User talk:SlimVirgin/September 2017

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy...

I see your name and recognize it. Contrats, you have enough notoriety to be bothered I guess.

So... When an OTRS ticket is owned by "Admin OTRS" ... that means it's open? It looks an awful lot like that's the default setting for unclaimed tickets. Sorry, but I'm mostly just trying not to break anything. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Replying elsewhere. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your thank you. Since you pretty active, please, if you see a source that would help me with any Women's health article. You are welcome just to leave a ref on the talk page of the article. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 08:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that is a great source you added under further reading. I would like to use it as a resource for more content for the article. My question is: if the source is extensively used in the article, is it still appropriate as 'further reading'? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉

Hi Barbara, thanks again for creating the article. I've moved the further-reading refs into the text as references, and I removed some of the general references about what sexism is, because that's fairly well-established. Please do mine the references that were in FR; they make some excellent points. If I find others, I may add them to FR as a first step, but always feel free to move them into the text as references. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I knew it! Somewhere, sometime, with someone - actual collaboration. This is the way to edit. I am going to adopt your strategy. I often run across sources that apply to a variety of topics and add them. Unfortunately, my random edits to add small amounts of content are often reverted. I add content and refs in large batches to counteract such 'help'. Having your sources on hand helps me to edit this way. Beast Regards, 11:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

ps - I actually believe your fgm article should have been nominated for a Pulitzer prize. Wouldn't that be something?

Writing it took ten years off my life, so a Pulitzer would be a nice acknowledgement! I'm always happy to help look for sources, so give me a shout if you need that, and if I come across any more for sexism in medicine, I'll leave them in FR or on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to take another look at the article? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

Jill Valentine has been renominated for FAC. While you are, of course, entitled to comment on it, it probably won't surprise you to learn that I don't particularly want you to, but my reasoning for this is not because you opposed the first nomination. Ealdgyth also opposed but I'm looking forward to hearing her comments on the nomination, particularly because she did such a good job of explaining her reasoning behind her concerns, and even went as far as to explain what your possible reasoning was on one point: [1]. I had expressed my frustration over this particular issue more than once but you never explained why you wanted me to check ordinary statements cited to offline sources. Anyway I've contacted everyone else who either supported or opposed so I didn't want to be accused of bias by not notifying you. If you have no intentions to comment on the renomination, by all means, please ignore this message and have a nice day. If you do intend to comment on it, please take note of the following:

• The article no longer has any issues with dead URLs. It never actually did in the first place, the citations were just tagged incorrectly.
• I've personally checked all the offline sources. I can email you scans if you like.
• I've removed 100% of the sources Ealdgyth said did not meet the 'high-quality' standard.
• I've added several new, high-quality sources to the article, and have expanded several sections, also adding an entire paragraph on when versions of Jill's costumes appear; you cited a lack of information on when costumes were offered in your oppose.
• I've reworded the article so as to clarify there are no contradictions regarding Jill's abilities, despite what point 6 of your draft oppose said at the original nomination.

Freikorp (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ghostwriting pt 2

Hi Slim (not sure what you prefer to be called, but Slim sounds pretty cool)...

Re [2], I did a search for "Ghostwriting" today, and found that Wikipedia only has a page for "Ghost Writer". This modern incarnation of industry writing their own positive reviews and studies has no page. The article only mentions it, but does not even have a red link. It says, "Ghostwriting (or simply "ghosting") also occurs in other creative fields. Composers have long hired ghostwriters to help them to write musical pieces and songs...".

So I wonder if this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html?mcubz=3 has yet been added to Wikipedia. I did a word search for "ghostwriting" on the "Monsanto" page but nothing came up.

I suppose a new page needs to be created, but I haven't got a whole lot of free time anymore. Just thought I would alert you and others to this omission.

