User talk:Slp1/Archive 12

Topic bans including one's own talk page

This is a minor comment regarding the decision about Good Day. I have only read enough to develop an opinion about this one practice and it only incidentally relates to Good Day. I understand that Good Day was banned from discussing diacritics anywhere on English Wikipedia. (I also recognize that you, Slp1, did not initiate such a comprehensive ban.) I am opposed to an editor being banned from commenting on his own talk page. From my view, one's talk page is one's bully pulpit. If one is blocked from all of Wikipedia, that should be all inclusive. But, what is the harm in allowing an editor to disagree with the whole world on a topic if he, or she, chooses to do so? I am just venting here. Once the topic ban has been announced as the deciding person you have little choice. But, there should be a policy about freedom to speak one's mind on one's own talk page. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response to this. I was on holiday in non-Internet land for the most part. I think you are in part correct that an editor can, in certain situations, be given extra leeway on his/her own talkpage, but I do not believe that it is at all helpful in the case of editors who are topic banned. The point is to get them to leave the topic behind for a period, not only for the sake of the encyclopedia and other involved editors, but for their own sake too. If an editor can make comments and suggestions on their talkpage then that isn't really leaving the topic behind, is it? BTW, GoodDay asked the same question here and from the answers it seems that others agree with me. --Slp1 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mensrights

I'm hoping a rename will allow the article to finally be a decent article, and in anticipation of the RfC hopefully going through I've ordered a lot of relevant books (either through amazon for cheap ones or just ILLs.) I've picked up most of the books currently cited in the article (partly just because I want to verify the citations currently in there,) and some others besides, but was wondering - do you have any suggestions on books not currently cited that would be worth including? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the delay in responding. It sounds great that you are getting books etc; should be useful for the future. I mostly found sources using googlebooks and googlescholar searches for "men's rights", and then checking their reference lists. I think most of the main ones I found are already listed, but likely there are others. One has to be a bit careful though because of the self-published and Wikipedia off prints listed there. But I am sure you know that!! I think it is probably best to wait till the RFC finishes, but maybe I will get up the energy to try to help again when the time comes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

FYI: I left a reply for you, and others who may wish to contribute, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Wrongly convicted. Cheers! Location (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note mention

Here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist Movement

Can you please unblock The Zeitgeist Movement article? I want to make some edits and wikization, which I probably won't have time for later.. Thanks, :) --MeUser42 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles AE

Hi there. I was impressed (from my position as ~~March the guilty bastard in, Sergeant-Major~~ defendant) with your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hi. Having previously been involved in a discussion about Ancestry.com on RSN, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal

Would you mind looking at my appeal? I would really like another opinion and I saw that you frequent AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away. --Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, oh well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights procedural protest

I am wondering if it would be best if you would you consider taking this to ANI. Noetica seemingly won't, I am concerned it might be viewed as inappropriate for me to do so, but if you (who requested I close the rfc) were to do so I think that might be best. Unless you think this is likely to resolve the reasonable future, and that taking it to ANI would result in MOAR DRAMAH on a page which already has its fair share. It seems a pity that after a month long Rfc and clear consensus that this be held up this way. I'm probably going to be afk for a few days after this, I'll try to log in but no guarantees. So if my further input is needed, this either needs to be resolved soon, or patience may be necessary if there are any questions for me regarding my decision. Of course if you feel my presence will not be required, or that it will resolve on the talk page of the article, then this is a moot point. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in KC and Slp1 but I'm looking at that page and seeing a lot of nonsense. Its time for RFAR. The issues with off site pressure groups, single purpose accounts and attempts to grief process are such that simple decisions with consensus are being griefed. I dn't think ANi can help and we've tried RFCs, community probations etc - it may be time to hand this mess to the ArbCom--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that is a pity, but if you have the time and fortitude to write the request, I will do my best to be available for evidence and questions, which I presume will include me as one of the original admins on the probation. Please note that reddit/mens rights may well come back in force, and it is likely to get messy at the very least. There have been real life threats due to this; please be certain you are ready to take this on before doing so. I don't wish to cause undue concern; but I do wish to advise you consider this carefully and be aware of the potential consequences. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that this happened. I really didn't expect it. Personally I am not sure that arbcom is really needed at this exact point; I think one option is just to give it some time. I don't see any consensus that there was anything improper with the RFC or your actions, and Kevin has made a suggestion that the move be delayed for 24 hours, to see if those complaining really wish to take it further. I also think that you could easily post to WP:AN or WP:ANI and ask for a second opinion. I can do it if you would like, but I really can't promise when I would be able to.

