User talk:SlimVirgin/September 2013

Sandbox moved.

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have archived my sandbox with my notes on the Chelsea Manning move request to User:BD2412/Chelsea Manning move request archive. I will be using the sandbox space for something else. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know, and thanks again for all your hard work on this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The work has just begun! This has exposed a number of policies in need of clarification and improvement. bd2412 T 04:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding your RFPP request

Hello SlimVirgin, I noticed your request at RFPP regarding talk:Bradley Manning. I pondered the matter and have a curious question that perhaps you can answer. If a talk page is protected, how is a protected edit request processed? Otherwise it seems that protecting a talk page effectively closes access completely for those with less permission. Thank you for considering this question. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in my view it would be better for people to create accounts to take part in the discussion or edit the article, given some of the views we've seen expressed, and how repetitive they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, and agree that it would be best as you described. It simply occurred to me that I'd never contemplated a talk page being protected where IPs would have a desire to request edits be accomplished on their behalf, and that I had no idea how this would occur. My initial research into the answer suggests that some work needs to be done; I am going to remain interested in this until I see most of it accomplished. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Antisemitism

Template:Antisemitism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. USchick (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Female genital mutilation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Female genital mutilation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, LT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dashes

Hi Slim; I'm travelling at the moment, in Europe, so not fast to respond. Yes, all three examples look fine. In the first, the items themselves are unspaced (2000 and 1700). In the second and third examples, both range openings and closings are spaced, because the BCE/CE signifier is part of the element in each case.

1. c. 2000–1700 BCE
2. c. 20 BCE – 50 CE
3. c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE

Tony (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis

Hello, as the person who formalized the introduction of WP:SYN, your opinion about whether or not it applies to the content as shown in this section The_White_Queen_(TV_series)#Historicity and is being discussed Talk:The_White_Queen_(TV_series)#Historical_inaccuracies_section_was_blatant_violation_of_WP:OR.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Manning timeline

Template:Manning timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Some notes for you

Posted here Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Some more detailed stuff posted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And another batch today. I see that it is now through GA - well done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Last batch now posted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reducing edit-conflicts

I finally saw the Buzilla entry about edit-conflicts in the Talk:_Manning page. It seems the developers were more focused on upgrades to VE, rather than improving rapid edits to talk-pages. Anyway, the following are tactics to try, when numerous people are editing the same talk-page:

• Create talk-subpages by topic (for example: Talk:_Manning/name, Talk:_Manning/leaks, or whatever major area of concern)
• Sometimes put a blank line above your reply (50-50% choice, because edit-conflicts are stopped by a blank line separator auto-inserted between "==Header==" sections; half of replies might respond with no space, or half might also put a blank link above the reply causing edit-conflict with other blank-line additions).
• Delay replies as 1 minute after prior talk-page revision (quick updates to a page tend to auto-erase the prior edit-SAVE if within 1 minute, so view history of talk-page and wait 1 minute ("60 seconds") if top revision just saved).

The most-effective tactic will be creation of separate subpages, which can be linked by "/<subpage>" such as "[[/name#Pronouns]]" to link thread named "Talk:_Manning/name#Pronouns" in the subpage "/name". However, an easy trick to reduce edit-conflicts is to often reply with a blank line above your comment (and perhaps edit to remove extra blank lines from a talk-page during a quiet hour). Most people tend to reply directly under the prior posted message, and a leading blank line (except in the final thread on a page) will allow 2 replies to both post within minutes of each other. Another easy trick is to watch the talk-page history, to wait to edit-SAVE as one whole minute after the lastest revision of a page. Otherwise, 2 quick edits to a talk-page tend to auto-erase the first save, even when editing different sections of the page. A final trick is to ensure a quiet topic is added at the end of the talk-page, because the popular bottom section of a talk-page risks edit-conflict with a new bottom topic, and prepending a blank-line in response will not work on bottom threads; instead add a dull "==Dulltopic==" at page-end to allow frequent replies above that topic, or a new busy thread added below that topic. For more, see: wp:Edit-conflicts. I regret the focus on VE has distracted the WMF employees from fixing major problems in talk-pages, such as allowing edits to adjacent lines, or always format a talk-page as ending with a hidden line to allow a blank-link. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikid, this is very helpful. I'll try the blank-line trick in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Female genital mutilation

