User talk:SlimVirgin/January 2017

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I'm sure you've heard it before, but the Chelsea Manning article is amazing! I hope it's one more symbol to her that people care. The article must have taken so much work! I just wanted to say thanks. Chelsea is a person I love and respect for her courage and honesty. Daphne Lantier 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Daphne, thank you very much. This is a nice way to start the New Year! SarahSV ^(talk) 03:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS RFC

You had floated the idea of a central RFC, on a Village Pump or somewhere, to gauge whether the MOS is only advisory (and thus could just be ignored) or whether it is mandatory (so things it requires can be changed without violating STYLEVAR). I think that it would be a good idea to have an RFC like that, to clarify the situation, because there are currently some number of people operating under each of those interpretations, making communication difficult. The RFC question would need to be phrased in a neutral and productive way, of course, but I do encourage you to pursue that if you're interested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Carl, I agree that this would be a good idea. I'd want to take time to think of how to phrase it and read any talk-page discussions about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Refnames

Put this string into Wikipedia's search engine:

insource:"/<ref name=\":0\">/"

this will reveal all the many, many instances of pages with such refnames. DS (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

DS, I first encountered it with student editing, and it took me a while to realize it was Visual Editor. Perhaps the VE developers could be asked to change it. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

They've already been asked. More than once. DS (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have links to those discussions, I can add a request. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Some discussion. Note that the 2016 discussion led to some tasks on Phabricator... and that the issue has not been resolved. DS (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave a comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

She Wolf

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent genre warring. 183.171.181.68 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There isn't enough recent activity there to protect, but please ask at WP:RfPP if it continues. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hvgard

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.

---

If you want me to respond to any of his comments on the I-Space or Cynefin articles let me know. Given that he is actively seeking to promote his own business (the only time he edits wikipedia) and is in formal IP & other disputes with both my company and the creator of the KIF model he references I really don't want to get involved unless I have to. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You know very well Dave Snowded that most of what you write above is nonsense. I'm am not in a legal dispute with your company (never have been) nor with the creator of the KiF model (never have been).

That I prefer to focus on a few articles on Wikipedia is personal choice that is not your business. Please remember that I was one of the earliest contributors to the Cynefin Framework page in 2008 as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cynefin_framework&diff=758614689&oldid=252368677. That things have changed between us businesswise has reasons you are very familiar with. Please face them and stop trying making me look the black sheep of the family.Hvgard (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

In these last few days, I've peeked in at the Cynefin Framework discussion. IMHO the article would be served best, if all editors who are involved with or affected by this topic off Wikipedia, would stay away from the article entirely. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks re WP:RfPP assistance! :)

Thanks for your support on WP:RfPP re this page. Hopefully 7 days will be a long enough period of deterrent to stop the unfortunate vandalism the same person seems to wish to continually enact. Cheers! Demonuk (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Demonuk, sorry for the delay in replying. I'll keep an eye on it in case it continues. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. SarahSV ^(talk)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Emailed you about study we discussed on Indoor tanning talk page

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

When you get my email, please reply and I'll send you the PDF of the study.

Cheers, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael, done. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I determine when it's appropriate to refer to a couple of sentences from a study vs. when I need to provide a summary of the entire study (like you're guiding me through now on the Indoor tanning article)? For example, on the Psoriasis article, someone added one sentence and cited a study: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psoriasis&diff=761032093&oldid=760547354

Why is this editor allowed to do this instead of having to summarize the entire study he is citing? What are the relevant Wikipedia policies and practices here? --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael, you wanted to use quite a bit of material from that study, but without having read it. It's not that you have to summarize everything in it. You just have to make sure you have access to the whole thing so that the conclusions of the authors are properly reflected. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Soup and sandwich

Hi there, just wondering the logic behind you removing the tag on this article which says it focuses on the US. It doesn't really mention any other country so I thought that the tag was appropriate. I'm not going to put it back but I'd like to learn why it was wrong :-) Cls14 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cls14, I tag articles only when the issue is hard to fix and needs to be pointed out to the reader. In this case, the page can be fixed very easily if sources exist. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest Veganism article dispute

Noting this in case you are no longer watching the article and didn't get my ping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, are you done editing the article? If so, why? Since even the current state of the article was mostly written by you, and since you are so familiar with the literature, it's always tempting to contact you for your help with the latest disputes. You were the driving force behind that article, and it's not easy to take the mantle in your place. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, I stopped editing it a year ago because I got fed up with the nonsense on talk. It did eventually stop (it was mostly caused by one editor), but the same themes keep cropping up. The claim that there is no such thing as dietary veganism is one of the constants. Of any article I've edited a lot, the new editors who arrive at that page are among the most opposed to reading the sources, whether they're pro- or anti-vegan. Not sure what to make of that. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Repetition is one of the reasons I don't like editing here anymore. I know that consensus can change, but that's not the main issue. Still, you deal with a lot of repetition when debating matters at the Female genital mutilation talk page, but you are still sticking with that. That article is more controversial than the Veganism article. By the way, sorry that I have not been helping out with the disputes at that article lately. I've been trying to stay away from Wikipedia as much as possible these days, as currently noted on my user page/talk page. I've seen the Female genital mutilation page pop up on my watchlist recently, but I didn't get around to reading the latest dispute. If it weren't for this latest veganism dispute, I wouldn't be editing right now. Anyway, you have to do what you have to do for your sanity; so I understand.

On a side note: Since your page is on my watchlist, you don't have to ping me when replying here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I obviously appreciate you taking an interest in editing the Veganism article again, and of course for weighing in on the aforementioned dispute. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Make_PC2_no_longer_available_to_admins

Sarah, this one needs closing at some point, perhaps as soon as Thursday morning EST. There's not a lot of drama of course ... yet ... but conceivably, this could be nontrivial if there's some kind of pushback from the WMF. Your thoughts or participation in any capacity are welcome; I did promise I'd drop by your talk page the next time I was thinking of closing something. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Dank, I'm sorry for being slow to respond to this. I saw it earlier and decided to reply later, then it slipped my mind. I'd be happy for you to close that. Thanks for offering and for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Performance art

Template:Performance art has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

hi Adwctamia (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)