User talk:SlimVirgin/June 2015

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request for help[edit]

Hello. I am not sure if this is the correct procedure, but I hope you can help. To explain:

  • in March User:ClemRutter removed referenced content from the Bone china article.
  • a long discussion followed on the talk page, and this also included the addition of further references to support the sub-section (Boycott by vegetarians and vegans) which User:ClemRutter was attempting to expunge. Noteworthy is User:ClemRutter did not join the discussion about the sub-section.
  • User:Ryk72 did a sterling job of tidying up the long list of references.
  • all seemed quiet until very recently when User:ClemRutter started again to edit the same sub-section. His gripe is similar, he claims the sub-section is irrelevant, but he is now attacking the number of references.
  • currently there a four references supporting the sub-section, which doesn't seem excessive. It is particularly odd that User:ClemRutter is objecting to the number of references as previously he was demanding supporting references.
  • equally odd is that a review of the edit history of User:ClemRutter indicates he/she no interest or experience with bone china or related.
  • it is ironic given that User:ClemRutter did not join the previous discussion about then Vegetarian & Vegan sub-section that a recent removal of references was accompanied by a comment about the talk page, which again he has not joined.
  • this smacks of a slow but rather disingenuous campaign to remove relevant and referenced content.
  • your review would be appreciated, and relevant links are [1] and [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.56.218.188 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, if I were writing that, I wouldn't include that material as a separate section because it's very short. In fact I probably wouldn't include it at all, because it's obvious that ethical vegans avoid it, and not clear that dietary vegans or vegetarians do. The word boycott is misleading, unless there really is an organized boycott, but if you mean they just avoid it, it's better to stick with that word.
If it's not in its own section, it's not clear where to put it. Perhaps you could develop it; e.g. "Bone china is one a range of items ethical vegans avoid because based on animal products. To identify dinnerware made from animal bone, check this or that," but this depends on your being able to find sources. Sorry I can't be of more help. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah (SV), Apologies for the interruption on your Talk page. I just wanted to advise that I'm having another look at this section of the Bone china article, and will take your thoughts above into account. I'd also like to thank "103" for their kind words about my previous contributions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maddie Ziegler[edit]

There is a consensus on the talk page to have the infobox removed. Should that not be respected before locking the article with one in place? CassiantoTalk 22:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note about it on the talk page. I was seconds away from protecting on Schro's version, but hesitated because I was hoping it had stopped, when it happened again. That's why the protection was added the same minute it was reverted, because I was already looking at the page history. I'm sorry, I realize it's not to your liking, but it's only three days. If you can establish a clear consensus, then future admin action can support the consensus version. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
No that's fine Sarah; just seeking a clarification, that's all. I did post back on the Ziegler talk page but you've answered me now so no need to respond there. Hope your well! CassiantoTalk 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there is now a clear consensus on the Maddie Ziegler page to remove the box. Please take a look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ownership[edit]

I noticed that you changed back from my "the home of Sulkowicz's parents" to "Sulkowicz's parents' home". You have your preference, I have mine. I think mine reads easier, you apparently feel that the two-word saving is more important. I haven't seen much of your form in writing of this type, and I think I have a good memory for such things; it's where my preference comes from, actually. Again, I have to ask, is there any authoritative support for your version over mine, or are you flirting with WP:OWN on this article? Are you willing to give on anything of this nature? I know I am, and I often do. Seriously, if things are going to continue like this, it's time for me to move on. Not that the article would suffer, but it might save some frustration to move on now rather than later. ―Mandruss  20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is being poorly edited, Mandruss, by several people. I'm not talking about substantive issues such as content disagreements, but basic things: e.g. poor writing, repeatedy adding and removing the lawsuit when it was in the very next sentence. This is a sensitive issue that people are trying to write about without having read the article or its sources. Add to that the talk-page atmosphere, which has included a comment about a woman leading someone on, and asking that it be unprotected so that anon IPs can comment on a video of a rape reenactment, after a beer. (One woman referred to this exchange as a mini Elks Club gathering.) I accept, by the way, that no harm was intended with some of these comments, but that isn't the only point.
I'm in the process of obtaining releases for more images, but wonder why I'm bothering, and think I should probably take it off my watchlist instead (which I did before for a long time). In short, I would like to work with you, but I would hugely appreciate a better working relationship. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell by your reply, a "better working relationship" means that I learn to accept the issue I described above. I have no idea what all the other things you mentioned have to do with this issue, unless it's that I should live with the issue because you're under a lot of stress. As I don't wish to add to your stress, and there appears to be no other solution, I'm moving on. Good luck. ―Mandruss  21:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't take it off your watch list Sarah. Mandruss, I'm not sure if you are aware of the history of that article, but it's spent a lot of time at BLPN, and has been plagued by disruptive single purpose accounts editing from a strong POV. Things got crazy after his lawsuit came out and Sarah has done a lot to manage that craziness and keep BLP violations out of article and off talk page. I have no strong opinion on "the home of Sulkowicz's parents" vs "Sulkowicz's parents' home" but as someone who has had that page on watchlist a long time, I can say if these are the current editing battles, it's a major improvement.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The Elks Club affiliations between Mandruss and myself have been largely overstated. Bus stop (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Roel lagroma[edit]