The article Female genital mutilation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Female genital mutilation for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

New entry for Elise Desaulniers

Would you mind checking the new entry I'v made for Quebec author and animal welfare activist Elise Desaulniers? It's been a while since I created a new entry and some of the procedure seems to have changed. Many thanks, --Stevan Harnad 03:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stevan, the entry seems fine. It would be good to have English-language sources too. There's one here that gives some biographical details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Award for FGM

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Female genital mutilation (estimated annual readership: 1,544,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Female genital mutilation to Good Article status.

Really happy to see this one promoted--well done! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on this, SV! Great work on a difficult article. Zad68 14:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Khazar and Zad, and thanks for the award! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Again

You still seem to be confusing about the relationship between "secondary" and "third-party", so perhaps this example will help:

• A meta-analysis of previous research is always a secondary source.
• A meta-analysis of my own previous research is never an independent source.

These are completely different axes in source classification. It happens that most of the secondary sources that interest Wikipedians are also independent sources, but these are not synonyms, or even close to synonyms. We've been over this several times in the last couple of years, and I don't seem to be able to explain this in a way that makes sense to you, so perhaps it would be more helpful for you to talk it over with someone else, like User:SmokeyJoe or User:Blueboar. They both know more about this area than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A meta-analysis of your own earlier research would still be a primary source, not a secondary one. (It just wouldn't be a valuable primary source.) So your first point is correct only if you're not the one doing the analysis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, a meta-anaylsis is pretty much the definition of a secondary source. It takes earlier publications and analyzes them.

Really: spend a while trying to find any source that directly says that a meta-analysis is considered a secondary source if it's performed by an outsider but a primary source if it's performed by one of the original authors. They don't exist: there are no reliable sources that directly say that figuring out whether a meta-analysis is a primary source requires you to look at the authors' names. That's because this isn't actually a consideration for this type of source.

(I agree that it wouldn't be as valuable as an independent meta-analysis.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you publish an overview or interpretive account of your own earlier research, your material doesn't turn into a secondary source just because you call it an analysis. First, can you give an example of a meta-analysis of earlier research conducted by someone who also conducted that earlier research? I'd like to see what you're referring to.

Looking at it from the point of WP, if historian X writes a paper, "My time in Sudan," and another paper, "My time in Kenya," then publishes an interpretive account as a book, Revisiting my time in Sudan and Kenya, all three publications count as primary sources when we are writing the Wikipedia article, Historian X in Sudan and Kenya.

I've replied further on the talk page, by the way; probably better to keep everything there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A meta-analysis isn't "an overview" or "interpretive account", like a summary of whatever you think is important or interesting from your previous publications. It's probably best if you think of it as doing a very particular kind of math. You get to choose your formulas (within limits), but the chosen formulas produce the same numbers no matter who's pushing the buttons.

As one quickly identified example, this paper is a meta-analysis of information from two trials, and one of the authors is significantly involved in of one of those two trials. When you're looking at niche areas or rare diseases, it is actually quite common to have authors performing meta-analyses that include their own works, because there aren't enough researchers in the field to have all meta-analyses performed by people who have published no related research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a meta-analysis conducted by the person who performed the original studies (rather than an example of one in which the original researcher remained involved)?

WP should base its definition of primary and secondary on the way most academics use those terms, which will mean it's must easier for new editors to follow, because these distinctions are in fact quite straightforward (although there are edge cases where they get harder). I think it would be better to copy this exchange over to the talk page and continue there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and I have had these discussions before, probably at WT:NOR. These are my recollections & thoughts:

• "Most academics" is not well-enough defined. The usage of "primary source" and "secondary source" varies by field. Three distinct fields are (1) journalism; (2) historiography; & (3) science.

