Thanks for any help! -- Paul ( talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Slp1,
The CSAAS reminds me very much of the parental alienation syndrome article - the same enthusiasm from the clinical crowd, the same skepticism from the empirical crowd, and the same (mis)use in courtrooms. Thought you might be interested in the topic, I think it's fascinating because of its relation to satanic ritual abuse, but I'm a bit weird that way I suppose. There's a TON of sources and it just needs time - which I don't have right now. Feel free to edit if you're interested, but if you're not then that's cool. Just thought it might tickle your intrigue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your chipping in here. Sooner this is put to bed, the better! :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your amazing and rapid assistance at the DSM copyright cluster. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
Whoot! You rock! :D Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Could I get your input regarding a thread I started at the medicine page? See: Wikipedia_talk:MED#Are_these_terms_synonymous.3F Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't panic, they're not by MH34! Just thought I'd ask what you thought [14]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not there. I looked and even read through all the AP releases of the same story, none of them list the languages.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Re your recent edit, are you aware of the discussion about this fact, and that the subject of the article would rather that it did not exist at all. Your comments are invited on the talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a lot of the material from the above article, including your source added. Coverage of the suicide should be significant, and in multiple reliable sources, to warrant a mention in the school's article. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Slp1, when I saw your revert on the article Mar Aprem Mooken, I was about to send you an angry message because I was horrified with what you where doing there, but I though it twice and assumed good faith, maybe the guidelines here where just not the ones I was used to on the french project? As the discussions I had previously with others admins didn't give me a clear idea of the guidelines here, I decided to raise the issue on the admin board, not because I wanted the others admins to throw stones at you, but just because I was so confused and wanted to understand what the hell was going on on en:wiki. I have to say that the answers I received surprised me a lot, but I have to accept them, and I have no angry message to send you after understanding that, following the guidelines of en:wiki, your action was apropriate. Though it is true that I should have warned you of this message on the admins board, and I offer my deepest apology for that. Regards -- Kimdime ( talk) 07:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate your comments on the proposal here. Regards, Colin° Talk 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm violating Wiki code by contacting you here and in this way, but I'm not an experienced user & I've had a hard time figuring out how to get in touch. I'm writing because I've helped edit the reprints of a few Olivia Manning books at NYRB Classics in the US. I was thrilled to see that you've nominated her article to be a featured article. If there's anything we can do to help you, please let us know. Again, it may be against the rules for me to help, as I'm not unbiased, but I may be able to provide you with a few articles that would help your citations. Mottstreetsara ( talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. If you want to get in touch, or let me know if I can be of help, please leave a message on my talk page (it looks so much nicer know that there's a plate of cookies on it!) Mottstreetsara ( talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be (not just the two of us) getting mired in an overly long wiki-drama-ish discussion that IMHO is threatening to distract from the main issue. And which is certainly way too long for others to follow. I've therefore sent you an off-wiki note.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Question – if a person is convicted of something, don't we report it as fact?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
As to whether either of those Pakistani sources are RSs – in my view, not for facts. But yes for reflecting what Pakistani Press said (which is how it was being used—for these purposes, it doesn't matter if they themselves are not reliable for fact-checking, or have typos, etc.). I think the sources I had supported the text I had – the Pakistani press reporting a blanket statement by the sister that the girl was not hers ... rather than the way you changed it. Apart from this (minor) issue, I'm ok w/all your changes.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
They why, out of all of the gin joints in Paris, do you continue to end up at ones where I am editing? Are you following me?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This follows up on the above two exchanges. Since we are discussing a new issue, I've given it a new header.
After you were found to have a non-consensus view on matters such as use of primary sources, and after I disagreed with you on issues of U.S. intellectual property law, where you took an unusual position at odds with 17 U.S.C. Section 105, your reaction has been to single me out and follow me around wikipedia. And then join discussions I am engaged in and pages I am editing, and repeatedly confront and inhibit my editing. Your edits and remarks have been tendentiousness and disruptive, and – as in your above comment and here – have included uncivil personal attacks. Frankly, Slp, this irritates and annoys me, and markedly disrupts my enjoyment editing. It also disrupts the project.
