User talk:SlimVirgin/April 2014

JSTOR

Suggest check your access – mine has disappeared. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(Later): I see that all accounts were switched off yesterday. Ah, well.... Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been waiting for it to disappear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It has gone, without any action plan in evidence that I can see – no indication of what we can expect in the future. Maybe there's a discussion going on some place, but I've no idea where. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I see someone has started one on that JSTOR talk page, but no response yet. Perhaps someone should ping Steven Walling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons allowing images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration

Following a major change of Commons policy today, I have suggested a corresponding change for WP at WP:VPPR#Allow images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration. I haven't checked back through the archives, but I suspect URAA restoration has been at issue in some image deletion discussions you have been involved with. Thincat (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Hi SlimVirgin, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 19:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Antônio Petrus Kalil

Do you think Antônio Petrus Kalil can be unprotected yet? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

WP editing style

Working with you at Talk:Christian Science, or should I say Christian Science is exhilerating. I believe it can work where one helps with their input on the talk page and the other filters that into actual content; it can work as well as several inputs and two content editors, and so on. Honestly, they never have for me. I've tried. Teamworks: the obstacle to each of them is faith in the overhead, the time it takes to reach an understanding of the good intentions, perhaps even time for correcting important points. I guess I'm seeing it just might be working. I look forward to hearing from you there. — CpiralCpiral 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OUP

Aren't you UK-based? You should be able to get these at home (maybe not the American biographies) via your local library. I've now added this to the page. Johnbod, aka Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)