User talk:SlimVirgin/February 2015

Photo question
Say you seem to know about this kind of thing. I was wondering if the photos at this link were in the public domain or otherwise usable at German Concentration Camps Factual Survey? Or perhaps the photos at the Imperial War Museum here? I have only a vague knowledge of US copyright laws, and British ones totally mystify me. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Core, whether the images the film uses are PD depends on who took them or where they were taken. Anything from the American military, yes, and anything in Poland from that period, yes, but anything shot by the British and Russians, I don't know offhand. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgot to ping . Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP: Robert Kagan
said that you helped to develop WP:BLP.

Perhaps you can look at Robert Kagan or Neoconservatism or WP:ANI.

is a 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did take a brief look at that, but I couldn't see what the issue was exactly. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where to start? Since 2008, Robert Kagan has protested against being labeled as Jewish, having his children's names listed.... Some of the edit warring has been done by IPs, some by use:Joe Bodacious, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Herschelkrustofsky.
 * User:Gamaliel imposed an IBAN on only me, which I don't believe is an authorized action for individual administrators, so I cannot say more.
 * is a 06:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your restorations to Emma Sukowicz
Anyway you can restore that edit without erasing everything else I've done? Shows bad faith. --A21sauce (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't agree with your other edits, either, A21sauce, so I reverted everything, partly for that reason, and partly to remove the name asap. I've left notes on the talk page. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding, again

 * Thank you so much for this,, and for all your contributions to it. I couldn't have done this without you. (I haven't even looked at the main page yet: I almost don't dare!) Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's there, and it's great! Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just peeked. It looks good! Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't beat that! But I echo it completely. Be very proud of yourself for your achievement. I had a hard time reading through this afternoon and was struck at the strength and fortitude it's taken to write it and stick with it to the end. Congrats! Victoria (tk) 00:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ! Your help and encouragement have been absolutely invaluable. This was an article that really did get carried along by a team. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you,, that's very thoughtful of you. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree,  precious  again, and free (excellent) speech! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes,, agree with this, as well. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ! Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's an honour to share tomorrow's TFA section with that mentioned first! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's one of yours. Congratulations, it looks really good, and it's kind of you to say that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hi, Sarah! I have a question about a GA review I started. The nom was indeffed after the nomination, but now User:Reyk wants to continue the review in their stead. Is this acceptable? I don't want to break any rules regarding indeffed users. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason not to continue with the GAN. Judging the quality of the article isn't connected to the status of the editor who wrote it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stats on gender distribution
It has occurred to me that it is difficult to analyze the Gender equality task force issues without new data being made available. 2010 is very old for data, in terms of the 10% number now being used and re-used in the general press. What might help without stirring too many waves is to optionally start tracking the number of new accounts which are male and female for anyone creating a new account if they optionally care to self-identify (not required to do so if they do not want to). This would mean that established users don't need to be asked to change anything they are currently doing or saying about their gender, while the new account editors can start optionally giving data for stats which could provide insights for future trend analysis. Do you have a sense of whether current policy would allow a voluntary self-id of gender at account creation time to take place, or if it would be questioned and raise issues among current editors? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't recall whether the figure of those self-identifying as female in their preferences has been made public. If I find that information anywhere, I'll let you know. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, Your approach is also a strong possibility. It does not seem that even Jimmy Wales has these stats since he was still quoting the 2010 UN study in his comments in U.K. last year. This suggests that no-one has more recent stats than 2010. Having these stats up to date is significant for anyone doing trend analysis for gender equality issues. Could someone with access to the metadata be asked if they could do the cumulative stats for 2014 in some way, and possibly for 2013 as well? If I can assist in anyway then let me know. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Late, last year
Just wanted to let you know I ran across an EotW request DB made about a potential candidate, and that I was looking into it. . Buster Seven   Talk  11:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look at your contribs to see what it's about. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's here. Best.. Buster Seven   Talk  23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
Hi Sarah, FYI- we have a situation which appears to complicate the emerging consensus to move Emma Sulkowicz to Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight because apparently A21sauce yesterday created a separate stand alone article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Do you know if it is a policy violation to oppose a move and then create an article with that title which would seem to effectively block the move? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wouldn't worry about that. We can make sure the requested-move discussion (RM) is closed by an uninvolved admin. If there's a title blocking the move, she will make the move by deleting whatever is in the way, but at the moment nothing is blocking Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. Then we can redirect A21sauce's title to it, assuming the one with the colon is the correct title. If A21sauce's is the correct title, the admin will delete that article and move Emma Sulkowicz there, which will preserve the edit history of the latter (assuming there's consensus for the move).


 * The one thing we ought to do is ask people to make clear in the RM whether they support the move to Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight, because it started off with a different suggestion, and it would be good not to have to hold a second RM.


 * Re: your policy question. A21sauce has been a bit disruptive racing to add the student's name, then racing to create a new article, and doing so without giving credit to the editors whose work she used (what she did was a copyright violation). But it may be enthusiasm rather than intentional disruption. A note asking her to take things more slowly might be a good idea. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory article
Hello SlimVirgin,

An editor much more experienced than I suggested I contact you with regards to a conservative POV CMT article, now meeting much resistance to change--it's still using a 1977 quote, which gives you an idea of the work to be done. If you're interested, thanks for taking a look. Renejs (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, it's not something I'd have an interest in looking at, but I wish you all the best with it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FGM
Hi, Sara, I wonder if you've seen this? Very depressing.