I request – politely and civilly, but firmly – that you stop. Please. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Just saw that Olivia Manning made FA, congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Reading your user page, I begin to understand how you thought of the medical and pyschological legacy of Fox's story, lol! You raised an interesting point on his status as a "disabled hero". In retrospect, it seems obvious that his achievements as a disabled person should be held equal to his accomplishments as a cancer survivor. Yet even of all the sources you've given me, only two sources make mention of his being disabled, and then within the context of his legacy to cancer research. It is interesting that his losing a leg is viewed so casually and treated almost as an afterthought. It seems that since Fox simply overcame losing his leg, the media and world at large did too. I'm interested in reading the other journals you've turned up to see if any touch on this, as I am finding it rather challenging put into words the concept of his being a hero to the disabled as well. Thanks again for the sources! Reso lute 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in here. -- causa sui ( talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Slp1 - re your edit here: I am not certain that there was consensus to make this change, at least not with the wording you have included. Would you please revert? Given the temperature of the various debates, it strikes me that any requests for edits should be made using the ?{{editprotected}} template so that an independent assessment of the consensus can be made. Risker ( talk) 03:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Slp1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey!!! What a nice surprise to cheer me up as I try to do my taxes. Thank you very much indeed!! -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I dropped you an email re the additional sources for this article but haven't heard back from you. Is it possible to get copies of the sources? Thanks! -- Insider201283 ( talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The Silver Maple Leaf Award
Awarded for your research and assistance in bringing Terry Fox to featured status. Reso lute 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for taking my birthday off. :-) Asbruckman ( talk) 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I forgot to congratulate you on the FA for Olivia. Well deserved! PiCo ( talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The truly weird thing is that I don't actually care about religion. I'm a writer and photographer, possibly with too much time on my hands. I like literature, art, history and the humanities in general. Religion isn't my thing. So why do I edit it? I'm not sure. But yes, I'd love to look up Olivia's skirts again. PiCo ( talk) 06:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Collapse somewhat unproductive discussion
|
---|
I will stop reverting edits as soon as the information presented on Msgr. Williamson's page reflects truth and not libel. This article should be locked, bottom line. The allegations of friendships with notorious anti-semites is unfounded. The quotes I added are easily found on his Grace's own blog. To ignore them constitutes a deliberate, ideological assault on the bishop's character which--I think we can agree--is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Best, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.202.74 ( talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
p.p.s I included the blog as a source only as a courtesy since material unavailable on the internet--which is generally more credible by the way--is, well, unavailable on the internet. The "perfidious enemies"--if you'll allow me to style them--of Msgr. Williamson aren't going to actually go verify a source that they can't find on the internet; they'll just undo the revision and question its "verifiability" while having no qualms about citing, I don't know, a questionable article by the Catholic Times in Britain that decontextualizes a scene in a lecture by the bishop where he is railing against modernism and recaption it as if he were bitterly lambasting jewry. I admit that I am angry right now, but I hope you will seriously consider what I am saying nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultaforte ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you do not understand what is at stake, many of the sources are disreputable; many of the sources plainly mischaracterize the truth. Abraham Foxman and his cronies have no authority within the Church, and their understanding of what the aims and intentions have no bearing on what it means to be Catholic. The fact that I do happen to be Catholic is irrelevant, I realize, as far as the content of this article is concerned. That said, the perspective is offensively stilted. I have no issue with any of the content of the Janzen interview; the bishop's attitude is not anti-semitic insomuch as it is not directed at the Jews as an ethnicity. The Janzen interview perfectly reflects the Catholic attitude that those who profess and prosyletize Judaism are enemies of the Church and that they should be converted. People can interpret that through whatever lens they want, but until his actual disposition is accurately and truthfully, a word that you are free to chafe at, conveyed then the judgment that anyone reaches about him is bound to be biased. It is regretful that his blog is no longer available--since it is his blog, I think it qualifies as a verifiable and relevant source--but the Janzen interview is definitely more conclusive in articulating his personal opinions than the hearsay present in a majority of the other sources. I encourage you to listen to it, and if you find a damning statement, then I also encourage you by all means to use it. What I mean by "hype" is that the article as it stands now might as well be ADL propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultaforte ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) p.s. As for the alleged incendiary nature of other things said in the Janzen interview, a word from Jerome: If an offence come out of the truth, far better it is that the offence come than the truth be concealed. Aultaforte ( talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Your responses surprise me. You must think I'm some backwards fool. If I were trying to promote an ideological interpretation, as you are accusing me, then it follows that I would want to remove everything that conflicts with that interpretation. I have not done that--paraphrasing the words of the Pope and pretending like its a direct quotation is just not reliable journalism. I don't think you are grasping what I mean by "truth," and I think if you did then you'd realize that it does not conflict with the wikipedia project. If that quote, which is directed at Catholic girls, were properly contextualized (i.e. if his words are made to reflect the audience he is speaking to), I would have no issue with it. The article that is up now is written by the Bishop's enemies--enemies refers not only to the ADL but secularism as a whole; it's like if the wikipedia entry on Reverend Wright (which I also have qualms with) were written entirely by Fox News. This is the very reason Scalia is opposed to cameras in the courtroom. Article's that label the bishop blankly as a "holocaust denier," perhaps the most ignominious label possible in our culture, are just not true. These articles are written with agendas and use extremely inflammatory language--the word "sacked" connotes a sense of disgrace with his seminary far beyond the actual motives. No one in the seminary said it, and it wasn't an inference but an attack. That's what I mean by truth. Why is it right for a wikipedia article to falsify direct quotations and to infer malicious intent where even the secondary sources, if read neutrally, you call it the NPV if I'm not mistaken, suggest none? Aultaforte ( talk) 21:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You aren't getting it. This is the last example. The following text would be patently untruthful: Booth killed Lincoln because he was a racist. Booth was a racist, but it doesn't mean that he killed Lincoln for that reason. A broader biography would not impose that reductivistic interpretation on the reader. If you listen to the interview, the context is provided. When the context is available, it should be used, and when it is not then malicious inferrence should be avoided even if a secondary source (which is original research) comes to that conclusion. Because a secondary source is generally biased, I do no think that means that a wikipedia article should be permitted to echo that bias. Bias should be omitted wherever possible. If that means that an article is only a paragraph long, so be it. 64.77.202.74 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC).
|
Hi Slp1. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Comrades I am writing to express my outrage that the link to the blog The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer was deleted from the Robert Latimer article. I notice that RobertLatimer.net is included as a link that I really don't think this is any less partisan than The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer (although they stand on opposite extremes of the issue). I have not included any information from the blog in this Wikipedia article. I just put the link at the bottom. This blog is POV, but has links to opposing views. RobertLatimer.net doesn't even have links to opposing views. The Bigoted Murder of Tracy Latimer has an 'about me' section. Robert Latimer does not. I am not convinced that this is anything other than a grotesque double-standard and an act of political censorship and demand that whoever keeps deleting this link desist from their actions.
Trotskyist Greetings, M.G.
Leon Trotsky 16:26, 5 January 2009
P.S. Robert Latimer was convicted of murder and his site is included as a link. Censoring something highly criticle of him I think is a grotesque double standard.
Leon Trotsky 16:30, 5 January 2009
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Latimer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Trotsky ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Salomon Isacovici, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Isacovici. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeterproject ( talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I left my message to you over there, i.e. PISA on the discussion page. Thanks!
69.156.51.43 (
talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't think Georg Hurtig will explain anything over there on the discussion page. You are I both were cheated on by him. His tables were basically fake. 69.156.51.43 ( talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Did you intend to fully protect the page until October? I added a tag to let people know what was going on, but I thought that you might have meant to semi? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It was semi protected till October previously (not by me). I had to up the protection level because confirmed editors were including the info too, but decided to leave the expiry the same for simplicity'ssake. I was planning to downgrade back to the regular semi status after about 24 hours, but I'm certainly open to the suggestions of others about the timing of this. -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Mediation Award | ||
For your excellent work at Talk:Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#Debate_about_December_2009_edits:_selection_and_presentation_of_country_mean_scores TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
How broad were you thinking? I'm thinking at least PAS, PA and FRM, as well as related pages where his POV-pushing has been a problem.
