User talk:SlimVirgin/February 2017

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ta

Not often I get thanked for sorting a typo... I get very irritated sometimes offwiki when I can't correct things. Like one I saw today where both 'independant' and 'independent' appeared on the same sign. (Hedging their bets?) I did get thanked offwiki once for pointing out that a 'now' should have been a 'not' before embarrassment resulted. But my two favourite mistakes have got to be a chap putting up an illuminated sign reading 'FISH AND CHIPS', while leaning against the wall was the other side of it 'FISH AND CIHPS', and best of all was a sign containing "pian'os". (I have just received some junk mail coupons, and one is from the Golden Arches outfit. The coupons very clearly name the only branch that these are usable at, and also that they cannot be used at a restaurant that has a drive through. Guess what? I'm looking forward to this... Peridon (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of pornography article

Hi, SlimVirgin. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind helping with the Effects of pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article whenever you have time. After leaving this article two days ago, I immediately realized that we were focusing too much on what is WP:MEDRS-compliant, but that a lot regarding this topic has to do with social issues, which means that WP:MEDRS sources are not always required. The main reasons that I had not edited this article too heavily is because my brother had focused on the article as an IP, there was POV-pushing on both sides, and, since the research on the effects of pornography is mostly negative, it would make it seem like I was pushing my own personal POV when I was actually simply following what the sources state. I'm asking you for your help because I know how good you are with articles that pertain to women's issues (and the effects of pornography is partly a women's issue), and because you are just an all-around excellent editor. I don't think I've collaborated with you on anything (except for a past matter at the Vegetarianism article and agreeing with you on a other few matters). And working with you on this could be our first big collaboration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, thanks for asking me, but I don't have the energy to take on a project like that at the moment. Also, I've mostly stayed away from the porn articles as I assume they're pretty depressing to work on, so there's that aspect too. But I wish you all the best with it, and I may look in from time to time. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I don't work on any porn articles. I have a few of them on my watchlist and occasionally edit them, but nothing big. This will be the first big effort. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed?

I had looked in the collapsed section but don't see the link, but I could be missing it. You removed your comment. I am wondering why. Anyway thanks for the directions. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I removed my comment because we're drawing attention to it, and I thought perhaps you wouldn't want that, though I know it's been discussed a lot. I could link to the comment for you, or you could copy the link and then search for it in those collapsed sections, including the one that's collapsed inside the collapsed section. You need to uncollapse twice. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've finally found it. I guess I have to assume that Nuclear Warfare also showed Wolfie what was hidden because Wolfie, like me, couldn't on his own, see what had been removed. Looking forward to Canada and a less complications. :O)

Morgan

You are right: I should not have raised the problems with the Tomlinson article as part of my FAC. That was wrong of me and I apologise. – The Bounder (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bounder, that's very decent of you, thank you. I appreciate it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUH G1

Essay? Ramblings of some dude after an RfC that offends all the snod grasses of the world, isn't even funny, and it directly violates WP:POSS. That is why I G1d it. I can hold a formal AfD if you'd rather. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1, by all means MfD it if you want, but it could end up as a helpful list of common mistakes. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN Daily Mail thread

Hi SV, I thank you for echoing my sentiments on that thread. I have however removed the headings you added because they were not the heading I posted under and so they distort the flow of the conversion in my opinion. If you want to add some sort of "arbitrary section break" somewhere as a level-four sub-subheader, that would be more workable; but headings after the fact are too distorting in my view. Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender, I think we need some three-level headings to make it easier to edit, and it made sense to add them around the discussion of the WMF statement. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC). Forgot to ping Softlavender. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Level four headers are just as easy to edit as level-three headers. Also, specifically creating and naming new sections in the middle of a conversation which already has a named heading and has already taken place is by nature inaccurate, misleading, and distorting. I do not want a new specified heading placed above any comments I made, because I made each of my comments under the headings that were specifically appropriate to place them under. I am not opposed to "Arbitrary section break" headers, which are the norm on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's done (four-level headers, break 1, break 2). SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That works. :) Softlavender (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FRIND

Hello, I've addressed the issue generally in an FTN post. I believe you are mistaken and hope you change your mind. For instance adding the claim that consciousness is not a product of the brain when none of the independent sources are even discussing that aspect is not only logically wrong but implicitly misrepresents those sources. Doubling down on that assertion seems especially odd to me. (Incidentally, it should be clear that I knew you were the one who first added it, since I had been responding to you, not the other editor, on the article talk page. That I was somehow confused is the spin of the other editor.) Best, Manul ~ talk 13:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collab

If you have interest, see Victoria's article on the 1949 "Prophets of Deceit". I am asking for input from the best and most astute wiki has. The article seems very worthy. Ceoil (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Sarah's help would be invaluable. I'm a little out of depth with this article. I'm capable of the rudimentary sections, basic publication background, the summary of contents, some analysis and reviews, but beyond that I'm a little lost. If either of you are interested and think it's possible to work up to FAC, go for it. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil and Victoria, thanks for asking. I'll definitely look in, but I can't take on any new project. Time and energy come and go at the moment, so I don't want to commit. Very interesting article. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. Thanks so much for your edits there. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Sarah. Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Science Monitor

Hi SlimVirgin,

I tagged the source as "better source needed" on an article. However, i have reverted myself after i had realized that the source was added by you, a veteran editor mainly contributing on women rights and related articles. So that made me to think twice. Is it a proper/reliable source on women-rights? 'Cause I have never heard it before and seems to me religiously-based. Bests, 46.221.197.83 (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Christian Science Monitor is a high-quality news source, so it should be fine, especially as the text makes clear that the claim may not be correct (re: FGM in southern Turkey). SarahSV ^(talk) 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:David Icke in goal.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:David Icke in goal.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:David Icke on Wogan 1991.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:David Icke on Wogan 1991.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I pulled up the FGM article in class today, which was an eye opener for many students. Thank you for bringing that up to FA status. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr Aaij, much appreciated. Always good to hear that there are readers out there. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gehry

Hi, just a quick question about your edit to this article: did you initiate it yourself, or was it in relation to a complaint from the subject or his representative? Just wondering, considering the editing that proceeded it. Thanks, and best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it to stop the reverting, then decided to make sure it was BLP compliant. One of the sources wasn't an RS, so I removed that part of it and made sure the text reflected what the other sources said. I think if I were writing that article, I'd remove that paragraph, as the SPAs seem to want, or at least the part about moving to France. If you look at the original source (La Croix, which I added), it doesn't add up to much. But I'll leave it up to you. I'm not planning to do anything else there. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your edits, and don't plan to change them, I was just curious. Thanks for the response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roger Scruton

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roger Scruton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roger Scruton

The article Roger Scruton you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Roger Scruton for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]