User talk:SlimVirgin/July 2018

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for 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.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Women's Sunday, Hyde Park, 21 June 1908.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Women's Sunday, Hyde Park, 21 June 1908.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

I am being ATTACKED - WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT by this person - User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for many months, he apparrently hates me and the visual arts. Please get this guy off my back. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that a short time ago Modernist was warned by User:NeilN about using invective like this to characterize ongoing content disputes [1], a warning Modernist has repeatedly disregarded. This comes out of a longrunning content dispute regarding the use of nonfree images of visual art, where Modernist is among those who strongly reject NFCC policy (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Under attack, and the related deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 18 (where many of the disputed uses that Modernist advocated for have already been removed). The underlying issue is whether certain articles on the visual arts are exempt from (or subject to much more relaxed application of) basic WP:NFCC, WP:V, and WP:RS policies. With his side not prevailing in the dispute, he is again personalizing the issues rather than substantively addressing serious policy concerns. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Failed (as in process / stress) FAR/C from just after the HQRS change

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 FAR/C I'm thinking of Bill Lomax. Both as an author, and an editor of a major scholarly collection (in a box, can't find on world cat) and annotated primary source collection (1990, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956). The weight issue is the centrality of the Hungarian working class and their councils as one of the major historiographical narratives. It is apparent in structure and weight: the article has the revolution ending with the Soviet Intervention. Last time I checked the Greater Budapest Central Workers Council called off the strikes some time in December after the third wave of arrests of their leadership. Sporadic, as far as I can tell non-councilist, rural guerrilla groups operated into 1958. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review guidance

The essay, with your polishings, looks well. Is it possible, though, that more than just my name could be included in the Help section? Ealdgyth, for one, has much authority and respect in this area and might be willing to be mentioned. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I've replied on talk and pinged you there. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

VV and PD

Thanks for your edits on A Room of One's Own. Speaking as someone who has tried to find coverage of Judith (and Mary, Anne, Susanna, and Elisabeth) that is independant of her husband, that aspect of Woolf's work resonates strongly, and I'm glad to see the article receive a bit of care and attention. Incidentally, and as a complete digression, you may find this article interesting:

• Orlin, Lena Cowen (2014). "Anne by Indirection". Shakespeare Quarterly. 65 (4). Folger Shakespeare Library: 421–454. doi:10.1353/shq.2014.0043. eISSN 1538-3555. ISSN 0037-3222 – via Project MUSE. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

It's not, I don't think, in your particular area of interest, but it's somewhat illustrative of Woolf's Judith.

In any case… Among your edits was a link to a copy of the book on the Internet Archive. That edition was published in the UK in 1935, which means its copyright term in its country of origin is pma. 70 (death of author + 70 years). Since Woolf died in 1941 it would have been in copyright in the UK until 2012. And, crucially in this case, per the URAA its US copyright was restored (to the new US copyright terms) on the URAA date in 1996. Since the US copyright was renewed in 1957 (by Leonard Woolf), the US term of copyright that applies is 95 years after first publication. Thus the work as such will be in copyright in the US through the end of 2024 (1929+95), and that particular edition of it until 2030 (1935+95). The copy on IA thus violates Woolf's copyright, and our link to it falls under WP:COPYVIOEL.

Now, I'm of the general opinion that we're too paranoid about copyright (NFCC in particular makes me tear my hair out: more Catholic than the Pope springs to mind), but as best I can tell, this particular instance does fall afoul of our copyright policy and needs to be removed. WP:IANAL applies, of course, and your assessment may differ; but I figured I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. --Xover (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Xover, thanks for the information and the article. There are so many free copies around, but you seem to be right about the US. I'll take a look around some more, then I'll ping you on the talk page. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Football Lads Alliance quick update

Hi Sarah, thanks for your work on this Talk:Football Lads Alliance#RfC about restoring content has now been closed as restore which I have done in this diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. Glad it got sorted out. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kim Stallwood for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kim Stallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Stallwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

Hi. I've been working on Jill Valentine for the past couple of months, and have been advised to contact previous editors before nominating the article at FAC again. I've worked with Czar [a bit] and Niwi3 [a lot], and I believe I've dealt with all of their concerns from 'Concept and design' and 'Appearances'. Now all that's left is 'Reception and legacy'—specifically the two paragraphs regarding her sexual objectification. I think I've made some progress there, but I'd appreciate your feedback on that section, if you have the time. I understand if you don't, though... you seem to be pretty busy with all of the above. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I just thought I'd let you know that I still plan on going ahead with taking this article to FAC. I'd hoped that – as the primary opposer at the last two FACs – you'd have something to say here. Evidently not. C'est la vie. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation activists

Hi SarahSV,

I have been participating in the July Wikiproject Women in Red editathon, working on new biographies of African women. In my research, I am finding women who are advocates to stop (FGM). Older activists like Edna Adan Ismail, have Wiki biographies, but there are younger notable activists like Halima Ali Adan and Nice Leng’ete who have new or not yet written profiles.

