User talk:SlimVirgin/June 2018

A year ago ...
help people
	... you were recipient; no. 1670 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

Anon note

How protect lock open, I give you all sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:6:DEB7:CC49:D9E3:E21E:450D (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hi there Slim, I need some advice re our Wikipedia:Disruptive editing page. The article uses a photo from one of our bios to demonstrate the Failure or refusal to "get the point" section. Not only do I see no need for the photo as it does not add anything to the article, I find it mocking and disrespectful of one of the people that we have included as worthy of a bio. I've tried to delete it and have not been successful. Or maybe I'm just being overly-sensitive. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandydancer, I don't see it as a problem given that it's not a living person. But perhaps you could find a more generic photo on Commons and swap it (e.g. File:Elacin (R) ER-25 - musician Earplug worn.JPG). SarahSV ^(talk) 02:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your judgement - I'll just forget about it. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Are you still interested in helping coordinate WP:WER's efforts? Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JustBerry, I haven't looked at that for a long time. It's not something I'd be interested in, but thank you for checking with me. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~No problems. For now, your name has been moved to the "Retired Coordinators" list. --JustBerry (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)~~ Update: This is being discussed on the project talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective on Michael Shermer discussion

SlimVirgin, I see you have been active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Media. As someone with experience in this area, I'd be interested in your perspective on the discussion going on here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Michael_Shermer#March_2018_emails_Santa_Barbara_College,_sexism_and_sexual_harassment_allegations_against_Shermer mennonot (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hello again. I apologize for yet another random message from me on your talk page. For a future project, I am thinking about working on a biographical article on a woman (not only to help make better content about women on Wikipedia, but I just enjoy reading about women more than men for some reason). I will most likely still do music and television-related projects, but I want to try and do something new and different. I was wondering if you had any pointers or advice. I am not necessarily pursuing this type of project with an FA as the end goal (though getting something up to a GA status would be nice). I know that you have created and maintained the Wikipedia:Writing about women essay (which is a very helpful resource), and I was curious if there were any other essays that you would recommend or high quality articles on women that I could reference for tips on how to better my prose and uses of resources. If it helps, I am thinking of either working on an article about a woman related to LGBTIQ issues (as a gay man, I would ideally like to have a better understanding of queer history and culture outside of my own lived experience) or nurses (a rather random choice, but I just find the field and its history to be really fascinating). Again, I apologize for this random request (you are probably very busy), and any negative behavior that I showed you in the past. All I can do now is strive to better. I hope that you have a wonderful weekend, and good luck with all of your projects both on Wikipedia and in real life. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, two places for red-linked women are User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list and WP:WIRINDEX. There are red-linked nurses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Nurses and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Nurses (not sure what the difference is, if any, between those lists).

If you want some style/writing examples, very good articles about women you might look at are Olivia Shakespear, Mary Margaret O'Reilly, Enid Blyton, and Mary Wollstonecraft. Also check out User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Tony is very good at showing how to get rid of unnecessary words. I hope this helps a little. Let me know how it goes! SarahSV ^(talk) 21:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in: Hi Aoba47, have a look at Moni3's work. Some of her articles are about the LGBT community, and all of her work is exemplary. I'm in the process of working up an article about a woman, if you want to watch the research writing process. I'm a very slow writer, so it'll be months. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. It is always helpful to look at other articles to pick out what makes them exemplary (at least for me). And writing and research takes time (particularly on longer articles) so I completely understand that. Good luck with it! 23:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help with this. I have not chosen a biographical article on a woman yet as I know that it will take time and research to do well. I would love to do something with feminist theory (I am primarily familiar with second and third wave feminism through my experiences in undergrad and grad school). I took two classes about the representation of women in Israeli literature while an undergrad so it would be cool to return to that. I am thinking of either doing that, or looking into Japanese feminists as it would be an interesting and unconventional way of exploring my language study. Since you are very knowledgable about feminism, I may ask for your help in this to make sure that I am not misrepresenting anything or misinterpreting anything. I am trying to be better at receiving feedback. I hope that you are having a great day so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, that sounds interesting, and I'd be glad to help if I can. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

s'gettes

Yeah I was very lucky to have an assignment from a friend here in Western Australia who wanted to check the flow of former s'gettes into Australia when things calmed down a bit - at the BL and NA in London some years back. V interesting as it ties in with difficult aspects of researching wobbly (iww) and other political persons coming into oz at the time. Nothing criminal , but hey challenging the law and tradition - very much so. JarrahTree 05:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree, agreed. Thanks for fixing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda, much appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?