Looks like right after you deleted Roel lagroma it was recreated as Roel Lagroma-dang that was fast. Granted I've seen faster (like the moment it has been deleted) but wanted to give a heads up as they changed the title even if slightly. Wgolf (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Wgolf. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

General sanctons, DS sanctions, etc.[edit]

Hi, SV - when there is no DS notice on an article that is considered pseudoscience, should a non-admin add it to the TP and also add the Pseudoscience DS notice to the TP of involved editors or does an admin carry out that little chore? Article in question is Kombucha where it appears there may be potential for edit warring. One more question, if a RS (book authored by a chemist) states medical information (a single case report) that is factually incorrect (verifiable but false) and cites it to a Journal report that does not support the book's statement is it better to replace the false statement with the factually accurate information in the cited Journal report (authored by MDs, ParmD)? The book makes an extraordinary claim about a product causing death when that isn't what the Journal report claims based on scientific evidence, and neither do any of the Journal reviews I've researched. Thanks in advance. --Atsme📞📧 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Atsme, mind if I send in unasked for two cents? I think you are talking about a secondary source, the book, and a tertiary source, the Journal that reported on it saying the book was false. If so then this applies correct?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Popish Plot (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Atsme I looked briefly, but it's hard to tell at a glance. The journal article is a primary source, but there appear to be secondary sources making the same point. Also (again, only at a glance), I couldn't see how the book text differed significantly from the journal text. The best thing is to gather all the secondary sources that discuss this and summarize what they say. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘Thanks on the RS issue, but what about DS question and notices? Someone mentioned to me that the article was subject to pseudoscience DS but I'm not seeing anything that indicates same on the TP or when in edit mode. Please advise. --Atsme📞📧 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to respond to that part. Anyone can add a DS notice to the talk page, and there are templates for user talk pages too; in fact I believe that has to be done before anyone can be sanctioned. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. There should be a link on that page to the templates. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointy Questions out of line[edit]

I raised a good faith BLP concern on the "Mattress" talk page and 9 minutes later PTF chimes in, repeating the BLP violation that I asked about, then repeating it on my talk page. Sorry but that's not me bringing anything other than a BLP concern. The consensus seems to have agreed with me as the last name was removed from the talk page and the last entry by Bobmeowcat says as much that it is a BLP and he's been there a lot longer than me. The people that showed up at ANI are all GG and Bernstein is even prohibited from interacting with me. I can't fix that without help. There is no disruption that I have caused but the only edits from PTF on that page are reverts. He's a polite POV pushing SPA and his very first edit was to GG arbcom. WP:DUCK --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Sorry for jumping on you like that. I've been wikihounded by the same crowd for months. This topic only caugth my eye for the legal stuff. I was editing village pump and jenner when mattress showed up. I don't plan on staying after the ANI bit and hadn't heard of it before I edited it so I don't think I will chase anyone away. I only saw you and Bobmeowcat as standing out (Paul B a bit too). I don't know who the rest of the players are and I never get gender correct from just editors unless they are obvious. Check newcomers for GG connections if you like. That's the ANI crowd. That article and space is toxic and why I only use talk page and avoid all the peripheral articles. The naming of the accused reminded me of the Joe Scarborough aide that died (and we had fight about naming her right when BLP came out in force and Jimbo had to weigh in and say "No" after her family complained). I'm glad we agree on avoiding his name. --DHeyward (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough, DHeyward, and thanks for the note. It's an unpleasant talk page and I think I'll take it off my watchlist soon anyway (it's one step forward, two steps back). Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

