User talk:SlimVirgin/August 2018

Protection of YouTube

You protected YouTube eight years ago. Please consider unprotecting it, as there are many edit requests being filed on the talk page. If some of them turn out to be useful, maybe pending changes can be used. wumbolo ^^^ 09:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo, I think semi-protection is almost certainly still needed, but if you want to ask another admin, post on WP:RFPU. Say you've checked with me and I'd prefer not to remove the protection, but I don't mind at all if someone else does. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Thank you for your comments at ANI. Unfortunately, the discussion continues to deteriorate and now it is being proposed that I be banned from Biology articles. I am unable to participate in the discussion because I have an interaction ban with F22. I originally thought your comments would be the last and felt some relief. But that is now not the case. And because of the length and complexity it is getting more difficult to follow. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 13:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara, I would normally say it's okay for you to post there so long as you're careful not to interact with Flyer (see WP:IBAN), but things have become a little heated, so it might be best to stay away. I'd advise you to be guided by Boing! said Zebedee. Also, I don't know whether Rhododendrites was pinged to the AN/I. Ryan, in case not, the discussion is about whether Barbara's topic ban in March covered human health or animal health too. Pinging Anthony, Barbara's mentor. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I won't be posting at ANI because it won't be helpful. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 15:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping. I did see the discussion, but given I have a COI with regard to the Visiting Scholars program, and since the thread was well on its way by the time I saw it, I assumed stay out of it unless there's something specific I can contribute other than weighing in one way or the other. I'm also on leave from Wiki Education at the moment (pinging Will (Wiki Ed), who is currently managing that program, so he is aware).

I'll give my view [in a volunteer capacity] on two aspects of the dispute that I acknowledge doesn't cover everybody's arguments:

Regarding standards for "health and medicine" content on Wikipedia extending to animals: we have strict standards that apply only to biomedical content because of the seriousness of people using Wikipedia when making decisions for their own health (and data that shows people do just that). We have lots of other important subjects that people could make important decisions about, but we don't apply MEDRS-like standards to them. As far as I know that data about people's use of Wikipedia for health/medicine decisions has not extended to decisions about their pets/animals, and I'm not aware of a consensus that the exigency of humans using our medical content for their own health decisions would carry over to humans making health decisions for animals any more than it would to, say, environmental issues, public policy, or racism -- all important, all potentially playing a vital role in the lives of our readers. Veterinary medicine isn't mentioned in MEDRS, and the only time "animal" comes up is to urge avoiding overemphasizing [single] animal studies, which would be an odd criterion to apply to veterinary medicine. FWIW I do understand that this is about whether the topic ban phrasing of "health and medicine" should apply to animals rather than a proposal to apply MEDRS to animals, but they're hard to separate when thinking about those terms in the context of Wikipedia.

Regarding the view that the topic ban should extend to veterinary medicine because of questions regarding Barbara's use of "technical" sources: I think it's very hard to argue that the topic ban should be viewed as a topic ban on topics that require use of "technical" sources, as that would encompass a vast range of science, math, engineering, law, logic, economics, etc. and the case simply wasn't made. If what was meant by this is just "technical health and medicine sources" then I would defer to what I said above.

Like I said, I'm biased -- I have a COI and I very much like Barbara -- so I still don't plan on jumping into that thread, and I apologize to your talkpage stalkers who argued "yes" there if I've misrepresented or misunderstood your arguments (I edit a wide range of topics, but medicine isn't really among them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, thanks for the comment. I'm surprised that anyone would argue that an ordinary use of the word "medical" covers animals. When we hear that someone is at medical school, we don't wonder whether they're training to become a vet. The lesson is that topic bans will have to be spelled out more precisely in future. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara York Main

Perhaps I am unaware of some of the finer guidelines of Wikipedia but I do not see how the content is questionable. The biography has been referenced as source material and her interview. If it needs to be written in a very dry tone this can be done, but I am not sure how this enhances credibility. The reason I have listed her publications is because she is too old to have a google scholar account (or similar) and as this is the primary source for scientific researchers to find others work, I am worried that they will be otherwise inaccessible. Please outline any further issues so that I can address them. Many thanks Leanda Denise Mason (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leanda, I've replied on Talk:Barbara York Main so that everything is in one place. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freud et al

