User talk:SlimVirgin/October 2015

Deletion of Beta Uprising

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.

---

Much as I despise this stupid subject, how was the deletion per WP:SNOW? --Rubbish computer 20:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rubbish computer, you're welcome to take it to WP:DRV. It's important, for obvious reasons, to make sure Wikipedia isn't responsible for spreading that idea. If you can produce secondary sources out there discussing it, you're welcome to post those at DRV. Sarah ^(talk) 20:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Isn't responsible for spreading that idea." Do we need one of those Speedy Delete Codes for "Dangerous idea, needs to be censored"? Because I'm pretty sure none of the existing codes cover this deletion. See you at DRV. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What type of speedy is this? Terrible. Many people thought it should be kept. You don't even have a criteria for speedy under this condition! Not a snow close at all. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

HUH and WTF? oh for the luv of god Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: It looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid CSD now. Already nominated for WP:DRV. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello SV, I understand your caution about providing a platform about that belief (I'm no fan of it either^{understatement}) as it depends on a misogynist view of women, but it also takes online misogyny seriously and the article wasn't going to be a simple soapbox for any view. See the bottom subsection, for instance, which included comments by gender scholars. As Wnt suggested, Wikipedia doesn't restrict ideas based on odiousness. Also, the BBC News source predated the article by a day (discretely) and The Frisky even by two days (discretely). Darth Viller (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As a serious fucking feminist the deletion fucking seriously troubles me. OK sorry about all that, but what is going on anyway? How does one go about to bring that article back? Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: See here. Darth Viller (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, Chess, Gandydancer and Darth Viller, as you know, it's a question of sourcing. With something like this the first version needs to have solid secondary sourcing so that Wikipedia isn't leading with it. Darth, I saw no scholars using the term. The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on, though you could perhaps add the phrase to another relevant article.

If you believe the article ought to exist, please do take it to DRV. Sarah ^(talk) 20:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Point taken - though I didn't mention the scholars for notability. Darth Viller (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Darth Viller, another option is for you to create Draft:Beta Uprising and gain consensus to move it into mainspace. That would prevent Google picking it up before a solidly sourced version exists. If you would like to do that, I can email you the article if you didn't keep a copy. Sarah ^(talk) 20:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: No, he does not have to create any sort of draft because one admin decided to supervote and delete his article. You bypassed the AFD process, and you do not get to demand any sort of movement to Draft:Beta Uprising. We do not need consensus to create an article. That completely goes against Wikipedia's policies in an incredibly large amount of ways. Do you understand article creation? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: No... You are completely wrong. You do not get to decide the question of sourcing. That is what the WP:AFD process is for. This "first version" does not need "solid secondary sourcing". It needs to be notable. If it is not, we discuss using the articles for deletion process. The needing of "solid secondary sourcing" is not even close to a valid CSD criterion. Just because no "scholars" used this term doesn't mean it is not notable. What makes it notable is coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Not "scholars" as defined by you. If you think that the article isn't notable based on some secondary sources not meeting your standards, then mention that in the deletion discussion. Don't supervote because you're an admin. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This was an admin action based on my view that we were about to cause this idea to spread, rather than simply reporting it. When handling material like this, it matters that we follow and not lead. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have multiple experienced editors involved in the decision to publish this. That can be done via deletion review, or via articles for creation and the draft process. Creating Draft:Beta Uprising would seem to be a sensible way forward. Sarah ^(talk) 20:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Where in policy does it state that "we follow and not lead"? You can't just bypass consensus by stating that something is an "admin action". Admins are supposed to carry out the wishes out of the community. Not bypass them. On another note, can I ask if your personal beliefs are perhaps getting in the way of proper stewardship of Wikipedia? I can see that you are a proud feminist based on your GGTF activity, and I must ask if you are letting that get in the way of editing the articles covering proudly anti-feminist material such as Beta Uprising. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say, I somewhere find the idea of a draft version appealing. The insane amount of vandalism was ridiculous so I suspected there may have been a thread on 4Chan and lo what (content warning for anti-Semitic memes) did I find on /r9k/? Something less accessible to them would be nice in the incubational phase. I'm completely unfamiliar with it, though. Could others still contribute? Darth Viller (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Chess:, @Gandydancer:, @Rubbish computer:, @Wnt:, maybe @EamonnPKeane: too, what are your thoughts on this? Darth Viller (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait for the results of the DRV discussion, and see what happens there. I just don't want to legitimize any sort of bypassing of consensus by User:SlimVirgin, as well. What we should do, in my opinion, is restore the article, and let the AfD run its full course of 7 days. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I readily admit I am not familiar with how wikipedia works in terms of getting things removed, but I just don't understand how this could possible be an article. I stated something similar on the talk page before it was deleted, but the entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on r9k, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on r9k, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Poe's law. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you could say that, but if the entire premise of the article is predicated on the fact that there is a movement afoot for some sort of social revolution, using the actions of one person and their supposed postings as evidence, when it is entirely possible, and in fact becoming more probable that they never posted the statement in question and did not hold those views, how can you have that in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Forget him, there is no other instance that can even be brought up as an example of this supposed wide-spread simmering movement in action. It's just conjuncture based off of mis-information from bad reporting in the moments after a tragedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, nobody in his/her right mind thought there was any imminent uprising. And the article was clear that the attribution to the killer was speculation. The thing is, the media sources didn't yet state the facetiousness involved, except in two Reddit comments that two articles quoted. Needless to say Reddit comments aren't good sources normally - though the media articles themselves also relied on them. Darth Viller (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What you say is all true, but it is that lack of significant mention about the facetiousness in the media articles that I think is the issue. Most articles are taking the issue super seriously, and writing a wikipedia article at this time lends that viewpoint credence, because, let's face it, there are a significant number of people who will google the term, end up here, and think it's a real movement. So, even if, a week or two down the line, it becomes clear that the killer did not hold the views in question at all, and that any post related to the matter on places like /r9k/ or reddit are satire, there wont be new media articles saying we were wrong, it was all just some inside-joke, none of these events are related. We will have a wikipedia article that will have been viewed however by many people, perhaps even media personal themselves looking up information to write further articles, that presents the this movement as something taken seriously by people, and that is causing actual harm to other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Darth Viller, I'm about to go offline, so let me know soon if you need me to do anything else. The draft article can be edited by others and there's a talk page too. Everything is the same, except that the article isn't in mainspace and isn't picked up by Google. You can work on it quietly there, with others, then decide whether it's ready to carry over. The best way to do that is through Wikipedia:Articles for creation or you can add it directly if there's consensus. All you have to do is add your draft to Draft: Beta Uprising. Sarah ^(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned a shift to draft space can wait a few days, at least until I've had the others' feedback. Darth Viller (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people think the article should've never been deleted in the first place. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem now is that I can't remember everything that was in the article perfectly. I thought it seemed too long for the subject, but that it was notable. Having said that, all the sources revolve around its connection to the shooting. I'd support creating a draft, but also think it would need indefinite semi-protection. --Rubbish computer 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit conflicting is my fault, I'm taking far too long to write this. --Rubbish computer 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Darth Viller, okay, thanks for the reply. As the article's at DRV, I'll close this thread, and you can ping me if you change your mind about the draft, assuming you need a copy of the article. Sarah ^(talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (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.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Manning Billboard.jpg

Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Manning Billboard.jpg. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ingrid Newkirk and Matthew Galkin by David Shankbone.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Ingrid Newkirk and Matthew Galkin by David Shankbone.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Revising connected contributor tags

Hi Slimvirgin, hope you're well. Last month you added connected contributor tags to a number of articles on which I have a conflict of interest. I appreciate the work you put in, and don't have a problem with that in itself, but I was hoping you could revise them; the company I represent is not a PR firm. While the work we do might look similar, PR is not our business. I didn't want to edit them myself and cause undue confusion. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at this and will reply on your page. Sarah ^(talk) 02:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review it. Our LinkedIn page describes our industry as PR, because there isn't a category for brand and reputation management. I think the description of our actual work on the same page distinguishes us, especially the first line, that we specialize in online reputation management. I can appreciate that the work might seem like literal public relations, but in terms of our actual business practices, we are not in fact a PR firm.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Leo Frank has been listed as a Good Article. Well done for playing your part by developing the article from 2006 to 2011.

This user helped promote Leo Frank to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, SilkTork, that's much appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to review it. Sarah ^(talk) 00:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Karl Wittgenstein.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Karl Wittgenstein.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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) 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:T.S. Eliot, 1923.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:T.S. Eliot, 1923.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with BLP

Hi SV. There is a IP BLP subject who is asking for help on the career section of his BLP article. They have proposed edits and sources on the talk page, as I requested that they do, but I would like some help evaluating the sources and giving proper weight from a more experienced editor. If you have some time, could you take a look at Talk:Ariel Fernandez. This article for some reason has been the subject of disputes in the past - I do not know the history, having not looked into it too deeply. Minor4th 15:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You have done a very good Job

	Special Congrats Slim Virgin
	Your work has been apreciated irrespective of how weird your username is here on wikipedia.... Still keep up the food work! HRI$HIKE$H (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Teacher blocked

Slim, I just happened quite by accident to note the block of the teacher who was teaching her kids about reliability problems with Wikipedia. Has this place gone nuts, or what? I have long said that a better percentage of women editors would change the way this place is "run" and that affair is a good example. The whole thing is like an old Andy Griffith comedy episode where Andy is out of town and Barney is running the sheriff's office and Aunt Bea is the only one around that has a lick of sense. With you as Aunt Bea. Maybe it's just me, but I can't believe that we'd see this sort of foolishness going on if we had more women here. Well, less of it anyway. We must be the laughing stock of that school. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a female editor, feel free to address this on my talk page. I also subscribe to the Gendergap list (is this being discussed there? I haven't checked.) Personally as a woman I'd feel more comfortable editing here if I knew people weren't talking behind my back! Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I do not find fault with you personally. My concern is the Wikipedia culture that I witnessed. I did not mean to be speaking behind your back. However, I regret my post and will strike it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please unblock the teacher

Given the blocking admin has greenlit reversal [1]. NE Ent 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done that at the ANI discussion as well. Care to take any of this to my talk page? Valfontis (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've left a reply on Valfontis's page. Sarah ^(talk) 19:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi SV. I noticed your new signature at AN/I just now. Do you think it may be confused for that of User:Sarah? --John (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks, I'll give it some thought. Sarah ^(talk) 19:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally dislike signatures that don't match account names, although the community has chosen to accept them. The "Sarah(SV)" one you were using before would address both concerns [2] NE Ent 20:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I know I don't have exclusivity on the name Sarah but I personally don't care for it. Judging by the pings I get, it seems to confuse enough people and I think it makes discussion pages confusing to read. Something to differentiate the two accounts would be good. Sarah 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi NE Ent and Sarah, I do prefer signing as Sarah, but I've tweaked it to SarahSV and will see how I feel using that instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)