One thing that I find ironic about is that the last move discussion [1] had a clear majority of editors who favoured the move (17-10, I make it), including a few new editors attracted by the discussion at reddit etc who opposed, and I'd say the move reasonings had the stronger policy-based arguments to back them up too (but I would say that!). As I said at the time, I found that close very strange, but all editors just accepted it and moved on. Slp1 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you both want to avoid RFAR - I've been dealing with some quite serious of-site messiness since 2007 about this and I've already collected a number of RL threats due to working in that area sine 2007. The problem here doesn't go back to the Reddit group's focus on Kevin (in 2011) - it goes back to 2006 when the first traunch of offsite nonsense began with that page being owned. And just in case I was unclear I think your actions KC were spot on - the nonsense is the complaints against process. I've been watching these offsite groups and the mantra there is for them to come here and "learn the rules to use them to promote their organizations" that is co-ordinated griefing/trolling/pov-pushing. And this is the second time that the normal and appropriate actions of this encyclopaedia are being interfered with. If we can't do our job or if we're afraid to do it then its time for ArbCom. But that said if neither of you think it's time for RFAR I wont push it, but if this keeps happening we'll have to go there--Cailil ^talk 11:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970 AE decision

Hi Slp1, I'm contacting yourself, Seraphimblade and T.Canens as you've commented on the decision at AE on the FergusM1970 case. I got a msg[2] from User:One Night In Hackney (an editor named as a party in the original claims he has not recieved appropriate warning & therefore cannot be sanctioned under WP:TROUBLES. The decision could do with another look anyway--Cailil ^talk 11:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Action at WP:ANI

Hi Slp1. Please note this action at WP:ANI, in which you have been named.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, do you need help moving the article? It has been suggested that the reason y'all haven't moved it is because you're struggling with how. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this post here until after I had seen the article titles talk post by Mike Cline. Because I didn't want to drag the conversation there further off-topic, I started a section on Mike's talk page about this, here. The short answer is: I don't think any sysop help is needed with the move, and carrying out the move requires some content changes to be made that are best left to Slp, myself, or any of the other editors involved in content discussions on men's rights. Given how controversial the article is, I think it would be bad for someone who just closed an RfC to try to make the content decisions necessary to carry out the move in a sensible way. Once the content quirks are handled, whoever handles them can either carry out the merge themselves since it doesn't require a histmerge, or ask you (KC) for assistance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin, that was my thinking. I'm glad to see others are thinking the same way. Let me know if you do need an uninvolved admin again; until you do I will presume you do not (unless I see active policy flouting by editors on the page, of course... I will try to watch but as we all know I don't keep a very close eye on it.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward! I forgot that you need a sysop bit to suppress a damn redirect on ENWP. Could one of you guys take care of the rest of the merge? I think the pathway I laid out on mike's page is good for it, I just forgot I couldn't suppress a redirect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. There was no' history at the target, it has been moved back and forth once it seems but no history was left behind. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had stashed the old history in a sub-talkpage before I realized I didn't have the userright needed to complete the move. I see nothing valuable (at all) in the history, but since it did have a history I'll link it from the talkpage of MRM later just in case someone wants to look at it for some reason. Thanks for completing the move. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I missed that, thanks. And no problem, glad I was able to help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry to have been so silent on this. I've been away travelling for work and then yesterday to a funeral in a different city. I see the whole thing is now at Arb Com. I've commented there. I am really, really sorry, KC, that all this has happened, but maybe something good can come out of it. --Slp1 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am so sorry to hear that you have suffered a loss. My deepest sympathies. Please do not concern yourself overmuch about recent events here on enWiki; no one could have forseen this and certainly you have done all you could to ensure there was no conflict. That conflict arose anyway is nothing you could have prevented. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern and kind words. Though it was a very, very sad occasion, I attended the funeral to support good friends at the funeral of their adult son, whom I did not know, so am not personally in need of condolences etc. I see you have a cold, though! Get better soon! I swear by decongestant nasal sprays myself. It makes sleeping through the night actually possible. Slp1 (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for your friends' loss, and I know that even if you personally are not grieving for yourself, you are for your friends. I'm glad you were able to be there; I know from personal experience that a loss shared is a pain lessened.

Regarding the nasal sprays: The only one I ever tried gave me a bad reaction, so I've been sticking to hot shower before bed, and over the counter oral medication. Do you have a specific one you recommend? I'm willing to give it another try. This thing just won't shake. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, having been there myself, I know how much it means when others find the time to come to funerals and memorial services; I was able to help out in some practical ways, and am very glad I went.

