User talk:SlimVirgin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Derkovits, Gyula - Sleeping Woman.jpg

The Signpost
21 January 2015

Happy New Year SlimVirgin![edit]

Hi INeverCry, thank you, and all the best to you for the New Year. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already[edit]

Hi SV. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Same from me, SlimVirgin. Thank you for all you've done for us, and have a great new year. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Happy, Healthy and Safe 2015...Modernist (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      Fourted. Said it before, but so proud of your accomplishment with the FGM article. A wow achievement, to be held up. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for the good wishes, Kudpung, Drmies, Modernist and Ceoil, and all the best to every one of you for 2015. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear SlimVirgin,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Many thanks, Bzuk, and a Happy New Year to you too! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:GGTF/Women in 2014[edit]

Feminism Barnstar.jpg The Feminism Barnstar
For your contributions to the Women in 2014 article. Well done, Slim. GRuban (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks again for this, GRuban. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have the time and inclination ...[edit]

Hello, Slim Virgin! Hope you had a wonderful holiday season. I don't know if you are interested, and I assume you are quite busy with your own projects, but if you have any extra time, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at an article I recently wrote, Irataba. I have it at GAN now, and I'm not sure if I need to wait for a random person to pick it up, or if I can request a review from somebody skilled as yourself. If not, don't worry; I'll understand. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rationalobserver, I can't promise to review it for GA (I have limited time for WP at the moment), but I'll have a read through it and leave some feedback on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll be grateful for whatever you have time for. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): I don't see how this image could not be in the public domain. It clearly was photographed by a European government after the liberation of that concentration camp. Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Core, I started looking into this years ago, and I did make some progress, but didn't find out enough to be able to upload it to Commons. The problem is that someone has obviously removed it from the Holocaust (fair-use images have to be used somewhere), so the best thing would have been for Stefan to restore it, rather than nominate it for deletion. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That is just so weird. Thanks. Have you queried the U.S. Holocaust Museum or Yad Vashem> Coretheapple (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I found this[1], a purported photo at the Auschwitz Museum. I'd wager these are photos of the same children, perhaps in the same session. It must have been by the Russians, and I'll bet they were exhibits at Nuremberg. Coretheapple (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That's very interesting, thanks. I was told years ago that the USHMM's source was the Romani Archives and Documentation Center, University of Texas at Austin. I vaguely recall that there were competing claims, though I may be misremembering. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like an organization that would have been created some time after the war. I'll bet you that those photos were in the public domain years ago. They look like evidence photos not newsreel or news agency photos. Not my area of expertise, however. Coretheapple (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I've lost count of the hours I've spent researching the provenance of Holocaust images because someone wants to delete them. Video-game covers under copyright, on the other hand, are fine! I'll try to retrace my steps with this one, but in the meantime we should just restore it to the Holocaust as fair use to stop the deletion. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It was in the Holocaust article all along, so I don't know why it has been nominated. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I wish I had the time to assist. Perhaps I can email the Holocaust Museum and just ask if they would be kind enough to look into the provenance of it. After all Wikipedia is the biggest website in creation and this photo belongs in it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be great if you have time. In the meantime, I've emailed the Romani Archives and Documentation Center. Will let you know what they say. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I did, but I don't expect much. They have a form on their website, indicating they are inundated with requests. Best thing is to obtain an email address of a person. We'll see. TinEye was useless. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"[edit]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Damn the torpedoes[edit]

I have set up a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hang on tight![edit]

Fritz von Uhde 001.jpg Big sister
I don't know what the hell is going on on your talk page, but here's a pretty distraction instead. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Lightbreather. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally right[edit]

