Misplaced Pages

Hi, I know what you mean about the "plants might have feelings too" argument suddenly appearing. :)

It would be a very useful page to write, though it would be a lot of work and would need good sources (preferably though not necessarily academic) from all sides of the debate. You could call it Meat eating in human beings or Human beings and meat consumption, or Human beings and the consumption of non-human animals (if you're interested in more than just meat). You could look at Paleolithic diet to see if there are sources there that would get you started. This article looks interesting, as does this one, and this book: Lindeberg, Staffan. Food and Western Disease: Health and Nutrition from an Evolutionary Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

You can search for peer-reviewed material at jstor, and if you don't have access via a public or university library, you can request the paper at the resource exchange.

If you're unsure how to proceed, you could start the article on a user subpage (such as User:Mrt3366/meat), which would give you peace to work on it until it's ready for mainspace. Hope this helps, and good luck if you decide to go ahead with it. SlimVirgin 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well then, SlimVirgin. I will gather more sources about the topic because it will need some strong evidence and argument. I would like to focus also on the germane anatomical commonality and differences between Humans, herbivores and omnivores (if possible carnivores too). It'll roughly be a week's work. I sincerely thank you for your help. :D --DrYouMe 16:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:German tank in Budapest, October 1944.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:German tank in Budapest, October 1944.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I need your help!

God I'm disgusted! I have given a notice to the WP:AN/I which goes like ↓↓↓↓.

I need someone who could review my reverted contributions.

Mihaiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) —this user has been stalking me and reverting all my comparatively larger edits without providing enough reason. One example, just because one of my sentences contained one slightest (but I'm not too sure if it was incorrect at all) scientific inaccuracy he rashly reverted the whole edit when he could have enriched the article by simply correcting the inaccuracy with good sources.

I sincerely think he is starting multiple edit wars at once. He thinks just because I don't have many administrator friends he could revert my changes. His primary claim is that none of my sources are reliable but his/her sources are. Just look at his contributions. His contributions are mostly deletions of the edits he doesn't like. Also his activity is mysteriously sporadic. He might as well be a sock (he also claims that whoever supports my position is my sockpuppet). I'm really discouraged by this sort of behaviour. Please someone help me. :) --DrYouMe 02:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard Wiseman

I've just done an edit on that page 'for the sake of balance'. Brian Josephson (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Will take a look. SlimVirgin 17:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi,

I've uploaded the two articles you requested at the resource exchange concerning Joel Brand. You can find links to the articles on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I left you a note on the resource exchange page. Thanks again for the articles (they are extremely helpful), and for the very speedy response. SlimVirgin 17:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Many thanks, Armbrust! :) SlimVirgin 17:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hans Globke, the Eichmann trial, and Secondary antisemitism

Hey S. I could use a second opinion for this article. In it, I included Hans Globke as an example because his position as Chief of the Chancellery was specifically mentioned in at least one source related to Secondary antisemitism.

Now, I happened to be reading about the Adolf Eichmann trial, and stumbled upon a discussion of West German government attempts to influence the trial which is based on this Spiegel.de article (English).

My conflict/question now is that I believe the historical details surrounding West Germany's attempts to influence the Israeli trial against Eichmann are quite important in the context of Secondary antisemitism as well, because it means that by making a deal with Adenauer's West German government and keeping the trial limited to Eichmann, Israel may have inadvertently aided the spreading of Secondary antisemitism because a more widespread, already looming public discussion in West Germany, about at least Globke but also about the many other Nazi officials in FRG government functions, might have been triggered had Israel not limited prosecution to Eichmann alone -- which was precisely Adenauer's goal in approaching the Israelis regarding the trial.

I am of course partially extrapolating/synthesizing, but you do see the dilemma, right? However worded, the bare info itself implies the conclusion that Israel inadvertently helped spreading Secondary antisemitism. Or doesn't it? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, that's why I decided against adding anything to the article for now.