Thanks for your note at my talk page re. date formats in Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). I've brought the topic up at the article talk page. However, I don't believe that autoreversion is indicated at this point: Wikipolicy in the form of WP:DATETIES seems to be fairly unequivocal in support of MDY format in the article body, and DMY was introduced fairly late in the article's history, well after it'd attained a considerable length. But that's all at the talk page... Ammodramus (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg
Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol[edit]

The Non-barnstar Barnstar

For the creation of Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol.

It is a very nice article.

Bus stop (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bus stop, I appreciate that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That revert on Mattress Peformance...[edit]

that you thanked me for was reverted. Care to revert? I'll bring it up on the Talk page as an issue.--A21sauce (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi A21sauce, I'll take a look. Maybe we should bring it up on RSN. I'm confused about what's happening at that article. It seems to be surging in one direction. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the confusion about that point. I initially said I accepted your proposal to include both references (Jezebel and Young3Feb) but not to use Jezebel as a secondary source because it is not an RS. I didn't realize that what you were proposing involved citing it as a secondary source. I also wanted to cite Young3Feb for something else that wasn't in the Jezebel article at all, so I had to unbundle them. I did check the archives at RSN first and found a pattern wherein they generally reject anything from the Gawker network as unreliable, and I left a note on the Mattress talk page about that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm completely confused about this. Jezebel, The Daily Beast and Reason.com are all websites that are not the best sources. But they have discussed this issue in detail, so we want to use them. Editors are saying the second two are fine (which support the accused), but not the first (which supports Sulkowicz). But I can't see any difference in quality between them, unless I'm missing something.
Second, there are two Jezebel articles. One is a primary source (written by an involved person, Josie), and the other is a secondary source (written by an uninvolved person, a journalist). Editors are getting them mixed up, and calling both primary, I think. I understand arguing against using the primary, but I can't understand the objection to the secondary, especially when all I wanted to do was add it to the footnote.
Third, the primary has now been added to the article and the secondary removed, when it should be the other way round.
Fourth (and I'm just getting started!), the Josie article makes clear that she didn't really know the others, except in the sense of having heard of some or all, and still doesn't know one of their names. But you used that source to say that she was friends with them. You used the source to say the opposite of what it said. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to ping: Sammy1339 Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll start from the bottom.
The article by Josie said she was "friendly" with Sulkowicz, though only after investing a lot of energy in distancing herself from her. This is the language I used. I included this because it's essential not to imply that these were allegations by unconnected people. (Of course, I still believe these allegations should not be mentioned.)
I said I was comfortable with the Jezebel sources being used as primary. Actually after re-reading WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB, this may be a bit questionable, but I cited that source very cautiously. With reference to the first Jezebel piece I had in mind that Sulkowicz's explanation of the facebook messages could be used if the latter appeared in the article (as I previously asserted was necessary.)
Reason needs to be treated with caution, as it is a biased source, but it does have an editorial board. The Daily Beast has very high editorial standards as I understand, similar to major newspapers, and is not a biased source. The RSN archives show that people there generally regard it as reliable. Jezebel lacks editorial standards. (I mean this literally - this is why some people refer to it as "a blog.") Although the Gawker network has something called an editorial board, it doesn't do what you might think it does, and is almost entirely concerned with driving traffic, even requiring its contributors to write tabloid-type stories. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: Okay, but you're not treating Reason.com with caution. You're using it.
Why are you calling the Jezebel article by the journalist a primary source, or implying that it's not a secondary source (e.g. in this edit summary)? Please reply to this, because I've asked it a few times, I believe, somewhere.
Re: Josie, she makes clear that she didn't know the others well:

There is a narrative spreading that pins me as “Friend of Mattress Girl,” filing a sexual assault complaint as part of a weird collusion among girlfriends. This narrative is entirely false. At the time, Emma and I were friendly; however, we were never friends. We had never hung out one-on-one and I’d never had her number in my phone. I also never knew the identity of Paul’s ex-girlfriend, who also filed a complaint against him, until two separate reporters let her name slip while interviewing me—assuming, maybe, that I knew her. But I didn’t. I still don’t even know what she looks like or what her last name is. [3]

