Jump to content

User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Watten again

[edit]

The protection has expired at Barrett Watten and we had an addition describing the sanctions. I suggest putting the protection back and revdel the addition. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's done. Thanks for reverting and letting me know. SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wondered how long it would take for something to happen after the protection expired. Now we know. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add the extended-confirmed protection indefinitely, but a message appeared saying the time was invalid, so I reduced it to six months. I then noticed from my contributions that the first protection seemed to work, so I don't know what happened. I'll ask later at the village pump or somewhere. Ideally there should be no gaps in protection at that page. SarahSV (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

I have created a link for my email address. I have a cornucopia of off-wiki evidence.GDX420 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photography of the Holocaust

[edit]

I stubbed this as main for Category:Holocaust photographs, where I think you worked on many if not most of the articles contained there. I think this is something we could try to expand, if you'd be interested? I think the topic is very much notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SV, I am really distressed about how we seem to be getting off on the wrong foot at the PJ article. May I ask again whether you'd be interested in reviewing/expanding the article I linked in the heading above? Also, your input would be welcome in the source review at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom (where there is also a recent suggestion to rename the article). Last but not least, how are we doing with the restructuring of The Holocaust article we discussed late last year? In the end, PJ is a super niche topic, I think we should take a nice cup of WP:TEA, and rather than stress over a topic that is effectively a footnote to a footnote, we can do a much better job for our readers by improving some higher profile articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Piotrus, please read this 2018 post from Valereee again. That's the problem. It isn't PJ alone.
I want to take what Jan Grabowski wrote seriously and look for solutions that will apply across the board to these articles, not only to Holocaust articles. SarahSV (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your point is. Grabowski is a reliable historian which is why I copied his reviews to various article's talk page, but he is an amateur re Wikipedia, and clearly doesn't understand how the project works. Which is what I said in my polemic published by the same newspaper ([1]). I totally agree we need broad ranges solutions, which is why in said polemic I wrote that the simple solutions is for experts like Grabowski to join us here as fellow volunteers. Unfortunately, few weeks have passed, and I still don't see any professional historian familiar with Polish-Jewish history or such doing so. It's easy to criticize, it's much harder to actually do something constructive like do a literature review and (re)write an article. There is a lesson in this as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Coleman

[edit]

Hi there it's been a while. I just noticed the article above. Haven't checked out thoroughly but looks self-written and promotional, the subject appears to be anti-vax, and has recently published videos on YouTube claiming that cvirus is harmless. See eg. this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8sQQvqvrE . I went to Wikipedia to check him out, but there is nothing in the article itself suggesting any warning signs. Your thoughts welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, good to hear from you. The only thing I remember about that person is he was a doctor, a syndicated columnist, and author of How to Stop Your Doctor Killing You. :) SarahSV (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha it's just been stubbed [2] - "hopeless mess full of self-published references per WP:TNT. Notability". In other news, it's getting pretty scary here in London. Keep well. Peter Damian (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP has restored the article so WP:Articles for deletion/Vernon Coleman (2nd nomination). He may even be notable (I'm not convinced) but WP:TNT certainly applies. EEng 14:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help on an article

[edit]

Hi SlimVirgin! I'm looking for help and advice on an article I've recently expanded, GirlsDoPorn, about a long-term case of widespread sexual abuse in the porn industry. I'm reaching out to you because I saw you've worked on some topics with serious and disturbing themes, like Female genital mutilation, Mass sexual assault in Egypt and Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Certainly GirlsDoPorn is one of the most disturbing true stories I've encountered.

I'm looking for help with any aspect of the article, which I'm planning to maybe nominate at DYK and GA soon. But in particular, I'm less confident with some of the legal aspects of the article. I don't know if you have any legal knowledge but I'd certainly appreciate another opinion regardless. I've used a lot of language like "alleged" or "reported" or "according to X" wherever a potentially legally damaging claim is made, to make sure I'm complying with WP:BLP. However, I'd like to be using the minimal amount of qualifiers that is appropriate, because I think such qualifiers can undermine the realities of what the women involved experienced. Given that the lawsuit resulted in the plaintiffs being awarded damages, what if anything can we state as fact? Or is there a more elegant way to attribute information to its source than repeated usage of "alleged" etc.?

If you're not interested in working on the article, thanks for reading this anyway! Best wishes. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, I took a look, but that's an article I really have no interest in working on. I'm sorry that I can't help. As for attributing information to sources, make sure the source is a high-quality reliable source for anything sensitive, then simply say "According to the New York Times", and quote them if necessary. But if you feel it might cause you a legal issue, don't publish it. If it's something you feel is important, open a discussion at WP:RS or WP:BLPN if it involves living people. SarahSV (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem. Thanks for the reply! — Bilorv (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Death march from Dachau.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Death march from Dachau.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]
Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Captain Raju. SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Death march from Dachau.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Death march from Dachau.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. buidhe 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT Consensus on an improved version of the lead for COVID-19

[edit]

Hey SlimVirgin,

please vote here to reach a quick consensus and remove the misleading sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Another_thought

It it much more precise now. We can improve further if you have comments but at least let's make a first step in the right direction!

Thanks,

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Compromise_of_all_positions for another attempt at broader compromise --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best compromise to COVID-19 lead

[edit]

Hi there. I note your interest in the COVID-19 lead and the issues surrounding the current edit. Please let’s clear this thing up once and for all, and reach a quick consensus if possible. I’ve included below a link for you to vote on a best compromise. Current edit as it stands is quite misleading and more damaging the longer it is up given that people will read it and freely socialise thinking that as long as nobody coughs at them then they’re all good.

This is a compromise between leaving out the ‘primarily’ which therefore mentions coughing as though it’s the only way droplets are formed (per current misleading edit), and the other side which is actually mentioning exhaling and sneezing. This way, the primary method is stated, no secondary methods stated, and the reader knows that other forms of droplet production are possible.

Please vote using the link below, thanks in advance. Magna19 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Compromise_of_all_positions

I agree we could edit it further but we need to reach consensus and finally CLOSE this RFC. We can then use more appropriate methods of editing single phrases. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#/*_How_to_write_an_RFC_*/_new_section where you are also mentioned. I hope you agree the proposed compromise vastly improved the currently misleading one. With three supports plus Doc James's we can probably start seeing some consensus forming. One step at the time and we will get there. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks to your and others voting against some other proposals we are approaching consensus for option 3b (currently 6 to 1 in favor). It is exactly what you requested in another comment. Please show support? quicklink. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin/March_2020&oldid=957401654"