You write "If white racists were to start editing articles about black people, they'd be banned immediately by admins or the community." I generally agree with the rest of your points, but I think that Wikipedia has demonstrated that "racial realists," will be given a great deal of room before being banned by ArbCom along with the people that tried to stop them - for example - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Hipocrite. I'm not familiar with that case. We badly need admins trained in how to spot diversity issues, though how to handle the ArbCom aspect I have no idea. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that electing people in a spottily attended election where the way to win is not to poke your head above the grass leads to milquetoasts. Applies to both admins and arbiters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it has been a problem for a long time, with honourable exceptions. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Just because someone has a pro-GG bias doesn't necessarily mean that they're sexist. They may simply be concerned with what they perceive to be a problems with ethics in video game journalism, so I don't think that's an accurate analogy at all. If you're concerned about sexism, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Granted, I don't claim to understand everything about this topic-space, but I have been following it off and on, and ArbCom's proposed decision seems to be pretty spot on. In fact, when I read the first draft, I was actually pretty impressed with how well it was written. Please don't believe everything you read. It is a rarity when the mainstream press covers something on Wikipedia accurately. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi A Quest For Knowledge, I can't imagine how someone could be pro-GG and not be sexist, given that what happened to trigger it was inherently sexist. This may be an issue of failing to recognize sexism, and of failing to appreciate how damaging it is to women. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem Sarah is that anyone who looks at GamerGate and the related issues with an open mind will see that it is a lot more complicated than what you state. Even the trigger is more complicated than you may think. Unfortunately, Mark's pieces that he has been spamming incessantly on Twitter are littered with falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and hyperbole. I have read some of the conversations on GamerGhazi about Mark's pieces and there are posters there who appear to be Wikipedians who recognize that his pieces, especially the "Infamous" piece the Guardian cites, bear no resemblance to reality. From my perspective, the editors facing bans have not been vital to keeping the articles free of BLP violations as many editors and admins have been willing and able to handle it. That has included established editors who are opposed to the current slant of the article, such as Masem who Mark so viciously detests.
Where those editors have been vital is in forcing out material about female and minority supporters of GamerGate and material about them being harassed. One of those prominent female supporters was recently subjected to an extensive doxing on 8chan's baphomet board, which included information about her children apparently, by someone who obviously wanted to use that board against her given its reputation, though they didn't bite. The result was that she deleted her social media accounts. The media has covered such incidents a little, though not that most recent incident, but the material about female and minority supporters as well as harassment they have received has been removed from the article even when it was backed by The Washington Post.
Ryulong, Baranof, Tarc, and Red Pen, were all quick to trivialize such harassment of GamerGate supporters and push for the exclusion of this information and exclusion of other information about female and minority supporters. What remains is Quinn's early insinuation that all those supporters are fakes using sock-puppet accounts. Doubt even Quinn considers that view valid anymore since it has been so blatantly discredited. If you must know, that is what got my dander up and is the reason why I felt compelled to file the arbitration request. Unfortunately, I think their actions have already resulted in some citogenesis regarding the existence of female and minority GamerGate supporters.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, butting in, but AQFK there is no such thing as a non-sexist pro-Gamergater; such a creature simply does not exist. If you want to have a glimpse of what a post-case Gamergate article is going to look like, then vie this edit. This is one of the relatively new SPAs, created once the Arb case had its head of steam built up. It is very careful to make no personal attacks, to not edit war, but shares with all the rest the unflinching desire to turn Gamergate away from its sexist reality. The account wants to take the "erroneous" (which is a lie) Guardian article and use that erroneousness to then attack the credibility of other Guardian pieces by the same journalist, in hopes of removing them. I've done my part to keep the topic area on-track, but now that's passing on to others. Tarc (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
One could argue there is no such thing as a non-sexist in the first place. People tend to make judgments about a person based on gender even if they fail to realize it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi The Devil's Advocate, the problem is that I don't know the details, so I can't judge any of the factual claims. But glancing at the decision I see people who were trying to defend WP and women being sanctioned, and at least one person who needs to be banned not being banned. You completely understood what happened at the GGTF case, so I'm surprised to see you argue from the opposite perspective here, but perhaps I need to know the case details to understand why. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: My understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that the catalyst was that some guy got pissed at his ex-girlfriend and posted some sh*t about her online. Couples and ex-couples fight all the time. People do stupid and immature things; neither gender is immune to this and it happens thousands (millions?) of time each day. No sexism is required. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
So your theory is that the GG controversy is in fact a hoax, and that one side isn't rabidly sexist, but some immature antics made it seem that way? Doesn't that completely negate the opinion of every female involved? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Who are you talking to? You appear to be replying to me but your reply is bizarre in that it has no relationship to anything I've said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because someone has a pro-GG bias doesn't necessarily mean that they're sexist.
Then what are you saying? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If only we had some admins willing to take action...[edit]

"Devil's Snare, Devil's Snare... What did Professor Sprout say? It likes the dark and the damp-"
"So light a fire!" Harry choked.
"Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands.

--J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

In several places recently, you have complained about the lack of admins willing to take action against sexist disruption, especially of the GGTF.[2][3][4]

Do you, or do you not, have a mop on your user page? Are you or are you not active in the GGTF? If you see what you think is undisputable sexist disruption and do nothing ... what is the point of being an admin? Did the people who gave you the mop do so so you could better complain on talk pages about those darn do-nothing admins? Go. Stop complaining. Do stuff. All that stuff that you wish "admins" did. In case you forgot - you is one.