You used that source to say they were friendly ("Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, two other women with whom she was friendly filed additional complaints ...), [4] implying collusion, when Josie says she doesn't know what one of them looks like or her last name. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I read Josie's whole account. As for my wording I don't think it's implying collusion, but it allows for the possibility of it. Without that, people may calculate (2%)^4=0.000016% chance of four false accusations. Knowing that these people knew each other prior to the accusations is essential. I would offer to use "acquainted," but "friendly" is Josie's own word.
I should have said I wanted to use Sulkowicz's account of the text messages as a primary source which is reprinted in the Jezebel article. That's what I meant. No Jezebel article should ever be used for statements of fact. Although maybe it's better to find a different source which paraphrases it, and after all the facebook messages are not in the article currently. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You've done it again: "Knowing that these people knew each other prior to the accusations is essential." She says she did not know, and still does not know, the identity of one of the other women.
And if you want to interpret the Jezebel article as a primary source because it contains one party's account, you'll have to do the same with the Young articles, which also contain one party's account. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to her and Sulkowicz knowing each other. As for the Young articles being primary, I don't understand what you're saying. There's nothing analogous to Sulkowicz's notes on the facebook messages in those articles; those notes are what I wanted to interpret as primary, because the author said she reprinted them unabridged. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the secondary sources are repeating material that comes from primary sources. That's what secondary sources do. If you are going to treat one of them as a primary source because it contains primary-source material, you will have to do it with them all. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right. It's not really important right now since the facebook messages are not even in the article.
By the way, when I asked you to clarify your position on BLP violations against non-mentioned people, I wasn't being pointy. I really want to know, because I want to bring up some questions about how to interpret BLPCRIME at RfC at some point. (Not right now, and not with a mind to the mattress thing.) That policy addresses one of the most serious issues we have to deal with and it's unreasonably short and vague - I think it should be fixed.
Earlier I think I set you off with my "I don't care" comment. It's not even really true, of course I do care. I was involved in two particular cases recently that made me really queasy - Dru Yoga, where people were trying to publicize criminal allegations against a cult leader, and Naya Nazimabad which involved industrial toxic waste being dumped in a residential development, incriminating the non-notable developers. In these cases, censoring the articles to protect the presumption of innocence entails allowing more people to be severely victimized because they are unaware of these abuses, but even so, other editors involved took it for granted that we had to do that - I actually wanted to include some more information in the Naya Nazimabad case, but another guy shut me down. I'm not even sure this is a good policy and that's part of why I want to do the RfC.
This mattress case is really making me nuts. I have no interest in it, at all - I think it's just another viral thing that will be forgotten in a year or two, and I'm indifferent to the political aspect. (On the one hand, it's good for more people to be aware of rape culture and I'm inclined to support the movement; on the other hand, the kinds of solutions proposed - Sulkowicz puts it bluntly as simply not using proof in rape cases - are not realistic and all these protests are not going anywhere.) Every time I sit down and want to do something else, the mattress thing comes up, and I have to write these obnoxious long arguments for minor tweaks in wording that will not last a day, and it ends up sucking up all of my time. And I can't just ignore it, because I really think it's unethical. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Band[edit]

hi I created a page for guroor the band which u deleted ...the data was authentic and had posted a link in it too....being new to this site i guess i forgot to post reference if u would please tell me the criteria for posting and what was insufficient it would be great help and if u could undo the deletion ...it is a popular band in delhi and i guess deserves a place on ur site as well.