Hi SV. I have removed your message and updated the draft accordingly. Pre publication comments should be left on the newsroom talk page. If it's still not right, the draft template does say: "If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements! "

That said, I think the terms of a topic ban such as this should not necessarily extend to The Signpost. I do not believe she is the kind of person who would disingenuously test the bounds of a ban through her work on the magazine. IMO, This kind of censorship will be the demise of the periodical and a waste of my time getting back in print. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I left a note on the newsroom talk page as you requested. I'd appreciate it if you would post there instead; otherwise this will be the third venue, or fourth if you count the story (fifth if you count her talk page, where this was clearly explained). SarahSV ^(talk) 17:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

New partners
- Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
Wikimania
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

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) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAC list

Sarah, I'm a bit confused by the changes in order that you've made to the WP:FAC list. For example, Missouri Centennial half dollar, nominated on 3 August, is now shown as older than Saving Light and Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom which were nominated the day previously. Likewise, Call Me by Your Name (film), nominated 31 July, is now placed after three older nominations. (I keep my own monitoring list here, although in reverse order, i.e. oldest first). Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I'm using the nominations viewer to see how old the nominations are. That gives weeks or months; it doesn't offer any more detail, so if you want a precise order, you'll have to move them yourself. I made the edits for two reasons. First, the order was wildly wrong (see my post about that here); several more recent noms were in the older section and vice versa. Second, I'm trying to find out whether FACBot will revert me; I don't know how much of this is manual and how much the bot controls. I pinged the bot owner, Hawkeye7, yesterday hoping he would explain, but he didn't respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I keep a more accurate list in my sandbox. The official list should be in proper date order – if the bot can't do that, then it needs fixing. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, by all means go ahead and rearrange it. The bot hasn't reverted so far, so perhaps we can order the list manually. The only thing I'd like to see is either (a) removal of the "older nominations" section, because it seems pointless; or (b) if there is such a section, make sure everything over four weeks is in it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Germany at the moment, and am slow to respond. The Bot assumes the list is already in order when it moves the daily marker. I can make it work the way you want, but I'm not making any changes until I get home, as I might not be able to respond if a bug is introduced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, thanks for the response. It would be great if they could be listed in the order of nomination date, but there's no rush for it. Just whenever (and if) you have the time, and thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, you can see here how the bot is moving them out of order. I moved those two out of the "older nominations" section, but it has moved them back. So we have several of four weeks in the regular section, but for some reason two of three and four weeks in the older section. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Pressler

Jessica Pressler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Draft:Jessica Pressler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You create-protected this page in 2014. Unless there's something you can see in the history that I can't, can you please unprotect it so the draft can be accepted through AFC? Brad v 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad, done. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Brad v 21:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FGM again

Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem that has played itself out on several articles. I'd revert but the previous version is incoherent, so it would need some work. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sofia Airport

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia Airport. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting by people on the Cleveland, Texas entry

If you don't mind helping me, I have a couple of questions concerning your comment to me about the on-going discussion in the Cleveland, Texas city page. You say, "Instead of reverting, please keep discussing on talk."

First, the discussion has been going on for years and neither he or I appear to change our stances - although there is a simple solution I suggested 24 November 2011 and to my amazement Herostratus brings up this month as a solution as if it was a new consideration - Put that old breaking-news crime story in it's own wikipage. 
Next, since the addition in question was added to the page, why is my removal of the addition in question "reverting" as opposed to the repeated reverting by the main individual in the talk-page discussion (or someone he contacts)?

Thanks for looking those things up, and I'll make the rest of my reply on the Cleveland, Texas talk page. Your help is appreciated.

PS - Am I the only one that keeps forgetting to do the tilde sign thing? *LOL* Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here since I'm not a regular editor on wiki, but since a person signs in, and the program adds the signed-in individual's name if they don't use the tilde signature, what is the purpose of the tilde process?  I know, goofy question but was wondering.

LazLong Sr (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]