Recognize this line? "If not I, then who? If not now, then when?" --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, GRuban, but I feel worn down by it (and I couldn't take admin action in relation to GGTF). Anyone who takes action is putting themselves at risk, including at risk from the ArbCom. Plus, it's an incredible time sink. And in the end it will make no difference, because the same problems will just move elsewhere.
What we need to do somehow is to stop the sexist culture. We begin that process by recognizing it. How do we get editors, admins and Arbs to recognize sexism when they see it, and to begin to take it as seriously as they would take racism? Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a copout. Wikipedia has thousands of editors, which means it reflects the world (as it darn well should - that's partly the point of the GGTF), so we won't be able to somehow stop the sexist culture just here. Fortunately, we don't need to solve all the world's problems to clean up one little corner of it. Yes, it's a time sink, but, well, that's the point of volunteering for Wikipedia, isn't it? And all the more so of holding the mop. And there is a difference between blocking someone you disagree with, and blocking someone for disruption. Heck, I disagree with you on the Women-Only-Space proposal; that's not the same as being disruptive. I trust you to know the difference. As did those who gave you the mop. If you think disruption is clear, then, dang it, warn, and if it keeps going, block. That's the point of the tools. If you're still worried, then warn and draft someone else - say Bishonen, or the Gorilla, if you automatically doubt anyone with a Y chromosome - to do the block. If it's clear disruption it should be clear to them too. But honestly, half of the discussion on the GGTF was "how can we get more female admins to deal with the problem". Well, we've got you, haven't we? --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
<butting in> I think when a person says something is a time-sink or that she's worn down, then that should be respected. Sarah can't carry all the burdens. And question to all you people who want Sarah to do everything - how come so few women get nominated as admins? Anyway, Sarah, sorry for butting in. I hope you're well and surviving the winter. I'll go back to my articles now (about *that* sexist male author!). Victoria (tk) 21:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(warning, tongue-in-cheek statement incoming - humor, not truth) I think the lack of female admins just shows that women are smarter than men. If you're not an admin, you can't get in trouble for either doing something or not doing something... you're not in that cleft stick. (humor off). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Victoria and Ealdgyth. GRuban, I am so worn down by the situation on WP that I barely want to continue editing, never mind become one of the Gamergate admins. You can't expect the small number of female admins to shoulder the burden of this, so that we're not able to spend our time being Wikipedians like anyone else. Look at the situation with Gorillawarfare. If I've understood correctly, it was implied that she should recuse because she's a feminist.
I think admins in general feel worn down after years of being undermined. There's a feeling that, if they're not reverted by other admins, they're being attacked on- or off-wiki or sanctioned by ArbCom, often for doing things that in any other organization would be simple common sense. I know we do have admins who are problematic, but most mean well. They just feel unsupported. The result is that people don't want to stick their necks out, so cases that should be nipped in the bud go on for months or years, end up at ArbCom, and aren't dealt with even there. We need root-and-branch reform of dispute resolution. The issues are too entrenched for tinkering. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it was implied Gorilla should recuse because she explicitly expressed an opinion on gamergate itself. And yet she didn't recuse, and the world didn't end. My complaint isn't as much that you're not singlehandedly carrying the world on your shoulders, it's that you're not even doing part, while complaining about others, who have no more power than you, and are less involved. Sigh. I'm an oldtimer, and remember a SlimVirgin who dealt with much more serious, and much more personal attacks than this, by putting a James Bond style icon of Wikipe-tan in dark glasses and a suit on her user page. That was the legendary Slim. Oh well. I'll let up. Carry on. You do a good job writing articles. --GRuban (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I paid a heavy price for that, GRuban. Anyway, I set up the GGTF, which isn't nothing, and I've tried to keep it going through the nonsense, while also trying to write articles (which is why I'm here).
My point earlier that was, if a white racist were to start writing BLPs about black people, we would recognize instantly that that was a bad thing, and just about any admin would deal with it. But when it's sexist editing we have people who don't see it, combined with people who do see it and don't care, and people who see it and agree with it. So the burden falls on the tiny number of admins who see it and want it to stop, and they are either already burned out or will be soon. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article[edit]


First, apologies that my userpage doesn't mention Arbcom. I've never used it for biographical details and i suspect you're the first person ever to go there with an interest in on-wiki roles. Will think of a way to mention this somewhere so it's clearer in the future.

The article offers an opinion on the Arbcom outcome and how it will be perceived. There are some immediate factual inaccuracies in the article, and there is some discussion on what if any.thing might be done to correct them. There are also opinions on bias and on Wikipedia - I don't immediately agree with these but the author is entitled to his views.

