User talk:SlimVirgin/October 2019

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SlimVirgin/October 2019,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Epstein and a NYT piece

Hi Slim,

I've been thinking to contact you about the Epstein BLP. I've pinged you to the RS/N in case you can help suss out whether the NYT can be used to portray Epstein's first and most-known accuser, Virginia Guiffre, as someone who makes inaccurate statements. The NYT makes a statement and links to a 2,000 page document, which luckily Newslinger dug through to find the source material. I would love your input into whether WP's interpretation of NYT's summary of that material is accurate. With many thanks, petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, I didn't get your ping, but I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You are most appreciated, Sarah. petrarchan47คุก 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I'm not sure if you carefully read all that Newslinger has written, but one line I feel is important. I've started a thread at his page, and thought since my pings don't work, I'd just add a link here. The WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline is apparently in need of clarification. If all editors understood it the way it was meant to be, we would never have had the issue at the Epstein article to begin with. petrarchan47คุก 19:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Sarah. I see that you have washed your hands of the Clinton drama, but I wonder if you can point me in the right direction for help? I am truly at a loss. As you may have observed, people are reading the same words but interpreting them differently. At the noticeboard people are making sense, but at the Epstein article, only those who interpret "a claim" as "the claim" are participating, and they are insisting on keeping mention of Clinton allegations out of the article unless we can use the contrived NYT rebuttal. Is this something I should take to AE? Any advice would be much appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"only those who interpret "a claim" as "the claim" are participating," because that's the only correct way to interpret it, as three editors have indicated by removing your content, as you have sought "consensus" for your interpretation via a backchannel rather than Talk soibangla (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47 and Soibangla: I see I've been pinged again elsewhere. I can only draw your attention to my recent post about that being my final comment. I would have to do more reading and know how the source is going to be used, and I don't have the time or interest. In general, my advice is to err on the side of caution with BLP issues, and if the NYT source isn't helping, find another source. If there isn't one, that's a sign that perhaps there's been a misunderstanding. But regardless, I really can't comment on it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I confess I am really at a loss to understand why you decline to answer the question with a simple A or B, but it is what it is, and it may result in an outright transparent falsehood being incorporated into an article for the evident purpose of smearing someone. And that would be a disgrace. soibangla (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for weighing in at the RS/N, it really was helpful. Newslinger has decided to help out at the Epstein talk page so I think we'll be OK. I regret that this turned into drama on your talk page. I didn't see that coming. Again, thanks, and enjoy ~ petrarchan47คุก 21:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Peel COI edit request 9-OCT-2019

Hello! At Talk:Robert Peel (Christian Science) you had asked the COI editor some questions regarding their publishing sequence. Those questions have now been answered, and I wanted to check with you to see if you had read them and if there was anything else you wanted to add to the discussion before I closed the request. Thank you in advance for any time you can spare on this. Warm regards,  Spintendo  06:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I'll reply shortly. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Referencing and footnotes assistance

Hi SV, I'm helping out on an article on Abū_al-Faraj_al-Iṣfahānī with quite complex references and footnotes. I think that separate 'references' and 'works cited' (e.g. in the style of this article) would work better for it but I'm not familiar with how to implement it (I usually stick to science articles where just referencing with cite_journal is pretty simple). Given your experience with articles using that sort of referencing, would you be able to drop by and lend a hand? Thanks in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, sorry to be so slow to respond. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. Implementing the format you see in the Angelou article is easy enough. Create a "Works cited" section and list the long citations there, e.g. "McPherson, Dolly A. (1990). Order Out of Chaos: The Autobiographical Works of Maya Angelou. New York: Peter Lang Publishing." Then in the text itself, list the short cite, e.g. <ref>McPherson 1990, p. 1.</ref> There are fancy ways to do it with templates so that the long and short citations are linked, if that's what you meant. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It fianlly makes sense what that {{sfn}} template is actually doing! I guess it's a fancier way of making a linked version of <ref>McPherson 1990, p. 1.</ref>. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

With the added benefit of dealing with repeated refs to the same source/page without having to use named-refs. - Donald Albury 21:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Random question

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I have a pretty random question. I noticed that you recently removed a CliffsNotes source from the Night as an unreliable source. It led me to wonder if CliffNotes or SparkNotes are considered unreliable sources for Wikipedia? Apologies if this has already been covered on RSN. I admit that I have not checked the noticeboard's archives to see if a consensus was reached on this matter; I vaguely remember asking about this in the forum a while back, but I do not think it generated much conversation. Is it a case where these "notes" are considered unreliable in general or are they discouraged because as I would imagine, the same (or similar) information could be found and sourced to higher-quality literary analysis articles? I was just curious because I do not want to accidentally introduce bad sources if I ever work on a literature-related article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, I should go back and make a null edit to correct my edit summary. What I meant was that it's not an appropriate source for an FA. It's a tertiary source aimed at schools and perhaps intended more for background reading, but it may be a reliable source in general. I don't know. The best place to ask is at WP:RSN. As you say, when writing about literature, it's better to use scholarly sources if they're available. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, and that makes sense to me. In the future, I will ask RSN if I ever work on a literature-related article, but I agree that it would be best to keep to scholarly sources. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge

Euf, not my finest edits. I think I'll leave it to ye guys to build up the page, and if ye need review at any stage, ping for talk page suggestion. Its a very worthy project, and I intended only to offer support Ceoil (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Ceoil. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you have time

to consider Gruban's email. I think it would be very good if we were to work together on this. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I haven't received any emails about this. I'm not able to nominate, if that's what you're wondering, because of time constraints as much as anything else. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Then I must have misunderstood something. Nothing broken :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

ohlfsen article

Uploaded at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dora_Ohlfsen-Bagge --valereee (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, thank you so much for doing that. I see now why the article helped to launch her. I'll leave a note about it on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Houthi movement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Houthi movement. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)