• In (1) (journalism), a primary source is a direct eye-witness source, someone who was there, who knows directly, whether by observation or being involved, whereas a secondary source is a source that is not a primary source and relies on a primary source for its own reliability. A journalism secondary source is describable as a source of "second hand" information. In contrast to (2) below, the term "source" is used with a fairly tight definition.
• In (2) (historiography), a direct primary source is a source of facts, observations, etc, but where "direct" is a relative term. Someone who did not directly observe at the time might be considered a primary source hundreds of years later, because he was of the time. However, in historiography, the sources are discussed directly, and reliability is never assumed, there term "source" being used more loosely. A historiographical secondary source is a source that has analysed primary sources, and their contained information, and has non-trivially transformed this information into new information. In historiography, mere repetition of information does not make primary source information.
• In (3) (science), primary sources mean the most important "original" or "first" sources. The primary source is the main source of the data. A "secondary source" is a term that I am not aware of being well-used, but it would probably be taken to mean a source with a non-rigorous reproduction of the data, probably similar to (1) above.

My impression is firmly that SlimVirgin is in the journalism camp, and that Wikipedia is more usually taken to be within the historiography field. Certainly, Wikipedia openly discusses conflicting sources, and sources of partial reliability much more in keeping with the historiographical approach. I see two awkward points. One is that people like Slimvirgin are not very unusual, and the term "secondary source" gets used in both (incompatible) ways. The other is that in historiography, a secondary source is really subject to being characterised as "reliable". The primary sources are reliable or not, but the secondary source information is the product of its author and the opinion/analysis contributed. While a contributed analysis might be done in error, an author's opinion is not considered reliable or unreliable. For this reason, I would prefer (assuming Wikipedia to be within the historiography discipline) that primary sources be required to be reliable, and that secondary sources be considered to be reputable.

I was never able to convince SlimVirgin. Probably, this was because nothing I was saying would help SlimVirgin to write better content. I also noticed that to engage SlimVirgin in these discussions is to distract her from her more usual devotion of her time to excellent content creation. I like to think that I contribute by helping the place run more smoothly, thus helping content creators more smoothly go about their preferred business. If I am distracting one of the better content creators, then I am being a net negative.

The final question is whether the argument is important with respect to, on the policy pages, providing good advice to editors open to advice. Thoughts: Very few ordinary editors read WP:NOR, and extremely few read it twice. Sometimes I am persuaded that policy pages are debating chambers specifically for a certain type of committed, opinionated Wikipedian. However, people learn from each other, and the teaching on the policy pages does permeate indirectly to ordinary editors. So, could WP:NOR explain sources better? Yes, but, um, do editors really need to take time to read about source classification at WP:NOR. No, WP:NOR is advice from an awkward angle. WP:NOR was created to rebuff unemployed undereducated overenthusiastic theoretical-physicist-hobbyists who are on missions to convince the world of some left field theory. Recast WP:NOR and WP:V into a new policy that is more properly directed at beginning editors, and you have Wikipedia:Attribution. If someone gets ung up on the meaning of "secondary source", tell them to ignore WP:NOR, and to instead see Wikipedia:Attribution, maybe with a link to the mainspace secondary source article.

It is such a pity that the authors of WP:A, in their justifiable enthusiasm, implemented with a haste that panicked the pigeons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe, good to see you here. I don't have time right now to reply properly, but to respond to two points you made: (1) I'm not really thinking of journalism, but historiography, although the way good journalists and historians use sources is similar if not identical, and (2) yes, I agree that people don't really read the policies, which is why I haven't pursued this issue. I've been watching to see if anyone has changed the way they use primary or secondary sources, and they haven't. So I'm both glad to see that people just get on with it, and saddened about the time lots of us spent writing policy that people pay little or no attention to. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Enough people read policy, and they pass on the message where needed, so it has been important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've had time to read through your post properly. I can't see or recall any areas of disagreement between us about sourcing. I agree with you about historiography, and that "primary sources be required to be reliable, and that secondary sources be considered to be reputable." (Also agree about combining V and NOR, but that's another story.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, This isn't really about NOR. This is about SV's attempt yesterday to re-write WP:THIRDPARTY to say that a A third-party or secondary source is one that is independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that she is not involved in. That's directly equating third-party and secondary source, as if they were synonyms.