However the reason why I hatted the conversation (after flagging with the Committee that I would do so) is that it adds nothing to the case evidence and is not useful in determining the way forward on the remaining Findings or Remedies. The author implies the Committee's decision is one-sided and let's a bunch of pro-Gamergate editors off the hook - but it doesn't name any of those editors or provide any evidence besides a view that the majority of people listed in the PD are in the authors view, from the anti-Gamergate side. That's not surprising as it is an article and not case evidence; but a vague assertion that unnamed people are escaping the outcome is not actionable, nor especially useful in resolving the case.

Further, nothing in the article is especially new or insightful. As you know there's a veritable deluge of commentary on all sides, alleging bias one way or the other. It's interesting to read, but the Committee can't make a decision based on these external opinions. Discussing them on the PD talkpage isn't going to be a useful exercise for the Committee, which is aware of endless external commentary pieces but needs to decide the case on what is principally on-wiki evidence.

Less importantly, the requirements of the PD talkpage are for people to comment in their own section, in order to keep the discussion manageable and let all participants have an equal say. A threaded discussion at the bottom of the page is against the process. However, as I say, this bureaucratic nicety is a smaller issue compared to the above.

I should add two things. If you or any other editor feels the committee's decision is one-sided or will reflect poorly on Wikipedia, and have specific suggestions on addressing that, please feel free to post them on the PD talkpage in an individual section. I for one am interested in the views of actual editors on issues to be addressed in this case, and whether or how the PD addresses them. I am vastly less interested in the Guardian's views on the same things, or the accuracy of its coverage.

And the one remaining thing - sorry for the wall of text. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus, thank you for the reply, and please don't apologize for it being long. It's very considerate of you. I haven't followed Gamergate, but just glancing at the proposals, I see one editor who should have been banned some time ago and even now isn't going to be. I'll consider writing up a statement, but I'm concerned about spending time on something that's unlikely to make a difference. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a bit late in the day, but there have been a few other late changes and some shifting of votes following PD talkpage comments. If it would save time in writing up a lengthy statement, can I suggest you email me (or any other committee member) first with the general gist of it and we can let you know if it's something that has already been considered and/or has much prospect of inclusion at this point. Or you can post it directly, whichever you prefer. I appreciate this is all a statement of the obvious in your case but its worth reiterating for your talkpage lurkers at least, in case any of them are also thinking about contributing to the PD discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Euryalus. If I do post something, it will be short and to the point. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Re Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Question_about_signature_change -- just go for it and do the rename. Although it's a tolerated practice I always find it confusing to see one name in a edit history and another a talk page. [[User talk:|NE Ent]] 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I agree – I also don't like it when people's names and sigs don't match. But renaming is a big step after so many years, so I have to take it slowly. :) Also, I'm not sure what name to choose, so I want to think about that some more. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Sarah. Wrt your question here. I understand the reasons for the restrictive format (it prevents all hell from breaking loose as a result of parties continuing their pathetic feuds, which also means the rest of us don't get drowned out by the bickering), but it does make it difficult for those of us who don't have axes to grind. Anyway, the answer to your question is that the parties who have been responsible for BLP violations are being topic-banned from Gamergate and from "any gender-related dispute or controversy", broadly construed. Most of those who have lasted long enough to be parties are not responsible for the most egregious or disgusting edits—those editors have mostly been blocked or topic-banned already, some of them through the existing community sanctions. ArbCom are also authorising discretionary sanctions, which are backed up by sharper teeth than the community sanctions and allow admins to come down hard on BLP violations and other misconduct. If you come across something that you don't feel you can deal with, either because of "INVOLVEment" or because of unfamiliarity with the procedures, but which needs dealing with do feel free to let me know—I hope I've established a reputation over the years as an admin who comes down like a ton of bricks on libel, harassment, and other abhorrent behaviour which has no place on Wikipedia. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Harry, that's very kind of you. I could certainly use some help making my way through the DS and the extent to which they overlap. I'm about to go offline, but I may come back to you later with questions about the BLP DS. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I noticed the comments by Gamaliel and you at the PD talk page for the Gamergate case in relation to discretionary sanctions. Actually, I've previously noted here that others have expressed concerns about the complexity of DS, but as you will note at the end of the the section below my comment, the issue appears to remain denied or buried in some archive - which is disappointing. Unfortunately I don't have the same sort of time available for this project that I once had, but any efforts to get that issue sorted would certainly be appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ncmvocalist, thanks for that link. There seem to be contradictions between the BLP DS and the policy, but I'll have to look more closely later. I've tried to avoid reading about DS because they seem so complex (the alerts, logging, overlap with policies, unclear relationship between one set of DS and another), but I'll try to find the time, and may open a discussion about them somewhere. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)