Srishti Mahajan (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC) srishti mahajan [1]

Tahera Ahmad[edit]

Tahera Ahmad is an article that needs some help. This neatly fits into GGTF because this is a woman in a man dominated faith and she has been an interesting figure. I posted this on the GGTF but it was missed or ignored so I was going to hit you up and see if you can help flesh it out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hell in a Bucket, thanks for the note, but I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment. I have several things lined up that I'm falling behind with. But thanks again for asking. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok no worries I can find someone else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To your suggestion[edit]

Which way is it surging now? Yes to your suggestion, especially since we have an editor that seems to have to be reprimanded three times a day. --A21sauce (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi A21sauce, I have no idea what to do at that article, and for now I've taken it off my watchlist because it was too stressful. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Take a break for now. You were super-involved.--A21sauce (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Will this violate my topic ban?[edit]

Hi. There has been a recent scientific publication supporting the hypothesis that cat ownership is linked to schizophrenia[5]. This has also been reported in the popular press [6] and supports previous research. I would like to edit the Cat article with this information, but I'm concerned it just may violate my topic ban "from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions." I'd be very appreciative of your thoughts. If you like, I can draft the edit I would like to make and send it to you.DrChrissy (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy, it would almost certainly violate the ban, unfortunately. There's a fascinating article about that issue here in the Atlantic (not a MEDRS) about how that parasite might influence human behaviour. It's probably best not to discuss the article (again, because of the ban), but I thought you might like to read it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the very clear advice and directing me to the article - it is also cited in Toxoplasmosis. I've noticed that many of the domestic animal articles are missing a zoonosis section, or these are incomplete. I'd like to introduce these into the animal articles, but I guess I will have to sit back for 6 months to do this, unless another editor sees this area of improvement. Cheers. DrChrissy (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The six months will be over quickly. I hope you can then ask for the ban to be lifted or at least relaxed so that you can make this kind of edit. All the best, Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your threat[edit]

Could you please explain your threat? I don't see any context. What is this gategame and in what way am I involved? You don't seriously expect me, as a non-native speaker, to read this amount of text. Additionally I don't see any BLP issues in my recent edits: I only wanted to avoid bias and undue weight in the articles I edited. If you assume that I'm a new single purpose account, you are wrong: I'm editing the German Wikipedia for years now and oversee pending changes. For the next time: Please discuss issues which are related to articles at article talk pages. Greetings.--Cyve (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Page delete & move[edit]

You deleted Suri language, giving the reason as "G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move", but you didn't actually move the page. This may have been just a slip, or it may have been a deliberate decision with a good reason, but I thought it was alternatively possible that you don't know the standard way of doing this, so I thought I would let you know. (If you do already know, please ignore this.) The db-g6 template message includes a link labelled "(link to perform this move)". If you click on that link, the page will be deleted and the other page moved, all in one operation, rather than just deleting the page and leaving the other page for someone else to find and move. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks, James. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

note[edit]

thank you for the note. I will try to reply soon. Many thanks--TristanAlessi612 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the semi-protect! I attract the attention of idiots from time to time. --Jorm (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Jorm, you're welcome. I know the feeling. :) Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignore ping[edit]

Hi Sarah,

Things have moved on a bit, there is no reason to respond to my earlier ping. A wise person once said to me: wait long enough, and 90% of all problems work themselves out. petrarchan47คุก 04:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I don't think I saw your ping, so sorry for not responding to whatever it was, but I'm glad it worked out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you've been doing some work on the Female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom recently. I just added a short section to the Somalis in the United Kingdom article on this subject. Since you're much more experienced writing about this than me, I wondered if you'd mind taking a look at it? Any comments or suggestions would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Larry, I'll take a look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. Just wondering if you had time to take a look at this, and whether you have any suggested changes or additions? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Larry, I only had time to look at it briefly, but it seems fine as written and well sourced. I would probably leave out the 1995 articles and the quote ("With the growing number ...") if I were writing it, because there's no need to rely on sources from 20 years ago for these points – unless you write it differently (physicians warned 20 years ago that ...) Sarah (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to ping: Cordless Larry. Sarah (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, much appreciated. I'll take a look at the wording around those sources again. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Milla Jovovich[edit]

When the full protection expires, will you restore semi-protection that was set to expire on 03:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)? --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi George, yes, I'll do that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The protection will expire in forty-three minutes. Just for the heads up. George Ho (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines[edit]

Hi Sarah (SV), Just letting you know that I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines on the recent addition to the Talk page guidelines, "Male is not the default". I share and genuinely admire the intent behind the addition, but am not sure that couching it as a gendered issue is best; and think it would be worth editors discussing. Regards, - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You wrote FGM?![edit]