Be well, petrarchan47คุก 21:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Petra, I miss you and your excellent edits. Yes, Slim. I like to call her that too. It makes me feel like a cowboy--all those Zane Grey novels I read when I was young. Anyway, good find. I used the March article (Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents) to add a section at the EPA. (Feel free to improve it.) I just don't think I'm up to tackling Monsanto but would be glad to help. We used to have a nice bunch of editors willing to fight the upstream battle but I think that they've mostly been hounded off. BTW, I had to chuckle at that NYT quote "the science is not settled". Gandydancer (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Petrarchan47 and Gandydancer, I just saw this. That should probably be added to appropropiate articles, including the Miller BLP. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer and Slim ~ thanks for your replies. I thought we had a crew who was completely committed to all things Monsanto? No? Look at the number of edits to the related articles by user, and you will see this is so. That is why I was stunned to find that none of the articles have been updated to reflect all this new information coming out. It's almost as if Wikipedia is slightly biased towards a large company, if the articles are left without relevant updates. I see that the Monsanto team is still quite active on WP. A bit like hall monitors in jr high, running about frantically and excitedly handing out warnings and tattling to the principle. With all that activity, the articles are left unattended. But Gandy makes a good point, if we weren't kicked in the shins by these bullies the moment we try to do some normal editing, the articles would be more reflective of the truth.

If Wikipedia truly has been taken over, in some areas anyway, by a gang of bullies such that the reader isn't getting a full picture of topics guarded by this group, then the reader should be alerted somehow. Only those readers who already know the latest will recognize that the articles are biased.

Maybe someone in media should do a piece on this phenomenon in order to warn the public. petrarchan47คุก 03:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The bulk of the available material suggests a need for the article Monsanto public relations practices. Sincerely, groupuscule (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Group, that is so interesting you would stop by here. I literally came back today to post your amazing diatribe [3] for folks to see. I just stumbled upon it today. I recommend people here read the whole thing, but salient bits for me:

...over the years, many good editors have spotted the apparent systematic manipulation in this area, and drawn attention to it in various places. Yet the situation doesn’t change; in fact, it gets worse. It poisons the air and undermines the fundamental optimism and trust on which this project relies.

If Wikipedia does not find a way to systematically deal with strategic manipulation by big players it will slowly become a playground for propagandists, and critical thinkers will treat it like some information-age Pravda.

The poisoning of the air is real. It is why I no longer edit here. To me, the fact that Wikipedia has not been able to deal with this problem shows WP is broken. Unless perhaps it was never meant to be a true encyclopedia. Unless it was never truly an enemy of censorship and propaganda, but would one day embrace it openly. When top editors openly admit to staying far from certain areas, like some dark, dog-ridden street on the outskirts of New Orleans, where even the cops won't come when called... you've got a problem. You've been taken over by the mob, folks. petrarchan47คุก 18:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to leave a good list of sources here: [4] and almost just left without saying anything more after reading Petra's holier-than-thou last post again. The smart, enlightened ones move on while we dopes just stay and do our best but to no avail. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Pings

I think your attempt to re-ping me[5] failed. If you look closely at the diff, you'll notice one of the diff-problems that I've been asking the WMF to fix (and which they consider less important than working on Visual-Everything). The blue highlighting starts in the middle of your old signature, and runs to the middle of the new signature. Technically that's a valid diff. Some of the new text matched the old text, and theoretically you could have inserted the text as seen in the diff. There are clues the software could use to get the diff right, but that's not the point here. Pings are generated when a diff contains a user-link and a signature. Due to the diff-glitch, the software that generates pings didn't see a signature in the diff. If you want to append a ping, it's best to do it on a new line.

Oh, and this reminds me of another request that the WMF declined. When you save an edit, a little popup appears a moment later saying it was successfully saved. That popup should note any pings that were sent. Alsee (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, thanks for letting me know. This is very interesting. I've asked the Foundation a couple of times to fix notifications, but I've never followed through. I don't have a technical background, so all I can ever say is "I want to be able to do X", witbout being able to explain properly what I mean. We need a one-click thing, and a pop-up to say that it worked. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Greenaway

