User talk:SlimVirgin/May 2016

Apology

Hi Sarah,

I am sorry I edited Wikipedia not fixing mistakes or helping to resolve the issue surrounding me. See this. Would you holds it against me? Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to message me please? Thelostunicorn (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha'avara Agreement

I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at this article when you have the opportunity, as it concerns subjects you seemed versed in. There is a discussion here about beefing up the context. Thanks very much! Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Coretheapple, I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It is a high visibility article and could use some expert attention. Coretheapple (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Duggan scene in Wiesbaden.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Duggan scene in Wiesbaden.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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion: Columbia University Rape Controversy

Hi,

I'm sending a notice because you previously participated in a move discussion on the page for Mattress Performance (Carry that weight). A new article was created Columbia University rape controversy as a spinout entry, and there is an ongoing discussion here regarding whether the article should be kept, moved, merged, or deleted. Letting you know in case you want to put your two cents in. Thanks. Nblund (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice

SlimVirgin, thanks for your advice on the COI noticeboard. JYTDog and his friends have basically taken ownership of the finasteride article and it is my personal opinion that his editing style resembles that of a professional editor. He is extremely aggressive, takes ownership of product/company articles, and forcefully whitewashes them. Most importantly, he makes several hundreds of edits all throughout normal work hours which makes it seem like this is his full-time job. He has already been topic banned from GMO-related articles and acted very suspiciously during the arbcom proceeding. If you just google "Jytdog", please have literally written several articles mentioning him in particular. My concern is that offering edit suggestions to him and his friends will be completely futile. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? I think an ANI against him would be warranted as he has antagonized a huge base of the Wikipedia community or at the very least a one-way topic ban. I'm not quite sure how to address this though. This is the third time he has brought an unsupported campaign against me and he recently violated my request to not edit my talk page. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that I replied to this on COIN. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your close

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.

---

I am asking you to withdraw your close. In your last comment before closing you misrepresented the consensus of those who commented; every single person (not exaggerating) who commented identified a COI for Doors. There are other issues here about you being INVOLVED with regard to people accusing me of COI that I will bring up if I need to take this to AN. I was curious how your involvement here would play out given your role in derailing the ANI I brought against Doors last year where you personally raised concerns about my COI for pharma articles and I noted at that time, that by doing that you had become INVOLVED - that is all there in difs. I was very disappointed to read your last comment and that you allowed his personal attacks to stand. I would rather avoid the drama. Please withdraw your close. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (withdrawing this, not worth the hassle Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, no, I won't withdraw it, because it solves the problem you brought to COIN. There's no point in endlessly dragging things out. As for my being involved, I have no interest in the article or involvement with Doors, except that I think you're too harsh with him, but as you got exactly what you requested this time, I don't see the problem. By all means discuss it further on AN if you want to. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The practical outcome is good enough and the drama is not worth it to me; I was in the process of striking and edit-confiicted. You have again shown your bias toward me; your last comment before closing was completely out of line. You are involved with regard to people making these kind of sloppy COI accusations against me; you consistently harbor people who make them and you have made them yourself. What you have done here will be further diffs if I ever need them. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And this is the effect of you imposing your bias on the close, against the consensus of every person who commented there. It was a bad close, not expressing the consensus in the discussion, and leaving the underlying question unresolved. Please consider fixing it. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not correct. This is not personal between you and Doors. I opened a thread at COIN to get community consensus on the issue, and every person who commented there confirmed that Doors has a COI. SlimVirgin if you persist in misframing this I am going to have to call for the close to be overturned. There was a community consensus at COIN and you need to acknowledge that, as does Doors. Your behavior will not be sustainable in an AN review. Please correct it. Nobody needs the drama but this should be done correctly after all this time. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, don't post here again about this. I've closed the COIN discussion and I'm closing this one. If you want to go to AN, please do, but I'm not going to do what you tell me, no matter how often you say it. You need to focus on sorting yourself out instead. No more personal attacks would be a good personal goal. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 9 May 2016 (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.

