User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2016

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:KFC.comlicense.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:KFC.comlicense.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism, a case request in which you are involved, has been declined as unready for arbitration at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

PD Holocaust pictures

About a year ago we had a discussion this topic. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the iconic photograph deleted on Commons here, but utilized here and there with a nonfree rational. Was thinking of adding it to SS and/or Ideology of the SS, both of which have somewhat problematic images. I note you're away, hopefully not for too long, and perhaps when you have a moment you might address this. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Core, sorry for the long delay in replying. I'll take a look and leave a note on your talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. These photos seem to be tough to deal with; complex and difficult copyright questions. I recall that a similar issue arose some months ago; I wrote the Holocaust Museum and received no response.

Glad you're back. Hope the absence was due to something pleasant, like a vacation. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ping

You've been interested in this in the past, so you might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Instruction creep in WP:CITEVAR. I haven't figured out whether there is a specific dispute behind this, but my guess is that someone wants to deprecate manually formatted citations. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

request for comment for BLP article

Hi there. I noticed you're a member of the biography wikiproject. Could you please weigh in at this RfC regarding Georgiy Starostin and whether his hobby as a music blogger should be included in the article? Some editors have argued for including it in the lead, others for mentioning it briefly somewhere in the article body, and others for excluding it altogether. Dan56 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy's comments

I have been searching for where James 'publicly stated' about his email and the Google-like search engine. AFAICS it was User:Wnt, then Jimmy himself, who introduced the Google-like reference. James merely questioned whether there was any evidence. I copied some of it here. That really was mean and cruel thing of Jimmy to say. Peter Damian (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks. I have no idea what to make of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point here also. Peter Damian (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

request for comment for BLP article

Hi there. Could you please weigh in at this RfC regarding Georgiy Starostin and whether his hobby as a music blogger should be included in the article and attributed to citations from his personal website/blog? Dan56 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't a minor edit...

... since it was a revert of something that was clearly not vandalism, and even on an essay that you started, so in my opinion you really should be particularly careful before just reverting and marking it as minor like you WP:OWN it all. But I won't pursue it, happy enough with having it pointed out... LjL (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski's WP:LEAD

Thanks for your edits to Emily Ratajkowski's WP:LEAD. I think there may have been some confusion in reading your changes. I have made some clarifying edits in response. Feel free to return to this issue. Also, please consider getting involved in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've left a comment there. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Adminship anniversary!

Many thanks for this, Peter. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge

You responded to the form twice with different emails - shall I assume the second is the one you want to use? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I meant to email you about it, so I'll do that now. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for cleaning up the article Olatunde Isaac. Honestly, if I knew this will raise a red flag, I wouldn't have created it. I feel remorseful about this. I will refrain from editing it! Well, its a learning curve. Now that it has been cleanup and I have declared my COI on the article's talk page, will you consider to remove the COI tag? Happy editing. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikicology, you're welcome. Michael shouldn't have moved it into mainspace, and actually the best thing now would be if it were moved back without a redirect. Normally if the main author agrees to that, it can be done without fuss, but in this case I wonder if too many people have edited it for that to happen now. If you want to discuss it further, it's better to do that on the talk page. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, since it has been cleaned up and the COI has been declared, I see no issue again and the tag may be removed but if you feel it should be moved back, I have no prejudice against it. Let me know your position on this. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the tag is justified, because you wrote it yourself (and the words seems to have been copied from the sources). But please discuss this on Talk:Olatunde Isaac in case others want to join in. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarah - thanks also for your work on Olatunde Isaac. I will be coming back to this, but if you have time could you look at Nitrogen dioxide poisoning, another one of his articles. This is a far more serious problem, not just plagiarism but AFAICS stuff that is simply made up. This could have quite serious consequences. I made some notes here. Some of the material has been copied from Chlorine gas poisoning and Beryllium poisoning. Many of the refs, see e.g. note 22 are simply unrelated to the text. So you have an article about poisonous material which seems to be partly a fiction. I wonder if Wikicology has any comments about this. Peter Damian (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am working on fixing that stuff, Peter. Thanks for raising it in various spots! Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - not my area of expertise, but something seems badly wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note it's Nitrogen dioxide poisoning, not Nitrogen dioxide Peter Damian (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know. I am starting with the thing itself, and then will go to poisoning with it. :) I'll do the same on the others. Most likely I will merge them into the main article where that is appropriate... Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for spotting this. I wonder whether we should redirect to Nitrogen dioxide for now. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology appears to have written the bulk of Chlorine gas poisoning (the day after a chlorine gas explosion in Jos, Nigeria, which probably explains how he became interested in the topic in the first place), so mining text from there probably wasn't with the intent to deceive. There's definitely something very wrong with the sourcing, however. I would favor the idea of redirecting for the interim; it could potentially warrant a standalone article, but I doubt it needs to be this long, and should probably be reconstructed from the ground up if so. Choess (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And now that I look closely, I'm seeing similar issues, perhaps not as severe (?) with chlorine gas poisoning, e.g., the claim that chronic chlorine exposure leads to memory loss is not supported in the literature, at least not based on a casual PubMed search. (And if it takes much more than that to ferret it out, I strongly doubt whether we should be making such a claim...) Choess (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK but other parts were copied and pasted from Beryllium poisoning, which he did not write. Compare "persistent dry cough. It can result in anorexia, weight loss, and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases" with " persistent dry cough, all of which may result in weight loss, anorexia and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases." I find it disturbing that medics, who often use Wikipedia, might end up treating a case of Beryllium poisoning as a case of NO2 poisoning. There are many concerns here, not just about content. Peter Damian (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

COICAMPAIGN listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect COICAMPAIGN. Since you had some involvement with the COICAMPAIGN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

FAC EmRata

Sorry if I am being insensitive here - I often have to ask. Am I stepping on your toes in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive3? I don't mean to, so if it bothers you, I'll try to unwind my comments from your section. The objections you brought up were quite relevant, enough so that I will back them and strike my support until most of them are met; so I wanted to add to them, but if my commenting in your section bothers you, I can certainly try to separate. --GRuban (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it doesn't bother me at all. I added a separate comment at the top to make things clear for the delegates, so I have no problem with interspersed replies below that. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ping 2

Hi Sarah,

I was thinking about our discussion on the "two tab" problem last year (and the labels), and I thought you might be interested in having a look at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. This is currently up at a couple of Wikipedias, and may arrive here before long (pending several bugs, schedule mess, etc. – the usual). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WAID, I like that idea. It will certainly solve accidentally hitting the wrong button (which I was doing constantly). Thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably post to WP:VPM when it's ready – probably sometime in April. I'm hoping to give people some advance warning, since deploying it means that all of the editors who like two tabs will suddenly be reduced to one, and that will doubtless be a source of confusion for many. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just posted more details: WP:VPM#Single edit tab. There are advantages to having a workaholic for a product manager.  ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WAID, that's extremely helpful, thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 16:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)