I disagree with SV's characterization of journalism and historiography as being practically the same. Your descriptions sound basically accurate to me, and they sound quite different. For example, Little Janie saying "Grandma told me she finished her big quilt today" is a secondary source from the journalist's perspective, but a primary source from the historian's perspective (assuming she wrote it down, so the historian could 'hear' her say it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was WAID who recently rewrote Wikipedia:Third-party sources. [1] What was there did need improving, but what WAID wrote was not correct either, so I edited it and remove what I saw as the errors. [2] WAID reverted. As I asked twice yesterday, [3] [4] I would like to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Third-party sources, not here, so that the discussion is on that talk page for other people to see. Please post anything further about that essay there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a meta-analysis conducted by the person who performed the original studies (rather than an example of one in which the original researcher remained involved)?

Casella is the lead author for the trial design of the one trial and is the designer and one of the two senior authors for the meta-analysis, and the corresponding author for both. This is not merely some sort of vague "remained involved". Clinical trials are a team effort, but he's basically in charge of both the first trial and the meta-analysis. The person who pushed the buttons in the statistical package will have been on the senior author's payroll. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing is defining and distinguishing similar terms that, when used, are often used loosely. On these terms, SlimVirgin uses and mixes them more loosely than WhatamIdoing's preference. SlimVirgin observes that the distinguishing definitions are complicated, perhaps to the point of being net negative. On the facts (to the extent that language-use has facts), I think WhatamIdoing is entirely right. I agree with you both. Let the discussion continue, but only outside work after a couple of drinks.

These terms, primary, secondary, tertiary source, first second third party, independent and non-independent, and also with direct coverage, non-trivial, reliable and reputable, are words that can be useful in informing an enthusiastic person on what they've been doing wrong. When adopting wise-advisor role, it feels important to get your terms right. I try to choose carefully which of the above tricky terms might achieve the goal, but do not try to teach the full set these terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note

Note that someone is impersonating you on wikibias.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.136.226 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Recruiting an admin panel.

I have proposed at Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request/Comments unrelated to evidence#Recruiting an admin panel. that it is time to seek out a new three-admin panel to shepherd the next discussion. I intend to avoid being involved in that process. I consider your judgment in the matter to be above reproach, and thought you might like to have a go at recruiting such a panel. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi BD, thank you for the invitation. I brought the article to GA status before this blew up, so I can't get involved as an admin or as someone helping to choose admins (except insofar as everyone else does), but I'm happy to take part in discussions about how to find uninvolved people. I'll take a look at the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just saying well done and great work on the Female genital mutilation article-- Cailil talk 12:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cailil, this is much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

An idea

So I'm imagining a lightweight but serious, amorphous but organized, collaborative place that honors meritocracy. I started it. Would you please list as one of the 13? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors, thanks for the invitation. I'll take a look at the page, but I have a pretty full timetable at the moment on WP, so I'm not sure I'll be able to take on anything else. But I'll definitely look at it, and thanks again for thinking of me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope it will be the anti-wikiproject "wikiproject" for a central concept: neutrality. It might even be fun. WikiProjects do great for organizing people to write about Military History, perhaps. And the Wikimedia Chapter model seems to serve the Germans well. But what structure should support organization around concepts core to the encyclopedia? This is my proposed experimental model. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely more people care deeply about neutrality than the recent activity at WP:NPOVN and WP:WikiProject Neutrality show. Thus the idea. I hope it subsumes the wikiproject and perhaps even the noticebord if it's sucessful. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.
Message added 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Technical 13 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bodice-Ripping Bots -- now bigger, longer, and uncut!

But have you seen version 2.0? [5] Someone suggested this might be preserved for posterity at WP:Lamest_edit_wars or such. What do you think (not, of course, that you would know much about this sort of thing, being a virgin and all -- or is it just that you're a smoker?). EEng (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As a technical dinosaur I only understand a small percentage of it, but it made me laugh anyway. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)