Sorry for being kinda long-winded, looking forward to any input you want to provide. --87.78.50.211 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, and it's interesting. If you feel that issue needs to be discussed more in the article, and there's a good source on it, then by all means expand it. I would love to see us write a good article on the Eichmann trial, but it would be a lot of work. SlimVirgin 19:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to contribute to a section on the trial's significance with regard to antisemitism, provided reliable sources can be found. Imho it looks a lot like the trial is at the center of almost some kind of strange loop. On the one hand, widening the trial to other Nazi criminals could have had a major impact against Secondary antisemitism (which may have fallen a bit out of fashion lately, but certainly not gone). On the other hand, keeping things silent like they did may actually have tangibly contributed towards S.a. Alas, none of that is backed by sources afaik.

So, for now though, I'm still not entirely sure how to expand the S.a. article so as to incorporate all relevant and attributable information but to make it somehow conclusive, for lack of a better word. Something that doesn't immediately send the reader's imagination flying, like this particular subject matter and newly revealed details like those are prone to do. Hm. I'll think on it some more and contact you if I have an idea. In case you happen to have the time and inspiration, I'll be checking the article and its talk page. Thanks so far. --87.78.50.211 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

Please explain your censorship of my comment at this page. You probably don't realise it but "rmvd comment per BLP and OTRS request" is not likely to mean a lot to people not immmersed in Misplaced Pages, and so it doesn't really to me. I gather the idea is to try and stop people revealing his DoB or linking to where it can be found, presumably 'per' the rubbish that is WP:DOB and his own request (OTRS?), but seeing as I wasn't doing that, or even anything like that, I don't see what the issue is. I can only presume you didn't like it being revealed where he might see that if he's been told this removal protects him from identity theft, then he's been lied to by amateurs playing at encyclopedia writing, but who know nothing about identity theft, and he's still pretty much exposed based on what's still in the article. If you're the one doing the lying, then covering it up by censoring me isn't going to paint you in a very good light should he ever find out the real position from an actual professional in the field. Crummity Nordrid (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject has complained to the Wikimedia Foundation via its volunteer team (which is what we call OTRS) about being the object of this kind of discussion. We have therefore blanked his talk page, and editors are requested not to continue discussing those issues. Wikipedians as a rule don't want to cause the subjects of biographies distress, so when something like that is requested, we almost always agree. SlimVirgin 19:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. He has complained about people repeeatedly revealing his DoB or linking to it, that's pretty obvious. I am certain however that he's never seen a post of the kind I wrote though, not one that properly informs him about what removing his DoB does and does not do as regards his actual exposure to identity theft, given what has been left in the article on full public display. The idea that he would be distressed to read that sort of advice, or would ever impeach you to remove it on sight, is just pure nonsense. It's just a lie basically, and you know it. If I were him, what would distress me most is to see you using his own complaints to hide such things from him. It's disgusting. It's not hard to see why he seems to hate all of you so much. Crummity Nordrid (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

File:PETA Lettuce Ladies - keep local.jpg

Hi there. File:PETA Lettuce Ladies - keep local.jpg, a file you uploaded and requested for a local copy to be kept, was nominated for deletion here. Would you be okay with the file deleted, or would you still like to keep the file local? — ξ 01:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, thanks for checking with me. I would like to keep a local copy of File:PETA Lettuce Ladies.JPG, and we should also keep the upload history of File:PETA Lettuce Ladies - keep local.jpg.

There are a few editors who won't respect the "keep local" tag, and regularly request deletion, or as in this case move images to another title, then request deletion on the grounds that the image (under their new title) is unused. It would therefore be good if you would undelete the local copy of File:PETA Lettuce Ladies.JPG, and merge the history with that of File:PETA Lettuce Ladies - keep local.jpg.