I'll give you time to reconsider and will file the close review if you don't amend your close and your claim that this is a personal arrangement after a reasonable amount of time. I am not telling you to do anything; I am advising you that your close does not reflect the consensus and that making this a personal deal with Doors is not appropriate. You are free to do whatever you want, of course. I prefer to avoid drama. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible repeat of OrangeMoody MO

Sarah would you please take a look here. This person, who has had their biography CSD a few times mentions being contacted out of the blue by someone and has also talked about paying for his article. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 03:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jbhunley, I looked at the page but didn't see anything that suggests an OM kind of thing. Do you have a diff? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. The phrase that concerned me is "...I completely forgot that information about myself on my page was rewritten by Rhonda Robbins. I have mentioned her name quite a few times in my contacts with Wikipedia. I have never met her, but for some reason she contacted me back on April 26, 2016." (emp. mine) [1] I read that as she cold called him to offer her services but I could be misreading it. Jbh^Talk 10:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Borscht FAC

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for your review so far. I'd just like to ask if my response to your comments is satisfactory to you and whether I can answer any further questions or help with further review in any way. As I wrote on the nomination page, I'd be happy to provide direct quotes, if necessary, from those source that are offline, and my own translations of those that are not in English. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome! SarahSV ^(talk) 16:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Google hits Nakba.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Google hits Nakba.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. Cloudbound (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi SlimVirgin, it has been a week since I submitted an edit request on the finasteride page. After an initial follow up question, it has gone mostly ignored. Will you please take a look at it and let me know if you have any advance for how to get more traction going forward? Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues

You may be interested in this comment that I posted to ANI earlier today. I wound up self-reverting the comment because the ANI thread had been closed when I was typing and I decided to leave it alone, but I'd welcome your letting me know if any more deletion requests regarding Auschwitz photos or similar materials are made. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Brad, thank you for making that comment, and I'll certainly let you know if anything similar happens again. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Journalism, independence, and puff pieces

Hi Sarah.

I think you know more about journalism than I do. I am wondering whether I am overstepping with skepticism on independent journalism versus undisclosed promotion and puff pieces, and I would like your opinion. This discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Rhodes, it follows a DRV overturn of a speedy of Darren Rhodes, a yoga teacher yoga studio business owner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe, it's very borderline. The U.S. News & World Report piece [2] perhaps pushes it slightly toward keep, even though it's a passing mention. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog

Dear SlimVirgin,

I am having some issues with a particular editor (Jytdog) and would like seek your advice on how to proceed.

Many months ago, I was harassed by a group of people who fabricated false claims about my private life on Wikipedia and made a series of blatantly untrue COI accusations against me. Due to this and other reasons, I made the decision in 2015 to switch to this secondary account of mine and have begun to use it as my primary account on Wikipedia. To protect my privacy, I did not disclose the name of my former account (which I have stopped using) and have avoided most of the articles I previously contributed to.

However, someone outed the name of my former account (which I disclosed several years ago on Wikimedia Commons) during the ArbCom GMO case. Although the drafting arbitrator quickly hatted this inappropriate and irrelevant outing attempt, the damage was already done since all participants of the GMO case including Jytdog had already seen the post.

Today, Jytdog has been edit-warring on my userpage by placing a link to my former account with the following edit summaries:

• "you have absolutely surrendered any clean start you might have had. Do not revert this." [3] (he is probably referring to an already expired sanction that I once had)
• "this is an illegitmate SOCK now, UNLESS you disclose it. If you revert, this goes to ANI and you will have no leg to stand on" [4]

Since you appear to have been dealing with him on a regular basis as a very experienced administrator, I wonder if you might be able to tell me if his accusations against me are indeed correct. Am I an "illegitimate sock" as he claims? If so, do I have to disclose the name of my former account (which I've stopped using) on my userpage? I abandoned my former account due to privacy reasons and am hesitant to put a link back to it since doing so will defeat the purpose of switching my account in the first place.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

-RoseL2P (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rose, I don't know any of the circumstances, but speaking generally, a clean start account will not return to the same editing issues as the previous account, and especially not any that are contentious. Now, if you have switched accounts because of harassment or outing, exceptions can be made, but usually that involves disclosing the old account name to some functionaries or to ArbCom.