The nasal spray I have used is Otrivin. I don't know if you can get it in the States, but I am sure there is something similar. I think the main thing is not to overuse it, because if you do it you can get rebound effects and more congestion that you had before. So I just use it at night. I hope it helps. There is nothing worse than a summer cold, I think. Slp1 (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it out and see what's available here. Much appreciated, especially the pointer about overuse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the stateside version is Sudafed nasal spray, for anyone who is watching and curious. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hi Slp 1 - your input here would be helpful to the Arbs in this appeal--Cailil ^talk 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Godfrey Saxe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saratoga and Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Speedy deletion nomination of Gaël Etock

In July, I've explained that Gael Etock, as well as the other players who had a page created, was going to play in a full pro league. Instead of waiting, someone decided to nominate his page to speedy deletion, as well as the other players, throwing away all my work. Although I was right, and as I've got plenty more things to do than spending my day in Wikipedia, I decided to let it go. As of today, he has already played in a fully pro league this season, so perhaps you should be the one to check out the list of fully professional leagues WP:FPL. If you had spent some time researching, you'd find out that Sporting Clube de Portugal B plays in Segunda Liga which is a.. full pro league. Not only as he played, but he has also scored, as I wrote in his page. So I'm asking you, and your speedy deletion friends, to please stop deleting someone else's job. Good luck RRR22 (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. I did actually check the FPL page, but somewhat foolishly looked for the name of the club rather the league. It was a very good idea to actually include the name of the league in the article as you did in the latest recreation; also a good idea was the edit summary in creating the article to make clear that the pro league status had changed. You could have also written a note of the talkpage. All these would have helped make clearer what was going on to me or any other administrator. --Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok my friend. Keep up the good work. RRR22 (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Audrey Mildmay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Christie and Susanna

Branwell Brontë (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Robinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Hi Slp1, It's good to know you are around, there have been a whole bunch of things where I would have asked for your opinion If I'd know you were around (the one that springs to mind is Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Could_do_with_a_bit_of_careful_handling_this_one... but there's lots of stuff on the disability board that it would have been great to get your take on. Hope to speak to you again soon.Fayedizard (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audrey Mildmay, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jack-of-all-trades and Chaperone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your excellent work on the Featured Quality article, Learned Hand. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Muhd Ariff Zulkifly

First of all let me thank you deleting this page for me. I just wanted to let you know that when you did you missed the talk page. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've deleted it now. I think there is some sort of bug, actually, because I definitely clicked to delete it. I had to do the same double delete with the talk page of the other article I deleted.Slp1 (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female Privilege

Hey, I know we're talking a lot of the MRM talk page but i figured I'd drop this here. The Female privilege page currently redirects to the section of the same name in the MRM article. I feel that this is woefully inadequate as: 1) the section on the MRM article is brief 2) we discussed removing that section 3) there are other perspectives on "female privilege" besides the MRM perspective and those perspectives would not be appropriate for the MRM page. As such, I nominated the redirect for deletion here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_2#Female_Privilege. Feel free to weigh in Perpetualization (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the delay in replying. I am afraid that generally I'm not somebody who worries too much about redirects etc, so I may not the best person to ask. However, I don't really agree with your arguments here or at the discussion. Sorry. Per your points (1) and (2) above it seems to me that the MRM article as a whole is a good redirect for the article, whether on not there is a specific subsection about it. It is a frequent topic for MR activists, isn't it? Indeed so many of the topics (e.g. child custody, pensions, etc) boil down to claims of female privilege, and are explicitly claimed as such.e.g. [3] As far as point (3) is concerned, editors at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female privilege]] did not find enough reliable sources about female privilege (apart from the claims of the MRM, it seems), and noted that the article was incurably synthetic. If you have some reliable sources that back up your statement that "there are other perspectives on "female privilege" besides the MRM perspectives" then let's see them. If they are good enough then I believe WP:DRV is the place to try to overturn the deletion discussion. If you want to go that route, then you might want to try working up an article in your userspace first. Good luck --Slp1 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Decided to finally get a legitimate Wikipedia account, hope you are having fun on your travels.

-Stephanie Fry Thesassypenguin (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking

Sorry! Didn't mean to overwrite your edit. Got an edit conflict and didn't see your edit regarding the same sentence. Please forgive! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think you overwrote anything! It all looks good to me. Anyway there is nothing to forgive when such mix-ups happen as they are a natural part of wiki-life! --Slp1 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]