Also, it's not a policy but WP:CPUSH might be worth thinking about. It's a general problem that's getting worse in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I asked Durova about waiting/going ahead and this is her reply-- Cailil talk 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the old vandalism on my user page. I hadn't even noticed it, and apparently neither did the user who attempted to revert the vandalism before (but didn't go far back enough). I haven't been paying very close attention to Wikipedia for a while, so it's nice to see other people fixing my user page. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you please semi-protect Heat (1995 film) and The Godfather? A block-evading IP, 201.68.110.70 ( talk · contribs), keeps making changes to these film articles. Erik ( talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help on User:Slp1/draft4, and I have CC'ed you on an e-mail. --- kilbad ( talk) 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a quick note to tell you that I have undone your removal from the listing: at WP:CP, we like to keep track of every investigation and what actions have been taken rather than removing items once cleared. This serves also to verify if further investigation is required, for instance in the case we're dealing with a multiple violator - or in case the same user keeps reinserting the stuff you removed, as he appears to have done several times already :)
Best, MLauba ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Good catch that the article was a Pipes opinion column (actually, the same one). Missed that. Tx for fixing it.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Slp1/Archive 7 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 09:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I just edited the WP:SPA essay, and I want to make sure it reads neutral. Basically the Identifying SPAs section had almost nothing to do with identifying SPAs. I added a paragraph and a "common misuses of the SPA label" to this section to make things more explicit, and left the old section, but made it a subsection called "other considerations". I think nothing I added is controversial because no one seemed to disagree in the 2009 discussion on the talk page. But I want to make sure that everyone who has contributed to the article knows about the changes. Its not a huge revision, but it certainly isn't minor, so I would like you to take a look. I tried to incorporate the misuse concerns on the talk page while still leaving room for judgment calls and context when labeling SPAs. The reason for adding this new misuses section is to have something to point to when when an established diversified editor gets improperly labeled as an SPA. If you think these "misuses" are too strong, feel free to edit them, discuss them on the talk page, or respond to me. Thanks MATThematical ( talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your very relevant note of caution. But it seems WP:BLPSPS is the chapter of the law relevant here, i.e. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...").."
Gazeta.pl is Poland's top news site, and it seems we can quote Mr Palikot from that. Thanks again, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! SandyGeorgia sent me this way.
Could you please review User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch64#John Thomas Idlet and then Talk:John Thomas Idlet#Editors with conflicts of interest? Afterwords, I'd appreciate some advice (if you care to give it), and a watch on the John Thomas Idlet article. This is currently at most a brewing tempest in a teapot, but I'd like someone with more experience at this to watch over my shoulder. Thanks for any help! -- Paul ( talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Slp1,
The CSAAS reminds me very much of the parental alienation syndrome article - the same enthusiasm from the clinical crowd, the same skepticism from the empirical crowd, and the same (mis)use in courtrooms. Thought you might be interested in the topic, I think it's fascinating because of its relation to satanic ritual abuse, but I'm a bit weird that way I suppose. There's a TON of sources and it just needs time - which I don't have right now. Feel free to edit if you're interested, but if you're not then that's cool. Just thought it might tickle your intrigue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your chipping in here. Sooner this is put to bed, the better! :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your amazing and rapid assistance at the DSM copyright cluster. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
Whoot! You rock! :D Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Could I get your input regarding a thread I started at the medicine page? See: Wikipedia_talk:MED#Are_these_terms_synonymous.3F Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't panic, they're not by MH34! Just thought I'd ask what you thought [14]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not there. I looked and even read through all the AP releases of the same story, none of them list the languages.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Re your recent edit, are you aware of the discussion about this fact, and that the subject of the article would rather that it did not exist at all. Your comments are invited on the talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a lot of the material from the above article, including your source added. Coverage of the suicide should be significant, and in multiple reliable sources, to warrant a mention in the school's article. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Slp1, when I saw your revert on the article Mar Aprem Mooken, I was about to send you an angry message because I was horrified with what you where doing there, but I though it twice and assumed good faith, maybe the guidelines here where just not the ones I was used to on the french project? As the discussions I had previously with others admins didn't give me a clear idea of the guidelines here, I decided to raise the issue on the admin board, not because I wanted the others admins to throw stones at you, but just because I was so confused and wanted to understand what the hell was going on on en:wiki. I have to say that the answers I received surprised me a lot, but I have to accept them, and I have no angry message to send you after understanding that, following the guidelines of en:wiki, your action was apropriate. Though it is true that I should have warned you of this message on the admins board, and I offer my deepest apology for that. Regards -- Kimdime ( talk) 07:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate your comments on the proposal here. Regards, Colin° Talk 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm violating Wiki code by contacting you here and in this way, but I'm not an experienced user & I've had a hard time figuring out how to get in touch. I'm writing because I've helped edit the reprints of a few Olivia Manning books at NYRB Classics in the US. I was thrilled to see that you've nominated her article to be a featured article. If there's anything we can do to help you, please let us know. Again, it may be against the rules for me to help, as I'm not unbiased, but I may be able to provide you with a few articles that would help your citations. Mottstreetsara ( talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. If you want to get in touch, or let me know if I can be of help, please leave a message on my talk page (it looks so much nicer know that there's a plate of cookies on it!) Mottstreetsara ( talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be (not just the two of us) getting mired in an overly long wiki-drama-ish discussion that IMHO is threatening to distract from the main issue. And which is certainly way too long for others to follow. I've therefore sent you an off-wiki note.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Question – if a person is convicted of something, don't we report it as fact?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
As to whether either of those Pakistani sources are RSs – in my view, not for facts. But yes for reflecting what Pakistani Press said (which is how it was being used—for these purposes, it doesn't matter if they themselves are not reliable for fact-checking, or have typos, etc.). I think the sources I had supported the text I had – the Pakistani press reporting a blanket statement by the sister that the girl was not hers ... rather than the way you changed it. Apart from this (minor) issue, I'm ok w/all your changes.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
They why, out of all of the gin joints in Paris, do you continue to end up at ones where I am editing? Are you following me?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This follows up on the above two exchanges. Since we are discussing a new issue, I've given it a new header.
After you were found to have a non-consensus view on matters such as use of primary sources, and after I disagreed with you on issues of U.S. intellectual property law, where you took an unusual position at odds with 17 U.S.C. Section 105, your reaction has been to single me out and follow me around wikipedia. And then join discussions I am engaged in and pages I am editing, and repeatedly confront and inhibit my editing. Your edits and remarks have been tendentiousness and disruptive, and – as in your above comment and here – have included uncivil personal attacks. Frankly, Slp, this irritates and annoys me, and markedly disrupts my enjoyment editing. It also disrupts the project.
I request – politely and civilly, but firmly – that you stop. Please. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Just saw that Olivia Manning made FA, congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Reading your user page, I begin to understand how you thought of the medical and pyschological legacy of Fox's story, lol! You raised an interesting point on his status as a "disabled hero". In retrospect, it seems obvious that his achievements as a disabled person should be held equal to his accomplishments as a cancer survivor. Yet even of all the sources you've given me, only two sources make mention of his being disabled, and then within the context of his legacy to cancer research. It is interesting that his losing a leg is viewed so casually and treated almost as an afterthought. It seems that since Fox simply overcame losing his leg, the media and world at large did too. I'm interested in reading the other journals you've turned up to see if any touch on this, as I am finding it rather challenging put into words the concept of his being a hero to the disabled as well. Thanks again for the sources! Reso lute 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in here. -- causa sui ( talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Slp1 - re your edit here: I am not certain that there was consensus to make this change, at least not with the wording you have included. Would you please revert? Given the temperature of the various debates, it strikes me that any requests for edits should be made using the ?{{editprotected}} template so that an independent assessment of the consensus can be made. Risker ( talk) 03:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Slp1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey!!! What a nice surprise to cheer me up as I try to do my taxes. Thank you very much indeed!! -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I dropped you an email re the additional sources for this article but haven't heard back from you. Is it possible to get copies of the sources? Thanks! -- Insider201283 ( talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The Silver Maple Leaf Award
Awarded for your research and assistance in bringing Terry Fox to featured status. Reso lute 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for taking my birthday off. :-) Asbruckman ( talk) 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I forgot to congratulate you on the FA for Olivia. Well deserved! PiCo ( talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)