Another recent example is File:Spanish City, Whitley Bay, September 2010.jpg, speedy deleted for no reason, despite having a keep local tag on it. SlimVirgin 20:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexis Reich for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.-RunningOnBrains 02:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User script listing cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion 04:58, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for seeing what I was trying to do re Jim Hawkings using his radio show and Twitter account to encourage vandalism of Misplaced Pages. It's a pity that MF is so belligerent whenever any admin has made an error, even if that error was made in good faith. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. You acknowledged the mistake, and we all make them. Misplaced Pages can be a steep learning curve at times. SlimVirgin 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Brendan Brazier

The biography on Brendan Brazier could use some tender loving care if you have any free time. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. SlimVirgin 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and find some more sources and add them as time permits. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Christ Myth theory problems

Could you take a look at the Christ myth theory article especially the talk page? One editor's comments in particular are getting really annoying as they IMHO are more along the lines of Defamation rather than actually addressing the points raised.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Bruce, I don't think I'd want to get involved in that article again. SlimVirgin 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in at Andrea James. BitterGrey (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. SlimVirgin 21:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

in the way

Hi! Just want to say sorry if i'm getting in the way of your message at the Afd review. I keep jumping in with off-task statements that seem important to me but might have no relevance precedurally. Some day I'll learn to vote at AfDs without commenting much! Thanks. (No need to reply) McOoee (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not at all, I've found your comments helpful. SlimVirgin 05:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

What a kind thought. And just the right moment. I looked at Facebook and found that Jim had unfriended me. I'm one of those Wikipedian scoundrels now and part of the conspiracy against him, I guess. What a saga! --Pete (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a sad situation when you meant well by creating the article, but it's not your fault. You've done your best by him, and I hope he'll see that. I can understand how he feels about some of the other editing, and just the fact of having to watch it all the time now. SlimVirgin 03:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC)

I have now created Misplaced Pages:Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Jacksonstar.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacksonstar.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello SlimVirgin. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Misplaced Pages 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

If you have contact with the family of the recently deceased, I think it would be a good idea to perhaps see if there is any particular article they might think appropriate to be improved, and possibly made a GA or better (FA hopefully) in his honor. As it stands, I am going through a rather formidable backlog of self-appointed tasks, but, depending on what article if any is chosen, I could at least help do some copy editing and review. And I think there may well be other editors at least potentially willing to help in such an effort as well. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Pro-Test'

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Pro-Test', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2006-02-02_oxford.htm

• You added this in February 2006.
• I tried to load this link on 25 March, 27 March, 29 March and today, but it never worked.
• I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ezra again

Hi SlimVirgin, I've been reading through Ezra and really think it's in fairly good shape, thanks to your rewrite. I think it would benefit from a peer review and another set of eyes, so I'm planning to submit it there soon with the intent of bringing it to FAC in the near future. I very much want you to be a co-nom because you put in a mighty effort there. When and if it gets that far, I'm willing to shepherd through FAC, but am giving you a head's up. Also, at the moment, just so you know, I'm tidying the refs so that they're all consistent. Happy Easter. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Passover to all, the article looks good to me btw...Modernist (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with the article, TK, and don't feel you need to add me as a co-nom. You did most of the work, and are continuing to do it; I just did a copy edit. Feel free to make the refs consistent as you see fit, and any other changes, including moving material if you think it's too long. I don't have any of the library books here now, but I do have the one about his time in hospital (The Roots of Treason: Ezra Pound and the Secret of St. Elizabeths) if you need me to check anything. Best of luck!

Thanks for the good wishes, Modernist, and my best wishes back to you. Always nice to see you and Truthkeeper on my page. SlimVirgin 07:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, TK, if I make any edits to that article, feel free to revert them if you don't like them for whatever reason. For example, I just moved a ref out of the middle of a sentence, and tweaked the citation format, but if anything like that isn't consistent with the overall look you're trying to achieve, just revert -- no explanation needed. If I see a revert from you, it will help me to know what tone and style you're aiming at. So please revert freely and with abandon. :) SlimVirgin 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the article looks stunning, and if that was a copyedit, it was one of the best on Misplaced Pages. I've moved the page to my sandbox to work on refs, will probably follow MLA style but keep the bundling and to be honest am on the fence about the g-book links because they are convenient, but am still playing around with it a bit. I need to order Tytell from the library, otherwise I think I either have access or can get access to the rest of the sources. I'm not planning a big rush for this - I'll definitely take my time. It will take a little while to get back up to speed, but reading through helps a lot. Anyway, I'll keep you informed. Don't worry about reversions - I really do think you've done good work here. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words about it, but remember that you're its main writer, so kudos to you too! I've just had a quick look through it, and it's looking not half bad.

