User talk:SlimVirgin/July 2014

Alternate TOU

The Talk page of the COI guideline has become very confusing, especially because of the structure.

The current TOU says "disclose your employer, client, and affiliation". I would hope the RfC would include an option more along the lines of "disclose a financial connection or conflict of interest" which requires disclosure of the COI, but not of personal information like an employer. The James Butts page is a good example where I was hired by a concerned relative of the article-subject, not the subject themselves, and it would be an unnecessary disclosure of personal information to force me to disclose the client's name, as technically required by the TOU.

I'm not sure if there is a good place for me to propose this or if it is too late because the RfC has already been formulated, or where the best place to bring it up was. I thought you might be able to help. Currently my brain is fried from working myself ragged CorporateM (Talk) 19:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CM, the RfC is currently being formulated (see the section called something like RfC 2 at the end). One is the current COI guideline, the other not yet completed. The current guideline says editors should disclose the connection, but not does not require giving names. So that will be one option in the RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted over there. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find anywhere on Wikipedia where the discussions are thoughtful. Anyways, I will not be outing myself regardless of the outcome. Someone would have to be pretty dense to find a problem with a disclosed COI creating GAs, because I have not disclosed my real-name or company name. CorporateM (Talk) 23:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look into this Conflict of interest/ sock puppet issue and possibly block certain accounts?

I strongly believe that employees of Advisorshares, fund.com and/or Arrow Invesment Advisors are editing the “Advisorsshares” and "Fund.com" Wikipedia pages. First of all, Advisorshares and Arrow Invesment Advisors are both based in Maryland and there have been an unusual amount of ip edits in the history sections that come from near both firms headquarters in Maryland according to Wikipeida’s suggested geotag sites. In fact one edit on the Fund.com page from March 20, 2014 the ip address 71.178.252.123 traced back to ARROW INVESTMENT ADVISORS using the WHOIS tool. Other IP address from around the firms’ headquarters in Bethesda Maryland, include: 50.242.249.233, 70.192.219.184, 96.231.135.99, 75.103.6.172, 96.231.154.15, 72.83.136.15

An account with the username “AdvisorShares” made an edit before it was banned on Feb. 14, 2014. There’s a large possibility that this was a paid employee of Advisorshares trying to put an ‘official’ entry, which is just firm marketing material. This account was quickly blocked by IronGargoyle.

These two usernames seem to be sock puppets of the same user (probably an Advisorshares or fund.com employee): UserNameUnderContruction which edited the “Advisorshares” page and “ETFinvestor” which edited the Fund.com page. They deleted basically the same sentence on May 26 and May 27 respectively. On the Advisorshares history it took away 331 bytes in the history and on the fund.com page it took away 337 bytes. Other possible sock puppets of this same user include, Babylon1894 and Jigsaw574.

UserNameUnderConstruction has been warned twice on their talk page that if they are a paid employee of a company whose page they are editing, they need to declare it. Both times they avoid answering if they are a paid employee or representative and claim that other users can’t make such assumptions. UserNameUnderConstruction has twice accused use "Sargdub" of being a sockpupppet of ETFCanadian on the talk pages of Advisorshares and fund.com, even though Sargdub has been a user since 2010 and is from New Zealand.Tempaccount45 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tempaccount45, if this hasn't been dealt with yet, the place to ask about it is WP:COIN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Brand

TFA: what a story! Thank you, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the TFA is over! :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brand

Hi. Why did you just revert my edit? (& what does "ce", your edit summary, mean?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, sorry, you didn't. oops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 07:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

Hi Slimvirgin. I was wondering if you had the interest to take a look here? I believe phrases like "These agencies have articulated a clear message: they intend to do right by Wikipedia as well as their clients" is a promotional COI edit, as well as removing a balanced analysis and insisting on a large repository of links per WP:NOT. However, no accurate content-based arguments were used to justify reverting my changes. I do not want to get involved in a dispute with WWBTWO, so I will move on, but I hope someone will take enough of an interest to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CM, I'm sorry, I feel a bit burned out over those issues. Also, I'm thinking that it's probably best to let leave it, given that they wrote the statement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays says that nobody owns an essay and that everyone can improve them + I didn't change the actual statement, just the promotion of it. But I just dropped a note at COIN and moved on. Yah, you've really taken on some pretty rough projects recently. I've had a couple instances where it took me three months to fight off POV pushers and each one has drained me enough such that I pretty much just let them have their way now and move on. But at the same time I feel like someone has to take on the thankless task. CorporateM (Talk) 23:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Brand

Sorry, saw your message only after I've changed again the Joel Brand page - I'll wait for an agreement, next time.

Fact is that "British government" is singular, and "They" is plural. Hard to have them agree, grammatically. Besides, since the arrest happened in Turkey (by the article), the arrssting agents could be anybody: the turkish police, british agents, whoever. That's why I prefer a passive structure of the sentence. By your editing the article oftener than I do, you're probably in a better position than I am to state more explicitly clear the link between the British government and Brand's arrest than it is now. Ngebendi (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for judge page