Thanks for commenting there yesterday. Would you like to pitch in? I asked Kafka Liz and she's showing some interest. I'm only about half way through the reading and I might have to buy a biography that's not available online, so it would be a very slow project. I'm not really interested in sending it to review; simply to building up the page to decent stage. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Victoria, it's nice to see you around again. I don't think I'll have the time or energy to help much, especially the energy (I feel exhausted for some reason), but it's on my watchlist and I can chip in with opinions. I'll take a look around though. Maybe I'll get interested if I read around a bit. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt I'll get back to it until the weekend or maybe even next week. In other words, I'm here but on a very limited basis. Would love to have your opinions once I start expanding sections, but no pressure at all. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Different topic, but I noticed the message below and took a look at that FAC, thinking I might review it. Having read through it and the previous one, I'm not inclined to jump in, but I did get curious and went off looking for sources (as I'm wont to do). You may have already done this, but thought I'd leave you these links. Here are the results from Google Scholar, and here's an interesting book [6]. As we know, it's best not to mine info from only single pages on g-books without reading entire chapters for the full context, but the little bit I skimmed looked interesting - particularly that she survived the zombie virus and the info re racism. Also, I skimmed some of the papers that were viewable on Scholar and found interesting information. I was going to post this information on the FAC, but, well, it's not one I want to be involved in. You deserve a few barnstars for the reviewing, as does Ealdgyth. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Victoria, thanks for the words of encouragement and the source. The point about racism is interesting. I'll suggest it on the FAC page. I'm not convinced all the sources have been mined, including the games themselves. Perhaps I should get one out and play it! SarahSV ^(talk) 23:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine FAC

Hello. I do not think we have talked in the past, but I just wanted to let you know that I greatly respect your work on Wikipedia. Thank you for the in-depth commentary that you have provided on the Jill Valentine FAC. Your comments were very informative (not that you need for me to tell you that lol), and they have actually helped me to reflect on my contributions for reviewing FACs in the past. I admit my review for this FAC was not the best and was superficial. I will probably just avoid conducting reviews on the FAC until I feel more comfortable with my skills and I can truly help out with nominator and the article under review. I will definitely have to read through your essay in the future as I enjoy writing about fictional female characters on here so it will be very helpful for my future work (though I work on extremely silly content compared to your more serious work on here lol). As someone who has studied a lot of feminist theory and criticism in undergraduate and graduate school, it is nice to see someone else very involved with those fields on here. Hopefully, we can work together in the future or discuss some things about this sometime. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for all of that. I apologize for the super random and long message. I also apologize for the rather contentious language that was directed towards in the review as well. I hope that you are having a great day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, thank you for your lovely message. It's nice to have someone else around who cares about these issues, so if you ever need help, feel free to ping me. And if you have any ideas for the essay, you're always welcome to add them. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message! I will definitely let you know if I need any help in the future. Good luck with your projects on Wikipedia and offline. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why revert the page protection request?

Did I do it wrong? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I'm very sorry, that was unintended. I've reverted myself. When I load Wikipedia these days, the pages are jumping all over the place before they finally load. It leads to lots of misclicks, which is what must have happened here because I didn't even look at that page. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA discussion

I'm terribly sorry to see you being blamed in that discussion. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's such an odd way to look at it, though I'm making an effort to AGF. There's a lot I could say about this re: women on Wikipedia, but I'm trying not to say more, for now anyway. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: Also, I noticed today that your edit summary said "apology". I thought you were using "sorry" in the sense of regret, which is why I didn't say that you have nothing to apologize for, so I want to say it now. Hope all is well with you. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin/Policies links? and subtle prod to talk page watchers

So, there I was, trying to expand your closet (i.e., https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations#SlimVirgin ... cough, cough, talk page stalkers encouraged to weigh in), and to justify it by using specific links to your amazing policy contributions, only to notice that the specific version links from that page mostly go to last-edited-bys by other people? [7] [8] [9]. Not that I think that it will make the difference one way or the other, you've done an amazing amount for this little greatest single source of human knowledge, but for those who want to know the specific policy edits or versions you're proudest of, do you perhaps want to change those links to be more specific? --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

GRuban, thanks for doing that, but would you mind removing it? I've been through this before and was offered my t-shirt, but didn't take it up because I didn't want my address in their database. I asked if they'd send it to someone else for me, and to cut a long story short that led to requests for even more information, so I gave up. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. So sorry. :-( Will remove. --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 21:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)