User talk:SlimVirgin/April 2017

User_talk:Jytdog#Too soon?

I checked a mobile device and saw that the offending Wikidata text is still there ... and there's one more thing that's bugging me a little about that aborted RfC. (See the link.) Of course, I had decided to stay away from anything involving infoboxes or Wikidata ... but I strongly suspect you're not going to be offended by my thoughts on this particular subject. Would be grateful for your input. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it hasn't been unclosed, so I assume it's a moot point. Will keep an eye on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "controversial" articles ...

One of the ones I'm hesitating about at FAC is Jacob Gens. I know you've edited on Holocaust subjects in the past - can you check this over and make sure I'm striking the right balance on the article? It would be greatly appreciated, even if I never take it to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, that article's very good. In case it's helpful, there's some material about Gens in Saul Friedländer, Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939–1945: The Years of Extermination, particularly pp. 436–438 and 530–533. He says that in the October 1942 incident, Gens and his men, helped by others, actually carried out the executions. 1,400 Jews were to be executed, and he got the number down to 400.

Friedländer quotes from a letter Gens sent his wife, saying (not of the executions, but in general): "This is the first time in my life I have to engage in such duties. My heart is broken. But I shall always do what is necessary for the sake of the Jews in the ghetto." His source for that is Philip Friedman, "'Jacob Gens. Commandant' of the Vilna Ghetto'", Roads to Extinction, Essays on the Holocaust, 1980. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've packed my Friedlander... let me check... if I have, you want to add that in? Yes, it's packed up and in the storage unit prior to us moving. I'm trying to gather the energy to work on the various related topics to Gens - the ghetto, etc. Not sure I have it in me, it's depressing enough to read about, but editing is immensely more difficult. I would love to see more Holocaust-related articles improved through GA, if you return to the subject, I'd be glad to help if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I didn't know you were moving. It's traumatic having stuff lying around in boxes. I've been working a little on The Pianist (memoir), though it needs a rewrite. I take things a day at a time nowadays and try not to take on big projects, so I probably won't do much more with it, but the problem is that I start the reading, then I get hooked. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, totally understand the "start reading, getting hooked" thing. That's what happened with Gens - I was reading something, went to look at our article on him, discovered there wasn't, and well... seven new books later, we have an article. I've been watching the progress on The Pianist, it's making progress. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Hi @SlimVirgin!😊😊

It's so amazing that you have been here for so long! I am a newbie to Wikipedia by chance.....and a freaked out individual because of the article on genital mutilation😥😥! (Twelve sleepless nights under the pillow!). Say, I would like to be fully immersed in Wikipedia and so far.....technically I am a bit lost. Sad to say I would like to be an avid contributor, but unfortunately the light of such can't seem to fall on my eyes! PS: I would like to introduce articles on my country (Jamaica) where others didn't....seems like I could use a LOT of assistance [from] you particularly. Also I am multilingual.... 😶😶 Thank you in advance BulbAtop (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BulbAtop, I've just realized that I didn't respond to this. I'm so sorry! I'm also sorry that FGM gave you sleepness nights; it did the same to me when I was writing it. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and I apologize again for my rudeness. Feel free to ping me if you need help or advice. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

#1lib1ref 2017
Wikipedia Library User Group
Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD of Cynefin

Hi SlimVirgin, I just want to check with you that I didn't do something wrong when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynefin and deleted the page. I had just finished placing the close templates on the AFD when I noticed that the Cynefin page had already been replaced by a redirect. (I'm a newbie admin, just beginning to try my hand at closing AFDs) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger, what you did is fine. The page was moved from Cynefin to Cynefin framework in January 2016, with a redirect left in place. Then someone created the article that you deleted, so I restored the redirect. I should probably have waited to let you do it. But all is well, and thanks for taking care of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifix RM

Do you realize that the reason for the requested move of Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce) ("no other crucifix by Cimabue") is no longer true, rendering the discussion moot. For whom is the tag then? How can the discussion be closed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's closed now. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If this change actually needed discussion, then the discussion should have happened last September, when it was changed to something that contradicts the policy without any discussion. I don't mind talking about it (it's a subject I talk about regularly anyway), but I think it's important for you to know that the current version isn't some long-standing, widely agreed upon version.

It's probably also relevant to point out that the line being quoted from WP:V is something that User:Tryptofish originally wrote during an enormous RFC back in 2012, and I've since edited it slightly. I recommend reading the RFC, but as it's 25,000 words long, as a temporary measure, it might be more efficient to trust me that "you don't get to blank known-good material solely because someone didn't cite the best possible source for it" was actually an intended meaning of this statement, and that this has been re-affirmed in multiple subsequent discussions. (One of my goals in the 2014 update was to provide editors with a short, but ready-made list of some excellent reasons for blanking material that don't require any consideration of the source that was cited by the original editor, because we had complaints from editors who thought that the only policy-supported reason for removing bad material was claiming that it was badly sourced.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WAID, as I've said on the other page (it's better to keep the discussion in one place), BURDEN has always required a reliable source, not just a source that someone believes is okay. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's technically not true, as it used to require only "sources" and ask editors to "provide references", without specifying that these sources needed to be reliable.

One of the goals with the 2012 change was to stop some disruptive behavior, in which you add something reasonable, I revert it with an edit summary that your textbook (which MEDRS accepts) isn't peer reviewed, you restore it with a peer-reviewed paper, I revert it with an edit summary that it's not a review, you restore it with a peer-reviewed review article, I revert it because it's not from a journal that I respect, and we keep going on – even if I know perfectly well that the material is verifiable, due, appropriate, and encyclopedic! "It's not MEDRS" has been repeatedly abused as a way to keep out "wrong POV" material and to force editors to jump through hoops just so I can have the satisfaction of having "fancy" sources without needing to lift a finger to help. It hurts Wikipedia.

The broader, non-MEDRS-specific problem is that your interpretation of BURDEN created a "reverter always wins" situation: you add sourced material, I blank it, and all I have to do is say "Well, I don't believe that source is reliable, and despite all your experience and that long list of FAs, my judgment matters more than yours just because I'm the person reverting". While we do want to tilt in the direction of excluding material of dubious verifiability, things had gone too far.

So we drew a line in the sand: The original editor only has to provide one (plausibly reliable) source, and after that, the BURDEN is fulfilled, and therefore finding a proper source (if one is to be found) is everyone's duty equally. BURDEN requires a (plausibly reliable) source, and if I want a better one, then I either need to find a better source myself, or I need to come up with a different excuse for removing your contribution.

BTW, there's an active conversation at WT:MED right now about whether a statement by the CEO of a gene therapy company, in the biography of said CEO, in which he claimed to have he used their product, and claimed that his cholesterol levels improved afterwards requires a peer-reviewed paper to substantiate whether or not an identifiable living person actually said that. It was all blanked (including direct quotations from the BLP) with an edit summary that said none of sources met MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]