For some reason, the viewing figure for TFA on 6 February is not available. I would like to know this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's a very sad story, particularly mum supplying a clean blade as the kindest thing she could do in the circumstances.


 * I've also been peeking at the viewing figures. Some figures are available for that day for other articles. I don't know how it works that others take longer. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, there was a discussion about the missing data at VPT, although I can't see anything helpful there. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw today that FGM had been updated from the 12th, so I wondered whether the data was lost, but apparently it will arrive, just slowly. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Good edit
I stand corrected. If Jon Kessler, a smart guy whose work I'm aware of, uses the term "endurance art", then I'll accept it. And this is a very good addition to the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) article. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I appreciate that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit and Gender gap
Are you certain about a complete delete on the cited Economist material from the gender gap article. The discussion of incentives for the project is absent from the article. Are you sure that no discussion on incentives is preferable? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your page so that the discussion's in one place. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Egads, vandalism!
Thanks for the thanks-- those edits have been reverted as "unconstructive"-- with the template urging me to become *more familiar with policies.* Giggle! Gotta love it! And the vandal-fighter's page promotes the beautiful SF Bay Area, my old stomping grounds. Am I ever glad I'm in Washington, DC, where we are busy this year celebrating 50 years of civil rights. --Djembayz (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea to develop something like that. Maybe we could talk about it on GGTF. I'd also like to see a guideline, or even just an essay, on how to write articles about women to make sure they're not sexist (e.g. no porn in lieu of normal or medical images; careful about using her first name instead of a surname; don't emphasize her relationships with men over her own notability (e.g. prioritizing wife/daughter/mother of notable man X). Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've suggested this at GGTF. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Frank Waters
In case you missed it, I apologize for being overly defensive the other day. The bottom line is: you were right, and I was wrong. I trust your instincts and knowledge base, so I'll try to be less obstinate in the future. Having said that, my concern now is that in the first 24 hours of the FAC you started a thread at talk that suggests the article is poorly sourced. That probably was the case when I cited to Waters, but I've now removed him except for one citation. My concern is that anyone coming to the article fresh will glance at that thread and assume the article fails FAC, based on your now obsolete concerns regarding my previous use of Waters. I know you are busy, but please find a few minutes to revisit the article and clarify at talk if your concerns have been resolved. I made a good-faith effort to take care of every concern you raised, so I don't think it's fair that the article will be judged based on outdated complaints that are probably enough to completely de-rail the FAC, should you neglect to clarify whether or not I've addressed the issues to your satisfaction. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, RO, I think it's better if I don't comment there again for now. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What good is the GGTF task force if this is how you treat fellow female Wikipedians? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
I don't normally use talkback messages, but I wanted to make sure you were especially aware of this thread... &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 08:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'd prefer not to comment there,, but thanks for letting me know. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification in lieu of ping
I don't know how well pings are working these days but thought I'd let you know I mentioned you here: Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I just wanted to apologize for pulling you in and even worse for bouncing off a comment I saw on your page. For someone who's never opened an AN/I thread or any such thing, I now know why, and have to wear the egg on my face. I can live with that, but I didn't realize how much finger pointing would come this way. To be honest, when it comes to wiki politics I'm very naive (comes from keeping a watchlist pared down to the bones) and so had no idea my actions would be seen as political, nor did I think that you'd get blamed too. Anyway, I am sorry. Victoria (tk) 14:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you, but there's no need to apologize to me. The SPI got bogged down with people commenting in a way that wasn't constructive, so it became more of an AN/I discussion and they are rarely good. I think any issues will come out in the wash. In the meantime, take care of yourself. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Irataba
Could you just look at this for me? The thing that bothers me is that more people have been pinged regarding the SPI issue. When I tried to hat as being off topic it was undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, KK87. This all happened because of Sarah, so she'll obviously not do anything to correct the situation. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Age disparity in sexual relationships
I think I have handled it so poorly. Really. I could have kept my views about the image to myself, but didn't. I thought it would tip the scales. Had I just arrived as an admin, pointed out that Richard was hanging on to "need consensus for removal" while having zero rationale for it to be there, and pointing out his very long block log for exactly this sort of thing, could I have put my foot down and demanded he back off?

And what does one do when one camp argues that consensus is needed for removal while openly stating that they have no rationale whatsoever for it to remain? I always thought that we need a reason for content to be in articles, but alas, we have no such policy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna, it's hard to know how to handle these things. I think there are problems with the way both sides have approached it (or all sides, I should say, because there are multiple images being discussed). Richard has a point, in that consensus should be required to change the status quo; the IP and others have a point that the image is arguably not neutral; and people who argue that the IP is being a bit disruptive have a point. The best way forward is to make sure the reverting stops, hope the straw poll sorts things out, and if it doesn't open a full RfC with clear questions so that it can produce a clear result. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good advice again. I am sooooooooo annoyed at the waste of community resources all over an image. Those fellows and observers reading it all could have built a dozen articles instead. Terrible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable judgment & pushy behavior at Emma Sulkowicz
Your edits reflect poor judgment and understanding of BLP and meanwhile when an administrator makes pushy statements about policy, as you have on that talk page, other users tend to be a bit intimidated. I think you should recuse yourself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Please explain further on the talk page and I'll take a look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well for starters you seem very intent on including an anonymous rape accusation made "exclusively" in an unreliable source while, e.g., insisting on cutting material from the NY Post based on various dishonest or mistaken claims. My suggestion is that you are doing the opposite of improving the article.  Please stop? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll reply on talk. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)