User talk:SlimVirgin/April 2018

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For "following the money" and highlighting the COI issues, and explaining what gullable fools we have been to allow this advertising, promotion and paid-for-editing on Wikipedia's top articles. Colin°^Talk 20:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, thank you, that means a lot. I very much hope that something positive emerges from this. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WMF now have an extra $100,000 to spend perhaps on funding a teacher who is actually an experienced wikipedian and can advise their class better than how to add some random factoids from medical journals. And there's the 300+ top articles that no longer promote a private firm on Wikipedia. And there might even be the germ of a guideline or policy on videos for Wikipedia, but I suspect I won't be hanging around to see it grow/wither, so you're welcome to take that on. I'm going to finish updating the article I've been tending, and then pop back to Commons. The problem that existed 4 years ago, and made me leave then, is still there, and has grown minions. -- Colin°^Talk 19:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

This essay. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Stephens (editor)

SlimVirgin, this is a final call for you to provide the requested quid pro quo review for your DYK nomination here, which was made back in February. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, okay, will do; give me a day or two, please. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Happy to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I finally got round to it. Apologies for the delay! SarahSV ^(talk) 15:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Snowden

My 12+ years on this project, tells me that something suspicious is going on at the Dave Snowden article. The timing is interesting, considering Cynfein article. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm currently considering what to do about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay: NeilN has blocked. Thanks, Neil. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the Cynfein (can't spell it) article, should be taken to WP:AN. It's proving to be a contention topic, with competing interests. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborate, later?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Bengal famine of 1943 FAC will almost certainly take several more weeks, and I certainly can't do any heavy lifting on any other articles 'til it's done. But I was thinking, down the road, maybe there's room for a Sex and gender in famines (or whatever title is best) article on Wikipedia. Since you're more conversant with the general area of "sex and gender" I'd happily follow your lead. But I've been hanging about in famine-related literature for two years now, so I would certainly be able to contribute more than a little. We could start by merging Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943 into it, and I remember also seeing stuff somewhere about the "feminization of famine" and so on. Plus I'm sure there's tons more info. In fact, it's mildly surprising no one has done this before. Anyhow, let me know what you think. Cheers Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's an interesting idea but a lot of work. For now, it's not something I'd want to pursue, but perhaps in future. I wouldn't rule it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A lot of work" is what I do best. :-) Anyhow, cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of prostitutes and freedom

I was gonna disappear from your talk page for a very extended period of time, just to leave you alone, but I stumbled across a lecture very relevant to our "disagreement" ( I actually don't think it was such; it was more of a difference of emphasis) about the "freedom" to become a prostitute under famine conditions. So here it is, and now I really will leave you alone:

Sen, Amartya (1990). "Individual freedom as social commitment". India International Centre Quarterly. 17 (1): 101–115. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where Sen argues that starving people being sexually abused in exchange for food is a form of freedom for the starving, and I would be astonished if he did. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. He argues just the opposite. That's why I mentioned it to you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced through it quickly but couldn't find it. Can you give a page number? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't mention prostitution specifically, but does discuss vulnerable populations faced with a lack of positive freedoms: "Consider the case of Kader Mia. His death robbed him, in an important sense, of the basic positive freedom to continue to live, as he would have chosen to do... His murder may have been the ultimate violation of his negative freedom, but he was forced into that extremely vulnerable territory in the first place by his poverty and the corresponding lack of positive freedom." Also, regarding gender inequality: "—including the freedom to assess change—is accepted as a major value. While the defenders of the status quo can get comfort and support from at least some versions of the utilitarian calculus, that defence cannot survive if individual freedom is indeed a social commitment. Since persistent inequality and exploitation often thrive by making passive allies out of the mistreated and the exploited, the divergence between utility based reasoning and freedom-centered reasoning can be both sharp and far-reaching." So earlier I was following a utilitarian calculus: "It's better to let yourself be used (abused) as a sex object than to starve to death, or watch your children starve to death." You OTOH were viewing the situation from precisely the same perspective as Sen, "The social commitment to individual freedom has to be concerned with both positive and negative freedoms, and with their extensive interconnections." So from your perspective and Sen's, I am the one whose argument is intolerably flawed. And of course I very strongly agree. No one should ever be put into a position of being forced to choose between letting one's self be sexually abused (violation of negative freedom) and the lack of a sufficient diet (violation of a positive freedom). We share precisely the same opinion. But once one is thrust into a state of near-powerlessness by a violation of one's positive freedom that goes beyond the reach of that individual (not society as a whole) to address, the calculus must necessarily become utilitarian. Thus in the short run a woman in a state of harrowing (but not absolutely complete) powerlessness makes a voluntary decision that one form of violation is less intolerable than another. It is a choice. It is a choice that we of course must abhor from any meaningful moral perspective, and we do abhor it, but it is a choice in a desperate moment nonetheless. Sen's lecture is driving home the point that we should never let this moment of powerlessness to enjoy a positive freedom occur. My point was that once this moment of powerlessness has occurred (against all moral considerations or principles), there still may be choices available that would otherwise be rightfully considered intolerable.