This is an amazing accomplishment and I don't think there is a barnstar worthy of this effort of yours. I've just begun translating some women's health article into haitian and I will move this one up to the top of my translation to-do-list. Thanks for your message on my talk page. You are more qualified to assess topics related to Women's health than I am! If you feel that I have improperly assessed a topic, please revert my assessments without a thought. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bfpage, thank you for those kind words – very much appreciated. As for being more qualified, no, I'm definitely not, and I've always wondered how to assess these things. For example, I just added "mid" importance to FGM in the UK. In reality, it's probably low in the sense that it affects a relatively small number in that country. But I didn't have the heart to write "low," given how important it is to women who've experienced it. So I'm not sure I'm a very good assessor! Sarah (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Since you wrote the article and might be uncomfortable giving it top importance, I did it. We're supposed to be writing for a world-wide-English-speaking readership and so it's top importance is appropriate. I just read the article and it is the best article that I've read on Wikipedia. I don't think there is such an award, but the research that you must have put into this topic is incredible - have you received any awards of any kind for this work?
  Bfpage |leave a message  00:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Bfpage, thank you for doing that. I received some barnstars for it, and lots of thanks. Yes, a huge amount of research, which is ongoing because it needs to be kept up to date. Once it had FA status and was TFA (6 February), I felt I'd never be able to look at it again, but I'm slowly doing exposure therapy so I can face it. :) Sarah (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You have made a sacrifice that I've not even imagined possible for getting the information out there to the world-such a monumental work. There are not enough thank you's in the world to adequately recognize this effort. I can only honor you with translating the article into another language (in progress).
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Translating it will be a big job. I wish you all the best with it! Sarah (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Please stop revertwarring to remove material that was added by consensus. I'm sorry you did not participate in some prior discussions, but they did not require your personal participation to conclude and proceed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Step in?[edit]

Would you please step in? We both respect you and he's asked you to and I concur. We all care about COI and are largely fighting over COI tags and COI, but also I've noticed some blatant policy violations. We've been butting heads in several articles and talk pages, where there's been edit warring, selective deletion of others' comments from talk pages, warnings, etc, and it's getting nastier. Please step in to address this; see also our respective talk page histories for today and/or our recent contributions. --Elvey(t•c) 20:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elvey, I left a note at COIN, but the issues seem quite complex. Sarah (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Now he's trying to get me blocked. Perhaps the format there is helpful?--Elvey(t•c) 03:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch[edit]

Thank you for this, SMcCandlish. It's much appreciated. Sarah (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
NP. :-) It's fine by me if the precedence stuff is discussed at length and repeatedly; no hurry on resolving that. I don't think the clarification regarding just templates, portals and other encyclopedic content is actually controversial; it was just a mistake to add it at the same time. PS: Trying to get them to salvage some of your more gender-specific stuff at the WT:TALK discussion. The divide stat is important.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

big dreams[edit]

Dreams ar beautiful things ain't the Orochiha (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS tutorial[edit]

Hi Sarah,

Do you remember suggesting to Sandy Georgia that we could benefit from a tutorial on the MEDRS guideline? I can find the conversation if not.

I'm not finding the guideline very accessible, and the lack of understanding is leading to some frustrating experiences here.

