User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2017

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks for this,, and for your input there. SarahSV (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

MBE refs
I made two quick edits showing how {r} cuts out all the tiresome typing of its competitors. However, there are a lot of idiosyncratic refs ("X cited in Y" etc.) which would probably need to be moved into "notes", so I didn't go any further.

Now, if you don't want to give up the alphabetized bibliography, or even want to organize it into Recommended groups and so on, take a look at Phineas_Gage. It uses a system invented by me and. It's easy, and very flexible. Tell me if you're interested.  E Eng  03:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , thanks for doing that. It does save a lot of typing. I suppose the problem is that it brings the full citations back into one section, rather than having a section with short refs. People find the latter easier to read—easier to see which refs have been used—which is why I've separated them. But I go back and forth on that issue. Phineas Gage: very interesting! I'll have to study it more. I'm surprised but glad you were allowed to do it. You're a living example of CITEVAR! SarahSV (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're at all interested I'd be happy to give MBE the Phineas treatment in my sandbox. I'd welcome the opportunity to show off this technique's potential. Mirokado and I put a lot of thought into it.  E Eng  03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the offer, but I'm not sure I'd want to use that. I'd find it difficult to negotiate. I have no problem with you doing it in a sandbox, of course, but I'm unlikely to become a convert. What attracts me to sfn is the simplicity of it. And indeed that's what attracts me to manual refs. SarahSV (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderestimate how simple it is. I'll get back to you.  E  Eng  05:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I tinkered a bit, but turns out it's not a good article for it. Where the Phineas System really shines is where you want to organize the sources in some special way as seen in Phineas Gage e.g. where there's an overlap between sources and Further Reading. If you run into an article like that, give me a shout. I'd still like to apply it somewhere.  E Eng  20:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2
Just a note to thank you for sticking to your guns at this FAC. I'm not normally one to cry/scream about sexism but I find it curious that the two reviewers who are being complained about are female, and it's specifically complained about the tone of the reviewer's remarks. I found nothing in your remarks in any way different than the other reviewers; but found it curious that exception was taken to YOUR tone. That review is an excellent example of what I mentioned on WT:FAC, where reviews go off the rails. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , thanks for this. Yes, I was starting to wonder the same thing. SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. Your comments there were excellent.  I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work.  Next time it goes up for a FAC please email me and I will post a review again.  Thank you!  (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * many thanks for this and for your review. I'll ping you if it's renominated. SarahSV (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Some odd edits to White House Farm murders...could you take a look please
This article has undergone a recent spate of odd edits (see article editing history) by an IP editor and Ruby-Mandarin. I think the 2 Bamber websites don't belong in the infobox but am not sure what policy to cite... I mean, of interest but just doesn't seem right. The IP-editor had edited and removed references from the Jeremy Bamber article as well. Ruby-Mandarin (judging from their past edits to the murder article and to Bamber's article) seem to have a strong interest in Bamber's innocence...the IP seems to be against Bamber and they've been removing sourced content without completely-truthful edit summaries (deleting 1600 bits and calling it a "small tidy-up", etc). Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , thanks, I'll take a look. SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For a minute I thought this said White House murders, and the sad part is I wasn't even surprised.  E Eng  14:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I laughed out loud at your post. You're right: the shock value of that phrase is much reduced. SarahSV (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

BMJ
Atsme 📞📧 02:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't open it, SV. Coming from Atsme, for all you know a jack-in-the-box will pop out, or maybe one of those lapel flowers that squirts at you.  E Eng  02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks, ! SarahSV (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Atsme 📞📧 12:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhm, did you click on the link in my last reply, which was actually in response to . It's possible it was so subtle it went unnoticed, unlike some of my edits which, years ago, inadvertently caused a bit of tornadic activity.  It's hard to gage (oh, Lorty, there's that word again) reception to something no one sees. Atsme 📞📧 18:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, yes, indeed, I saw it. Thanks again for your help with the BMJ. SarahSV (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"Ghostwriting" in the news
So naturally, I thought of you. You might find this interesting, not sure if you've seen it yet. Take care,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding a link to the source material.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And a bit more on the case, from Science mag. It looks like they're starting to go after those who've participated in ghostwriting.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. SarahSV (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

12 years of adminship, today.
Wishing SlimVirgin a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, (I think). SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Poeticbent  talk 18:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonderkommando photograph 283.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sonderkommando photograph 283.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 01:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)