Hi SlimVirgin,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragette image

Hi Sarah, thanks for your email, sorry it's taken me a little while to get back to you. I've had a chat with a colleague and basically the specific attribution (that is to say who the people in the image actually are) is not firm here - it's not on the original documentation and was added to the online catalogue quite recently based on text in our image library description. That is not an archival description so I wouldn't hang my hat on it. The identification of the individuals is a research question (i.e. the photographer, I believe, did not know who the individual was - based on the copyright form we have and on the newspaper front page already mentioned) so I would suggest - based on the sources I've seen - any identification is a matter of conjecture. Regardless our catalogue is not, at this time, an outstandingly reliable source on the precise point at issue and I hope it will shortly be amended. Thanks for getting in touch, I hope this is at least somewhat helpful. --Mr impossible (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in - thanks for this - isn't it Dr impossible now? Congrats! Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr impossible, thanks for the reply. The important point for our purposes is that the words in square brackets on that page are not a reliable source. There are good sources saying the woman is Ada Wright. It was the alternative identification suggested by the National Archives that was causing the problem. Thank you very much for looking into it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

slimvirgin Glad to be of some use --Mr impossible (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

johnbod It is. Thanks very much! --Mr impossible (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I first met you when you rescued me and other editors from a bullying pastor on Christ Myth Theory. Then you stood up for me when I was wrung through ANI. Since then I've seen you contribute excellent articles to the encyclopedia and insight and fine rhetoric to its back pages. Thank you. I'm really pleased you're here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, that's very kind of you, thank you. I really appreciate it. I hope you know I have nothing but admiration for your work, including your work on expert review. I hope you're able to make that happen. Make sure you look after yourself in the process. All the best, SarahSV ^(talk) 01:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

#1Bib1Ref
New partners
User Group update
Global branches update
- Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Shepherd

Check your sources. This edit [1] is not accurate. Per the source you cited, the staffers were not acting on any complaints, formal or informal. The article refers to a later complaint after she was grilled by the professors and staffer. Mattnad (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something else about Lindsay Shepherd. Wouldn't it better to have a screengrab from The Agenda with Steve Paikin rather than a picture of Steve Paikin? Knobbly (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on your talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for your work on the Meghan Murphy page!

Taylan (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Taylan, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mud March

Sarah, As you know, I have been working on the Mud March‎ article recently, tweaking and altering some of what was there before, and adding and removing where I felt appropriate. I know you did not agree with some of the steps I took at the time, but I have now finished my re-working of it and you can see what my thoughts were of how it should be: it is now focussed much more closely on the march, with no 'non-core' information. You may still not agree with some of those edits, and I would be happy to discuss the rationale of why I made any particular edit, and to consider any information you think you would like to (re-)add or remove.

I would like to take this article to PR (and possibly FAC) at some stage, and would like you to consider working with me as a co-nominator when we think the article is in the right shape. – SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, there are a few things I'd like to say in response, so I'll write it up and post it later. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Football Lads Alliance

Hi Sarah, thanks for your recent comments on Football Lads Alliance. There is a new discussion Talk:Football Lads Alliance#Proposal. I wondered how you would feel about taking over from me, so I can post a message there saying, "handing this over to Sarah as per User talk:SlimVirgin#Football Lads Alliance". I've had the stuffing knocked out of me on this one, particularly the suggestion that I'm "advertising" for the far-right, diff, by using a source - Socialist Worker - that is unreliable due to its left-wing leaning. I think everything I want to say about the debate is in this thread. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Vintage Feminist, nice to see you here. I'm sorry, that isn't something I'd want to edit or discuss regularly. If you're fed up with it, you could always just take it off your watchlist. That way, it ceases to exist for you. It's very therapeutic. Unwatch and gone. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]