If you want to remove the Google Book links, go ahead; ditto anything else with citation style. The only thing I would caution against are citation templates, because they will slow down load time on an article with this many refs, and it makes preview and diffs a misery.

I don't still have the books, as I said, so my worry there would be checking that text matches sources, but not too closely. I left it without doing those final checks (of my own work), so I'd be nervous of giving what I wrote the go-ahead in that regard until I'd checked it again.

It's long, at over 10,000 words, but having just read through it, it's not clear what could be cut down without losing something that mattered (or losing flow). He is a very important and complex figure, so perhaps 10,000 isn't too long after all? Again, I'll leave that up to you. And seriously, if I do something to it you don't like, please do just revert.

On that note, I noticed there were sometimes en dashes and sometimes em, so I changed to the former (with spaces), but if you prefer em (without spaces), I can change it back in seconds, so let me know. SlimVirgin 15:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely no templates. We're in complete agreement there. It is not looking half bad at all. I don't think much can be trimmed so I'm hoping that a peer review and a FAC review will give feedback in that respect. I have lots of drafts and notes in my sandbox and think that everything you wrote exists in sources I have, so am not too worried about being able to check sources - it may only be a question of switching things around a bit. The dashes are minor - not too worried about that at the moment. I need to sync up the sandbox version and mainspace version, but that's easily done. I like what you've done with the images. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way you want to go with the citations, so for now I've just been making them consistent according to what's there already. I usually write:

Smith, John. Name of Book. Publisher, 2012, p. 1.

or short ref:

Smith 2012, p. 1.

I see in the References section, we have some years in brackets, some at the end of the cite, so if you want to let me know your preference, I'll follow that. SlimVirgin 17:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just looked at your edits again, and see you recently wrote "Haller (2005), 195". So should I follow that? And do you want all the book refs to be short refs, and what about papers and newpaper articles? (that I'm asking these questions doesn't mean you have to rush to answer or even decide, by the way). SlimVirgin 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

MLA has simplified a lot and done away with the "p." or "pp." for page numbers, so I'm thinking "Haller (2005), 195". I usually leave the online sources in-line. I just received the newest edition of MLA in the mail a month or so ago and am still getting used to the simplifications. Histoires ou contes du temps passé is a page I wrote according to the most recent MLA style; so I'm going for something like that. I do tend to put the years in parens because I like to scan quickly for years and it's easier if the year is right after the name. I also think they've done away with periods (full-stops) at the end; truly I was surprised how much more simple it's become. Feel free to edit in the sandbox if you'd like - or I can copy it all back a bit later, after work. We just need them to be somewhat consistent, and I need to check editions too. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. So I'll follow the style in Histoires ou contes du temps passé -- that article looks great, by the way. SlimVirgin 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that one isn't finished yet. Bal des Ardents is basically done now and has online sources that I've put inline - so that will give a better idea. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. When you recently edited Ezra Pound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waka (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) 11:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What must be said

I think you're going way overboard with your excessive re-edit of the article - basically destroying previous work. Thetilo (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CAKE

Commander v99 (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Many thanks, Commander, just what I needed. :) SlimVirgin 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC for Pending changes

There are about 300 opinions at WP:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012, if you wish to review, or feel free to skip the latest discussion. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Perrott-Warrick Fund

Hi! I've been pressing Bernard Carr, secretary of the P-W fund, to set up a w'pedia page for it, and see you've already done that! I've added a link to Rupert Sheldrake's talk last year (and maybe I should add that to his own page also if no-one has done it yet). --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Misplaced Pages email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi SlimVirgin,

I've uploaded the two Guardian articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabriel, both for doing it, and for the speed. It's very much appreciated. SlimVirgin 18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense

Hello, SlimVirgin. Back in October of 2008, you indefinitely semi-protected The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense, in response to vandalism and editing by an editor with COI. I would like to ask whether the article could be unprotected, since there has been no vandalism of any kind there for more than three years now. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that's done. SlimVirgin 15:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

TED talk

Hi. This talk by Frans de Waal has some classic footage of primates and elephants being very human. It's about 15 minutes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant lecture, thanks, especially the last part with the cucumber and grapes. :) SlimVirgin 17:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the chimps pulling on the ropes were pretty amazing too. But, yes, the cucumber/grape stuff was amazing. I'd read a description of the latter but that didn't prepare me for seeing it. So cute! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request - Brown Dog affair

Hi,

I've uploaded the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there. As always, I'm indebted to you for this. It's extremely kind of you. SlimVirgin 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I'm happy to help with this and any future requests. GabrielF (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gabriel, and thank you! SlimVirgin 16:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

• There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of St. James's Place

The article St. James's Place has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of St. James's Place for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. James's Place until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Deor (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Shrike (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)

Seamus (dog), an article which is part of WikiProject animal rights has been proposed for deletion. Feel free to join the discussion. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination) HHIAdm (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. When you recently edited Caroline Earl White, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pliny Earle (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) 11:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Despite a successful challenge at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, you have still gone ahead and restored a source that was ruled not RS. You have also acted unilaterally by removing the color codes that was installed by a consensus. You really need to start taking on board other people's opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Equazcion 02:23, 29 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I've reported this case at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SlimVirgin_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've started a DR process because it's not on that someone can just force through their own edits without a consensus: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_vegans Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject I think it's time for you to remove Heather Nicholson from the list or replace the source, because the viewpoints at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#veggies.org.uk clearly indicate it is not a reliable source for the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Betty has left another comment at WP:AN3#User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ). Though she is treating sourcing on veganism like it is an earth-shaking matter, which I think unnecessary, it seems to me that your insistence on removing the templates has no supporters but yourself. What consensus there is suggests that Betty's scheme is favored. If you have other talk threads you want to mention, you could add them to the report. If there is still disagreement, other options are available for dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The removal of the templates has support on the talk page, Ed. I'd prefer not to say more about this. Since late yesterday, Betty Logan has reported myself and another editor to the RS noticeboard (two separate reports about the same issue at the same page), posted a block template on my talk page, taken me to WP:AN/3RR, taken me to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and threatened me with AN/I. All because he was reverted twice by me. I won't be responding to any of it, because every response makes it worse.

What I would appreciate is you keeping an eye on the article to make sure the serial reverting stops, if you're willing. SlimVirgin 22:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was assessing your own interest in following dispute resolution, but I don't perceive any willingness on your part. You are free not to participate, but then you really can't complain if the decision is not in your favor. List of vegans is not the most important issue in the world, but anyone who has strong views about it should be willing to do RfCs or other appropriate steps. That advice also applies to Betty, but at least she has taken it to WP:DRN#List of vegans. DRN is a better choice than all the other things she has tried. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's being discussed on the talk page, where consensus has gone against him, which is why he has started a forest fire of supposed dispute resolution. He needs to return to the talk page and discuss there, instead of the serial reverting and "reporting" people. Several editors would now like to improve the list, and perhaps get it to FL status. I really would prefer not to discuss this further, Ed, except on the talk page. SlimVirgin 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice Q

Hi SV With all your article and content eperiance would you have a quick look at the title and lede of this War criminals in Canada - I find the title strange but hard to put my finger on why, is it correct/notable for an article under such a title - I can't find other such titles for countries that many more nazis went to ... and the lede also seems to me to be opinionated and fails to really explain what the article is about - Canada has war criminals and that a shame on them seems to be the interpretation of the current lede? There are a couple of comments on the talkpage = I made a correcting edit too the lede but it was replaced and I added a npov template but thats being removed = Am I mistaken here and its fine? Youreallycan 10:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)