As a side issue, from my perspective, this case is marginally preferable to that of the kidnapped child, who then has no freedoms of any kind or any degree, neither negative nor positive. The relative degree to which that injustice seems worse may be multiplied when you consider two points: first, children are even more vulnerable than adult women, and second, it is not altogether impossible that some of those children were facing mere deprivation rather than outright starvation (for various reasons, esp. if their parents were closer to "middle class" economically), and so before the abduction their positive freedoms were marginally less violated than those of others. There may often have been no need for them to trade sex for survival -- they had the freedom to choose not to engage in sex, assuming they were mature enough to understand and make that choice. That freedom was ripped from them by the physical violence of a present individual rather than by the political violence of an empire on the other side of the world (either Germany/Japan or Great Britain, depending on how far back in time you wish to go, and on whether you believe GB had the freedom to do anything other than what they did). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nomination of Portal:Animal rights for deletion

A proposal has been made to delete Portal:Animal rights, which you have made significant contributions to, as well as all other portals on English Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion if you'd like, which is located at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Today

Hi SV; I suspect you may already know, but Philosophy Today has published a special symposium on "Rebecca Tuvel and her interlocutors". The papers are currently free to access. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, I didn't know. Looks very interesting. Thanks for telling me. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ian Stephens (editor)

On 13 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ian Stephens (editor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that British newspaper editor Ian Stephens may have saved "hundreds of thousands" of lives during the Bengal famine of 1943 by publishing photographs of the victims? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Stephens (editor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ian Stephens (editor)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Ritchie333 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Scihub

I tweaked the question a bit at Talk:Sci-Hub#Website_and_IP_in_infobox_for_Sci-Hub, after you !voted. Am notifying you and the other person who has !voted. 23:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

David Meade (author)

What do you think about the edits I've done to David Meade so far? It's still FA nominee but just wondering. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk page. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah I replied to your message. —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

#1Lib1Ref
New collections
- Alexander Street (expansion)
- Cambridge University Press (expansion)
User Group
Global branches update
- Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shehzad_Poonawalla

Hello, Can you please takeout few minutes to comment on this. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shehzad_Poonawalla Regards Sonia89f (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with Natina Reed

Hello again. I apologize for intruding on your talk page. I have recently expanded and developed the Natina Reed article and I was wondering if you could provide any suggestions on how to improve it? While I think it would be ideal to polish it to the point that it can be put through the FAC process, my primary intent is to understand how to best approach these types of articles (i.e. biographies). I understand if you do not have the time or inclination. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, I'll take a look, but putting that kind of article through FAC isn't something I've given much thought to, because of the amount of PR that tends to be in the sources. It can be hard to weed it out. So I'll look but I can't promise to comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re AVC and MMB

I responded by email the same day - maybe check the spam folder? Ben Mac Dui 20:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben MacDui, I can't see anything, and the spam folder would have been emptied by now. But thanks for having responded anyway. I was thinking that it was better discussed by email in the first instance because I really wasn't sure, and I didn't want to add to the most recent account's woes in case I was wrong. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - and I did send a follow up email as well, which was bounced back yesterday. There's clearly something amiss. There is nothing more that needs to be said I think but I'll send you that last message via 'email this user' so that you can see the error message. Ben Mac Dui 16:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragists

Hi Sarah, I found this in the New York Times and thought you'd be interested in it. When I have time/energy I'm still interested in working up the Artists' Suffrage League, though not immediately. I thought I might find those posters in the Cambridge Library and in trying a search I came across this at the British Library, which is interesting, so I thought I'd leave these here for you. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, thank you, fascinating, and I assume those posters are PD. The timeline is very helpful too. Issues related to the timeline (and what is relevant to later issues) keep arising in various articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stumbled over the timeline and bookmarked it, thinking it would be helpful. Still haven't checked Cambridge for the posters but it's on my "to do" list. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to check Commons and upload the posters if they're not already there? If you'd prefer not to, I'm happy to do it (not immediately, but soon), but I won't if it's something you'd rather do yourself. And there's no rush to do it. It can be quite enjoyable. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has this category but it doesn't include all the posters in that article, so I think the others should be uploaded. I haven't looked at the Cambridge library yet - presumably they hold the high resolution files and it would be nice if we could get them from there. Will report back. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering how to get the high-resolution files. Good luck. It would be wonderful to have them. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Besant

Just ran across this. It seems to be up your alley. FYI. Cheers. Annie Besant. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sucking eggs

Hi, I noticed you added Mansplaining to the Teaching grandmother to suck eggs See Also section. Clearly this is a relevant example, but an IP user keeps trying to remove this. As you're an admin I'm just checking it's ok for me to keep reverting this user? Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polyamorph, it's best not to keep reverting in case you violate WP:3RR; the IP will argue that this isn't vandalism but a content dispute. I'll help you if it happens again, but at some point one of us should open a talk-page discussion about the removal. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I have opened a dscussion at Talk:Teaching grandmother to suck eggs and invited the user to comment. They have again reverted the change with the comment "nah". Please also feel free to comment on the talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

SV, please feel free to edit Wikipedia:Request for comment on tone in medical writing; I am still hoping he will see the light and it won't be necessary, but for now, I can't go to FAC, and can't even call in Eric to copyedit, with disputed text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to blank it, SV. My real goal with going for FAC with a medical article was to get some collaborative spirit going (as in the "olden days") at WT:MED, and that was probably not a realistic goal. I'm not going to FAC, and the views of that one editor weren't endorsed by anyone else anyway, so I'm going to focus on the cancer, and forget about that. I've written a complete article, and that's good enough for me! Thanks anyway, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]