User talk:SlimVirgin/October 2017

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An essay in need of attention

Hi, SV - will you please...please?...fix WP:RV as it damn near got me in trouble. I made some copy edits on an article protected by 1RR DS - just a bit of tweaking and getting statements to more closely align with what the sources stated - one editor reverted all of it while I was in the process of saving one more edit. Once my last edit was saved, another editor reverted it. I only reverted once - that last revert - which I thought was within the 1RR rule based on what I read at WP:RV. Well, the first editor filed at AN3 and I was warned. Perhaps I was spared because what I did wasn't actually "edit warring". When I'm not sure about PAGs, I usually look it up to refresh my memory but there are times when I'm really busy getting things done, and don't have time to research all the policies to find the one I need at the time. My first search was simply WP:REVERT which is a "how-to" guide, then my next was WP:RV which was the subject essay. I put too much trust in it. Another editor pointed me to WP:3RR and that's when I realized that simply copy editing could be considered a revert. OMG. The essay is vastly incorrect. It may even need TNT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme, I'll take a look, but nothing is jumping out as a problem (after a very quick glance). But it's safer to stick to what it says at WP:3RR. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Particulars in WP:RV: see the section "What is a reversion": Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion,, but it is the way the community interprets reversion, and that's part of what brought me here.

See WP:3RR (my bold) - A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

Also see what's in the Example box at RV: You re-phrase the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article. A normal change, not a reversion. Nope, it's a reversion according to 3RR. Why does it specifically state "in the first paragraph" - what about the second paragraph? Makes no sense. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any edit that undoes someone else's work. Technically that could refer to every single edit, including page creation, which may reverse someone else's decision not to create that page. But we don't interpret it that way. We interpret it to refer to edits that you have reason to believe are undoing work that someone else has added and defended in some way, during a current or previous edit war, for example. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I thought SV, but this filing says differently. I was copy editing which I thought was obvious in the edit history showing the contiguous edits:

(cur | prev) 07:28, October 6, 2017‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,527 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (→‎top: tweak a bit, remove double ref) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:26, October 6, 2017‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,547 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (→‎top: the quotes and inline citation indicates "reportedly") (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:18, October 6, 2017‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,577 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎top: tweak - copy edit) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:07, October 6, 2017‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,578 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (→‎top: copy editing) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:03, October 6, 2017‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,608 bytes) (+25)‎ . . (→‎top: dismissed from what, the dinner table? He was terminated and removed from office per the letter from POTUS) (undo)

I didn't think my edits were anywhere even close to 1RR, much less 3RR. I'm becoming a little gunshy because things I thought were acceptable are suddenly not so acceptable. If I'm the one causing it, then I just want to know what it is I'm doing wrong so I can fix it. If it's not me, well...it's bygones now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look through the article and talk page to be able to judge. With 1RR, reverting is best avoided unless there's no ambiguity (e.g. reverting vandaliam), especially if it's part of a series of edits that aren't easy to interpret. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeremiah Duggan's route.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jeremiah Duggan's route.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You moved Template:RichardPryor without a redirect

Doesn't moving Template:RichardPryor to Template:Richard Pryor without a redirect break all the transclusions in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:RichardPryor? I don't know that any bot would correct all these transclusions if there's not a redirect. Or is someone already in the middle of replacing all of those? --Closeapple (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Closeapple: I've re-created it. Thanks for pointing it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I'm not experienced and tried to revert changes made to the Jonathan King article which seem to have been originally composed by you and one or two others. I may not have done it correctly. Could you check them?Jacksonlegend (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has suffered for years from people wanting to remove his background and career details. I disagree with it, but it's not something I want to get involved in again. I'm sorry. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think other admins will deal with it. Michael Jackson article had similar problems from same person. Jacksonlegend (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of Fawad Khan

Hi! I've requested a peer review for Fawad Khan, it was listed as GA but failed FAC. It'd be kind of you to review it.(Wikipedia:Peer review/Fawad Khan/archive1). Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two disputes in regard to Female Circumcision

Hi. I opened two disputes in regard to female circumcision to improve the articles with reliable sources and to provide a neutral standpoint. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Khitan_(circumcision) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Female_genital_mutilation Muffizainu (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

User Group update
Global branches update
- Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba 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) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mountainsofpain

Hi SlimVirgin, was a phab case opened for the issue you were working on with User:Mountainsofpain being unable to create a page? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply elsewhere. I'm the process of writing something up. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, I ran in to phab:T174282 not that long ago where an autoconfirmed editor was unable to edit when they should have been able to as well - worried there may be a larger issues afoot. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have more information on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, I don't yet, but I have a couple of things I need to check. Once I've done that, I'll probably add a note to phabricator. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? What happens when they try? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy. I'll get to it by Monday. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sherwin has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, SlimVirgin. Chris Sherwin, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully done....

Engaging... so glad you included that note. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atsme, I appreciate the feedback. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

excerpt from speech you mentioned

I saw that you mentioned me, and thought you might like to see the actual quote: "Make me look smart, that's more important." Thanks and best wishes. Sumana Harihareswara 21:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sumanah, thank you, and it's lovely to see you here. I hope all is well with you. Best, SarahSV ^(talk) 15:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help :)

Hi Sarah - Thanks for your comments on my talk page with regards to my article on Julie Arliss. This is my first article on Wikipedia and I'm still learning the ropes so I really appreciate your advice. Thanks for directing me to the Conflict of Interest advice - I had been looking on there to try and see if it applied to me. I've never met the subject or had any contact with her, but I thought of using her as a subject for my first article as an old colleague of mine, user RegineOlsen, knows of her through her husband, Peter Vardy, although I know that RegineOlsen has never met the subject either. So I haven't been able to figure out whether that means that I have a conflict of interest or not. If you have any thoughts please do let me know. Thanks also for your advice on using reputable sources. I've had a go at adding a few pieces to your version on this basis, and I've done my best to make sure they are appropriate. I've also taken your lead and tried to make incremental rather than wholesale changes, so that the edits are clear and trackable. Again, if you have any thoughts, do say. I'm gearing up to write my next article; I have a list of possible subjects but I'm not sure which one at the moment as I want to make sure they conform to Wikipedia's notability requirements. I've not yet been able to find anywhere on Wikipedia that suggests new topics for users to write about - do you know if such a page exists? Once again, many thanks for your help! Best wishes, Will Willsmith2001 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willsmith2001, I'll leave you a note about this either on the article's talk page or on yours. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination policy

Sarah,

Amazing job!

	Collaboration Power
	Thank you for your tireless contributions to Chris Sherwin, and for helping it evolve into an interesting and informative biography. Your collaborative efforts are greatly appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: many thanks for this. Very pleased to see it was kept. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]