Hi SlimVirgin, Your edits on Systemic Bias and Gender Gap brought my attention to upgrading the pages for prominent women on the Supreme Court. Over the last week I have made over twenty edits to the Sonia Sotomayor page in the hope of improving it from its current GA status to an FA status. She would be the first woman to have such a distinction on Wikipedia. The previous version of the page was deserving of a GA but not quite enough for an upgrade nomination. If you might consider joining me for an upgrade nomination to FA, then maybe you could read through the article whenever time allows now that it has been enhanced. Either way, it would be nice to see more prominent women recognized for their accomplishments. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lawrence, I'll certainly take a look at the article, but I'm afraid I won't be able to help take it to FAC. I have a few things on the backburner at the moment that I'd like to get finished, and I can't take on anything else. But I'll put it on my watchlist and will chip in if I can see a way to help. Best of luck, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin, Thanks for getting back, and there's no rush about reviewing the Sotomayor page now that I've completed the thirty edits I had planned there. I did have a brief question about whether anyone was updating the Wikimedia 5-year plan from 2010 which runs out this coming December 2014 (see "Wikimedia Foundation 2011–12 Annual Plan" (PDF).) It is almost certain that the 25% target for women editors by December 2014 is not in the cards, nor some of the other unattained goals, and I thought I would ask someone knowledgeable of such things if the new version of the 5-year plan (2015-2020) is being rewritten/updated by someone? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lawrence, I'd have to look around on meta for you. I don't know off the top of my head. Certainly, the 25 percent was not met, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR off?

Sarah, my JSTOR access went off yesterday and hasn't come back – you should check yours. As it happens, I have a "telephone interview" with the new WMF director scheduled for this evening, during which I intend to raise the issue of how this access is being managed. Brianboulton (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Hi! The Wikipedia Library is now managing the WP:JSTOR partnership. It was originally planned to expire in January and JSTOR generously extended access for the original 100 signups until July 15th while we negotiated an expansion. Since then 400 new accounts have been donated and the original 100 have approval to be renewed for 500 total accounts. It took us a few days to process those 400 new signups. Now an email form will be sent out to every editor via a script. We'll collect responses in a spreadsheet and share it with JSTOR next week. Then JSTOR will send out new access. We had to do it that way for privacy reasons: the original 100 had only agreed to share their information with WMF not The Wikipedia Library, so even the original signups will have to reaffirm they want the access. This will be good to avoid accounts that aren't used, but it will take another week or two. I apologize for the delay; we're working on having it out ASAP! Jake Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply and explanation. I appreciate what is being done to extend access, will await the email, and hope for restored access soon. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to edit batman soon please help me

Hi Ocaasi, thanks for sorting all this out. I'm starting to get JSTOR withdrawal symptoms! Brian, is that you wanting to edit Batman? :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bopping around the site

Hi. I was just bopping around the site and happened to be curious how many edits your user talk page has (over 8,300!) when I noticed the beautiful decor around here. File:Derkovits, Gyula - Sleeping Woman.jpg and File:Lueneburg 2010 006 (cropped 2).jpg are both visually stunning. Very nice finds! I'm certainly appreciative of resources such as Wikimedia Commons, despite its flaws, at times like these. Hope you're well and enjoying summer. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MZMcBride, it's nice to see you on my page. You're right, there's some great stuff on Commons. Hope all is well with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite

I already had the gender gap box on my page, and I thought I'd actually joined it, but I'm glad you sent the invite, because apparently, I had not.

As for the mess currently stinking up the AN talk page. Wow! Ask one simple question... But here's my question for you, the objective of those strongly opposed to a civility board seems to me, direct the topic as quickly as possible to the use of language - and keep it there. If it's really all just about the right to use coarse language in mixed company (you should hear me with close friends and family), well that's a sad comment on the state of civil discourse in the English language project. Then it's just about being too lazy, stubborn, or cocky to be plain considerate of others. But I think it's about something much more than that... It's about power. The power of intimidation.

If you read the top of my discussion,[1][2] it wasn't really about name-calling! What I want is a board that oversees personal attacks and harassment. That might include bad language and name calling (in the real-world sense, like using 4-letter-words), but it's more likely (and this is what I had in mind) to be about personal attacks without evidence and harassment (like hounding). Those don't necessarily have anything to do with name-calling.

Thoughts about how to proceed productively? The best place to discuss this? How to phrase the proposal/question in a way that is least likely to be hijacked into talking about coarse names for male and female genitalia? I mean, what the hell? Also, DB closed down my ANI awfully quick. I've asked him to re-open it, but who knows. I thought it was a very aggressive move, especially his link to the Commons re: that word, which he said was about "text." Once click, and I was baraged with photos of female genitalia. Lightbreather (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a depressing discussion on AN/I, but not uncommon. I didn't look to see how long you've been around, Lightbreather, but this kind of thing has been discussed many times, and has become highly politicized. People are burned out. The best place to discuss this is either on the gender gap mailing list, or on the gender gap task force talk page. Try to get some consensus for the board and ideas about what to call it. I know that Carolmooredc had a similar idea. I think her idea was to re-open the Wikiquette board. Personally I'm not sure about it, because a lot of it will end up like the discussion you've just experienced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lowering page protection on Banana

Hi, I'm contacting you because the protection log indicates that you put Banana on indefinite semi-protect in 2010. Recently an IP editor requested that Banana be unprotected in the talk page, as it has been semi-protected for 4 years and is likely not still the target of specific vandalism. I agree with the other editor(s) over there saying that Banana is likely to be an ongoing target for vandals, but I'm thinking that we may want to lower the protection level to Pending Changes Level 1 protection instead of semi-protected, at least for a little bit to see if that dramatically increases the level of vandalism on that page. As I said in the talk page, I think pending changes protection tends to work pretty well for other high-profile pages, so I doubt it would cause any major problems on Banana.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 0x0077BE, I'll take a look, but I recall that it was a long-term vandalism target. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Ping me if you need semi back (or ask on RfPP). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I'll keep an eye on the page and let you know if the vandalism becomes problematic. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]