I noticed that the conversation died out soon after the suggestion was made, and I've been meaning to bring this up with you for a while - I'd like to rekindle that idea; it is sorely needed. petrarchan47คุก 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Your idea came up here at the Project Medicine talk page, where I've been trying to get help understanding the guideline. I had a question about whether MEDRS is required to talk about history - one of the examples you give here when you suggested the MEDRS tutorial :) petrarchan47คุก 03:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Petra, I agree that the tutorial is something we should try to pursue. It's finding the time to do all these things that's tricky. Re: history, MEDRS are needed for medical claims only. They're not needed for everything in an article that makes medical claims. Sarah (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It was this bit that I was told needed MEDRS.
I do understand about the time thing. This can percolate a while, nothing terribly urgent about it.
One more question - I have proposed a change to address a POV violation at an article where people are claiming that in order to make a change, the spinoff article supposedly summarized by the section in question must be changed first. Multiple editors are arguing that SYNC essentially trumps NPOV and the ability to simply edit an article. I don't know if you would weigh in on your general understanding of the guidelines and their hierarchy, or whether you know where I could ask about this - AN/I doesn't seem right. Thanks for your time, petrarchan47คุก 03:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, may I comment on this, or would it be breaking my topic ban?DrChrissy (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, I would love to hear your views, but I'm sorry, it would be a violation of the topic ban. Petra, I think the issue was "prized for" or "valued as" v "thought to be." If I say "dogs were prized for their psychic powers," it implies that dogs had psychic powers, whereas "dogs were thought to have psychic powers" doesn't. As for needing to change another daughter or parent article first, that doesn't sound right. Sarah (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah - As ever, thanks for your time and consideration.DrChrissy (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
As am I. With the direct quote about the beliefs of people during the Tsing Dynasty, it seemed obvious to me that during the time, this was their view. Half of the article's Lede just above the history section is devoted to assuring readers that Kombucha has no good qualities and is in fact dangerous. So the caveat didn't seem nessesary to me, but I understand the argument. As for the SYNC argument, it is being used in a recent RfC to argue that no changes should be made to a controversy section that is the epitome of WP:YESPOV, IMO. Is there some way to get everyone on the same page regarding the use of PAGs? I thought that an RfC would be one place PAGs would be accurately represented. I'm wondering what course of action is recommended when arguments/iVotes are based on an inaccurate understanding of the guidelines. petrarchan47คุก 19:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Petra, sorry, I can't really see what's being referred to there, in terms of parent/daughter articles. Sarah (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is the controversy section for GMO foods. It is 3 paragraphs, with the middle one solely devoted to the safety of GMOs. There is no coverage of the controversy, or "other side" of the GMO safety issue, so it reads more like an argument (YESPOV) for one side of the issue. My suggestion, which I have twice attempted to apply to the article, is to simply give the safety consensus paragraph its own section, much like a "Health" section in many articles, by moving it out from the controversy section. The edits were reverted because the daughter article, "GMO Controversies" is supposedly summarized by the controversy section in the main GMO article, therefore we can't touch the section unless "GMO Controversies" is changed first, so that they are SYNCed. The argument was best summarized in this iVote: Moving the content out would require a fundamental reorganization of material across multiple articles due to WP:SYNC requirements. This is a claim that at least 3 editors are using, 2 of them being the main editors of the page who have placed themselves in charge of article content. petrarchan47คุก 03:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
So you would like to edit the article so that controversy stands alone and the fact that the controversies have no reasonable basis is in some other spot where the refutation isn't quite so obvious?—Kww(talk) 04:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, Kww. In short, no. Is it in fact your belief that "the controversies" have no reasonable basis? The controversies mentioned in this section span from regulatory issues to labeling and biodiversity. The safety of GMO food is only discussed in this section by presenting the "GMOs are safe" argument, but how this is considered a controversial claim is not explained to the reader, who is left to assume GMO safety must somehow be considered controversial by the fact that it is nestled under "controversy" heading (forcing the reader to perform SYNTH). They aren't actually told what the controversy is, what claims are made and by whom. In the related RfC, editors are stating that GMO safety is the most controversial aspect of GM technology - but we don't tell that to the reader (it was news to me as well). Right now the entire section reads, essentially, "A few fringe groups have had some questions, but all science agrees that GMOs are safe, and the FDA has everything under control, so there is no reason for labeling, either". The fact that the majority of Americans want GMOs labelled is also not mentioned, only rebutted. I was reverted for adding statistics about this. The number of countries who require GMO labeling (64 now?) is also not mentioned. The fact that the USDA just created a GMO labeling program is not mentioned, and I was revered for adding it.
It would make sense to include a statement about the safety consensus in the controversy section if we cover both sides, per NPOV. As it stands, it is nothing but a rebuttal to claims that aren't specified let alone flushed out like the safety bit. This is a clear violation of YESPOV. If I were writing the article, I would cover the safety, and regulators responsible for assuring it, in a separate section. It could be mentioned again summary style, with due weight, in the controversy section in response to a discussion of 'the other side', as required by the aforementioned guidelines.
WP:YESPOV Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. ...such as this, this and this.
If it was indeed the case that all controversy regarding GM food is baseless, it would not justify our utter lack of coverage of the arguments, and the groups, scientists, countries, and individuals who believe them. Until the coverage is there, simply moving the safety consensus paragraph would help create a less biased section/article, and according to the RfC, I'm not alone in this assessment.
My very simple question is whether SYNC is a "requirement" that trumps NPOV (SYNC is being used to prevent changes to the GMO article), and one that prevents an editor from working on a single article rather than two or more simultaneously. This is the first article where I've encountered this claim, although recently I've seen it argued at one other article. It seems a simple question - what is the hierarchy of guidelines, if one exists? I was under the impression that NPOV was the prevailing guideline. petrarchan47คุก 23:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Bottom line: it's not a Controversies article that follows a basic definition of a controversy, it's structured as a rebuttal article aimed at dispelling concerns and refuting criticisms. Meanwhile, in this article, you argue that a Health and food safety section is unnecessary, because it's all properly covered there. It makes no sense. petrarchan47คุก 03:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Hi Petra, I'd have to do a lot of reading before I could comment. All I can say is that I probably wouldn't have written it with all the controversy moved to another article. But it's impossible to judge without knowing more about the issues, how long the main article would otherwise become, etc. Sarah (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha, understood. Thank you again ~ petrarchan47คุก 23:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting protection of German language[edit]