As for being required to post your old account on your user page, the answer is that I don't know. I would say not, because you weren't socking in the sense of not telling anyone it was you. You just didn't tell many people, if I've understood you correctly. Or did you tell no one? I would need to know more to be able to judge. It's a moot point, though, because the old account name is known. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If MastCell's point in his edit summary is correct, namely that the old account was under a sanction, then that would make this a SOCK violation, especially if you returned to the same area of editing, or engaged in disputes with the same people. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I switched accounts partly because of the harassment and partly because I also wanted to take a break and move away from the controversial articles I previously edited. I previously told the administrator on Wiki Commons about my separate account and have been willing to disclose it at all times except not on my main userpage itself. As far as I'm aware, I have never returned to the same area of editing (not once) but I did get into a dispute with Jytdog back then. If I were to create a subpage for this disclosure (without linking to other places), do you think that might work out to be a suitable compromise? RoseL2P (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this at the moment, so I can't advise. Atlan says there are two active sanctions: 0RR on acupuncture and 1RR on alternative medicine. I'm assuming you didn't edit those articles with another account, because that would be a clear violation. Perhaps you could seek the advice of the admin(s) who imposed those sanctions. Point out with diffs where you acknowledged that you were the other account. If you did acknowledge it and were operating openly, I would say it's not a SOCK violation, but it will depend on when you did it, and whether people could have been expected to know when you gave evidence at the GMO case. If someone removed the identification during the GMO case, I'm wondering why this has become an issue now. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

RoseL2P abandoned their previous account right after receiving a 0RR restriction on Acupuncture and a 1RR restriction on pages related to alternative medicine. RoseL2P continued to edit in the alternative medicine topic area without revealing that they were under discretionary sanctions. This is obviously a violation of the clean start rules. In fact, RoseL2P's second edit after returning was at the GMO arbitration case as an "uninvolved editor", which is outright deception.--Atlan (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Rose revealed the previous account name in October 2015. [5] SarahSV ^(talk) 01:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's hardly a "reveal", although I will agree that they at least made the connection. However that was after several edits in the area of the restrictions.--Atlan (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In my view the minimum outcome is an indefinite block on the RoseL2P account. That is what we do to SOCKs. That is the minimum. I was actually just filing an SPI but will hold off on that to see what happens here. [ Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is done, since you wrote above that you are busy. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1candidate. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really care much about the alt-account tag, but I do care about honesty, and RoseL2P (talk · contribs) is being extremely dishonest here. The Rose2LP account's only contributions in 2016 have been to pursue wiki-litigation against myself and JzG, two admins against whom she holds grudges dating to her previous account. The RoseL2P account is being used solely to prosecute old disputes that began with the A1candidate account, and yet RoseL2P refuses to make the connection between the two accounts clear. This dishonesty is compounded by the false claim (above) that she hasn't gotten involved in old disputes with her new account. (In fact, she's done little else with it). Most recently, the RoseL2P account jumped in to a largely unrelated ArbCom case to make a lengthy plea for sanctions against JzG, without revealing that she had a long history of conflict with JzG under her previous account name (and without even revealing the existence of an alternate account). MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That is my take too User:MastCell. BBB is doing a pretty good job working through things at the SPI but I hope you weigh in there. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Fac/EmRata ... 5th, is it?

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For checking on the status of video images for Emily Ratajkowski. Though I wish the result didn't turn out the way it did, it was still great work. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

GRuban, many thanks for this. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. More on the same line. Or at least on the "tell me your secret" line. I have found a similarly Vimeo creative-commons licensed promo spot that will likely contain an image we could use for the article Theresa Caputo : https://vimeo.com/104107122. Clearly the user is the company that made the spot. Also clearly the spot was made for a television channel. A few days ago I would have happily have done a screenshot, uploaded, and gone on with life. Now I am wary. Please, what is the magic invocation you used to get the other Vimeo user to respond to you so quickly, so I can try it here? --GRuban (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I would email Caputo and ask her for a free image of herself, rather than taking it from a video. Article subjects are usually happy to provide one. As for the video, it will be owned by whoever made Long Island Medium. Wikipedia says the production company is Magilla Entertainment, so either they or TLC own it. There is no chance of them releasing it. You could write to Fogomotion and ask them, but I can't imagine that they would own the copyright. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Not in my experience - I've mailed plenty of article subjects, and the overwhelming majority don't respond, ever. A few do, but very few. That's why I want your magic formula. Could you tell me what you wrote? --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a magic formula. I just ask for a free image, explain what I mean by "free," send them links to the Creative Commons licence so they can read it, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock Kashmir Window Page

I want to create this page it is blocked by you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_window&action=edit&redlink=1

Kashmirlife142260 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kashmirlife142260, I see that you've used Articles for Creation and draftspace before. That would be the best way to proceed with Kashmir Window too. The reason it was deleted is that there were no sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Staff of the Vienna Ambulatorium.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Staff of the Vienna Ambulatorium.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)