I have linked questions that I would like to get your thoughts on:

• Should information about individual FGM activists with Wiki profiles be added to the Female genital mutilation article?
• If not. would a Wiki article summarizing the work of deceased and living FGM activists be a good idea?
• If not, what do you think of (me) creating a list of 20th and 21st century FGM activists, similar to the List of female scientists in the 20th century and List of female scientists in the 21st century?

My goal is to provide information in one or few places on Wikipedia for people researching information on current FGM activists and activism. thx MauraWen (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen, nice to meet you. Adding activists' names to the main FGM article probably wouldn't be appropriate, unless they played an important role in the history of activism against it, but you can certainly add the names to Template:Female genital mutilation. A stand-alone article would be very interesting, if you can find enough secondary sources, as would a list. With an article, you'd be able to explain the history of the activism, so it might be more satisfying to write. I like your new article on Halima Ali Adan, and I see you've found Category:Activists against female genital mutilation. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @SlimVirgin:. I may work on a draft for a stand-alone article later on. If I do, I will run the draft by you early in the process to see if I am on the right track. I really liked your FMC article, excellent! MauraWen (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

MauraWen, thank you. By all means run the draft by me. I'd be very interested to read it. As you can see, I tried to give a potted history at Female genital mutilation#Opposition, particularly the "Growth of opposition" subsection, but there isn't space for much detail. There's a bit more in Template:FGM opposition timeline about the 1920s to 1980s. I recall that Janice Boddy's Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan (Princeton University Press, 2007) was a useful source for anti-FGM activism there from the 1920s onwards. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about AfC request for Draft:To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science

I recently noticed there was no page for Draft:To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science and was surprised. I'm sure you've heard about this new research company and it was a fairly significant news item (I referenced several signifant news sources). The company was founded by Tom DeLonge and has as advisers numerous very high ranking ex-U.S. defense and intelligence officials.

Would you mind having a look at the draft article and perhaps provide feedback or edit, or help expedite the AfC procedure (this is my first creation and it says it could take 6 weeks?!) Thanks very much! (also - just a note of thanks on your amazing wikipedianship!) Cheesy poof (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cheesy poof, I'm sorry that I don't have time to review your article, but good luck with it. It should attract a review fairly soon because it's short. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil DS Alert

Ceoil was notified of infobox discretionary sanctions on April 1, which I included in the AE report. Perhaps you will consider changing your statement. –dlthewave ☎ 20:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have hoped...

...that someone with as much experience of Wikipedia as you would think twice before changing long-standing WP:BLP policy on the basis of a single post from a contributor who clearly (as a moments glance at their edit history would have shown) was looking to find a way to add contentious material to a biography, in the face of multiple policy-based objections. Established contributors are strongly advised against altering policy in order to win disputes, and I don't think that a 'get an admin to do it for you' exception to this would be seen as generally helpful. It certainly wasn't in this case, since it has given the IP the misleading impression that WP:BLP is regularly rewritten on a whim. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a meaningless phrase that should have been removed or fixed years ago. I'm glad the IP pointed it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed? Quite possibly. Removed, after many years, without prior discussion? No way. If an anonymous IP (like me, or the one starting the thread) had done that, it would have been reverted on sight. And the IP blocked... 86.147.197.31 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The removal made no difference to the policy. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records" etc. There's no need for "or other public documents", and it raises the question of what it means. If we know what it means, and if it refers to something over and above what's there already, we should say so. If not, we should remove it. It has been a kind of invisible phrase over the years. I've read that section many times, but I had somehow never noticed those words. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against amending the policy. I'm suggesting that it wasn't wise to revise it preemptively in the context that it occurred. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

FAR listing for Rudolf Vrba

I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Catrìona (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)