Hi there,

Over the past weeks, there have been repeated attempts by unregistered users (only an IP-signature) of inserting unreferenced information on German language, even after contacting people and pointing out the talk page of the article. I request a higher protection of the page (only registered users). Thanks for any assistance! --37ophiuchi (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I replied on article talk. Sarah (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Would like your commentary and thoughts[edit]

I put mention in the lede of Leo Frank article about Slaton being lawpartner of Leo Frank's lead trial attorney Luther Rosser. Would like your thoughts if this is appropriate or not to mention this in the lede. I'm not seeking to draw any conclusions that Slaton commuting the death sentence of his law-firm's client causing Frank to get lynched, only mentioning it in lede because it seems relevant to the case. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi GingerBreadHarlot, I'm sorry, it's unlikely that I'll get to this, but if I have time I'll take a look. Sarah (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Tom Northshoreman is dominating the Leo Frank article like a POV Warrior, he is not allowing anyone to include anything balancing or that goes against his bias. He won't allow the mention of Governor Slaton commuting the death sentence of his own law firm client into the lead. Multiple reliable sources mention this fact. He is trying to prevent anything from being entered into the article that shows conflict of interest or evidence showing Frank's guilt. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Yagman[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the prompt page protection. Can I revert IP edits w/o violating 3RR myself since this is case of vandalism? Quis separabit? 02:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in the process of looking through this because it has the flavour of a BLP violation, though I'm not sure. Also, the bit you want to restore may be a copyvio, though again I've only glanced, so not sure yet. Better to post further on talk. Sarah (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will check back with you later here. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I assume you mean "reworded" when you say "written" so as to avoid copyright infringement. I am going to leave it for now as is anyway since some of the text in question was duplicative/redundant. Thanks for your help. Quis separabit? 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary doesn't match your edit[edit]

With edit you failed to mention the removal of material critical of the artwork. I'll assume good faith that the failure to note that deletion was accidental, but you're a pretty experienced editor. Can you explain why you removed the copy?Mattnad (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you care? CassiantoTalk 06:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)[edit]

Hi Sarah, I know you said you needed a break from that page, but any chance you'd consider re-adding it to watchlist? Things are getting a little tense again with recent edit warring [7] and now with brand new user on talk page.[8] I'm trying to assume good faith, but it seems unusual for first edits ever to be on a talk page like that. I recall in past you were really helpful inquiring regarding alternate accounts on that page and user's editing while logged out, so if you'd consider keeping an eye on it, that might help prevent things from spiraling out of control again.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I don't think I can return to editing there, but I've created an FAQ in case it's helpful; see top of that talk page. I agree about that new account. Perhaps we should consider going to WP:AE at some point. The thing to do is start collecting diffs, particularly of BLP violations, including on the talk page. Sarah (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bot[edit]

can you help me? I'm trying to revet a small addtition of the aspd page and cluebot seems to think i'm vandalizing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedominprivacy (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Male is not the default[edit]

I removed your section on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines because I feel it is not relevant for that specific page, following WP:BRD let's discuss it on the talk page. Weegeerunner chat it up 21:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)