User talk:SlimVirgin/February 2018

Protection for Hamill House
I submitted a request for semi-protection for the Hamill House page after issues with vandalism and anonymous edits. Could you help with this? Thenewclassic1 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to mansplaining
I'm kind of confused as to why you mass-removed several reliable sources in without any explanation beyond the edit summary "ce". I personally would interpret that edit summary as "copy edits", which generally involve fixing grammar errors and misspellings – not blanking commentary sourced to major newspapers like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian. I think a discussion on Talk:Mansplaining is in order before these sources are removed. If you think it's undue emphasis or something, we can come to a consensus on what content to remove and how much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk. SarahSV (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Introcision
Just to note, given the wonderful FA article you wrote, that I cam across a case of an aboriginal tribe which practiced introcision, which, despite trawling through the ethnography of roughly 550' other tribes, I hadn't see mentioned elsewhere. See Talk:Maiawali Cheers, Sarah, and have another very productive, and above, all personally rich and rewarding offline time, this year. Best regards.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani, I've left a note on that talk page, and I'll have a look for sources re: adding it to FGM. (More delightful reading.) Wishing you all the best too for the year. SarahSV (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that WHO link which sent me to Worsley A. 'Infibulation and female circumcision: a study of a little-known custom,'. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Empire, 1938,45:686-691, which I will try to access this week. When I am on the computer it is half dead so I can't chase things up rapidly, but I'm sure that this data all goes back to a passage in Walter Roth's classic, which I can check since I have a downloaded copy. Introcision of both males and females is discussed from sections 303 on, esp.314, 316 p.177 (Walter Roth, Ethnological Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines, Edmund Gregory, Government Printer 1897. In the Pitapita ethnozone the term was used by Roth to describe initiatory sexual mutilation for both sexes. Damn computers. It has taken me 3 tries and 40 minutes just to write this!  Nishidani (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
 * Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news
 * A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Woody Allen assault allegation
Why are you insisting on a redundancy? You would actually advocate poor writing for ... why? The facts alone aren't enough for you? Aside from being poor writing, it's WP:UNDUE. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Pls restore img
I'm on a cellphone and can't see clearly but it seems you rmv the smallpox img. Pls restore. That img illustrates. smallpox more vividly than some grainy distant photo from the 1940s. As such it is considerably more informative and aids reader understanding. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
 * Replied on talk. SarahSV (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

pls let Brian know; Statesman

 * pls let Brian know when you're done w. the famine article. He was hard at work on it but doesn't want to bump heads. Also ygm; the Statesman. Even the Famine commission praised its editorials etc. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: the article, not sure what you mean. But thanks for the information; it's all very helpful and interesting. SarahSV (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it OK for Brianboulton to resume copy editing Bengal famine of 1943? He puts entire sections in his userspace and edits there, so if others edit, that confuses things... tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to suggest; if edit conflicts have been a problem, try in use? It would be better to discuss it on article talk, rather than here. SarahSV (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

prostitution, footnotes

 * i spent days (off and on, but much more off than on, admittedly) searching through the articles in my computer for "women turn to prostitution as a survival strategy". Came up mostly empty-handed, with many hints and so on. But then I searched google books (duh!) & found a clear one in seconds. Will add in a little while.
 * I don't mean to sound like I'm scolding, but the whole point of this latest round of edits was to chop down the length. I wince when I see what I think are extremely useful explications deleted (not by you), but I grit my teeth and bear it. yes I have re-added a little since then -- I dunno, maybe 50 words? -- but only 1) key stuff removed from lede, and 2) really really key points.... so... pls do try to keep the length down when you add more to the footnotes. Plus the latest addition ("social cost") seems unnecessary since it repeats what article text says. If you think my version is too close paraphrase, then rephrase it; I thought it was OK because the terms are very broad, common, eg "social cost". but whatever. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll move this to talk. Please discuss the article there, so that posts and replies are archived for other editors to read in future. SarahSV (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I get tired of all the bullshit on article talk. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and every time someone says something, it creates an opening for nationalist POV warriors from both sides and/or the tinfoil hat crowd to jump in. Besides, i am speaking to you specifically, see "not scolding". But whatever you wanna do. Whatever. Whatever. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An unrelated apology
Hello SV. Everyone knows about your passion for women's issues. i was thinking that I was a bit out of line when I wrote, "SV,I've taken out a few things which were in fact attested in the sources but did not match your urgently-pressed worldview." There are three reasons why I insisted that prostitution as a survival strategy is a freewill choice, and two of them are strangely self-contradictory: first, when I'm in academic mode, I frequently find my mind in an oddly abstract and dispassionate zone. So if the relevant literature describes prostitution as among the last-ditch survival strategies, then arguing against sources seems illogical to me. The contradictory side of this is that my choices also reflect a passion: my moral compass turns on the axis of innocent children. [Oddly, I've never done much in that direction on Wikipedia, other than Children of the Stars]. I wanted to separate and underscore the plight of those kidnapped and/or violently raped children from the plight of all other victims, in sympathy with the children. Last, while I was writing I knew for a fact that I personally would trade any and all of the more common kinds of sex in exchange for food for myself and my child if we faced starvation: no hesitation, no tears, no questions asked, and zero-point-zero regrets (tho I'm sure I would later think those who made me do it were reptilian). So anyhow, I'll strike that remark out. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll reply there (please post there about this issue so that discussion goes into those archives). But briefly, you present this as though it's an emotional issue (my "passion"). It isn't. The way you wrote about it is not the way the sources write about it. And one of the issues you finally removed in that diff was that children had been buried alive, which was unsourced and so far as I can tell unsourceable, yet you had restored and defended it. But thank you anyway for striking that remark. SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comma at end of quotation
Minor issue, but sentences don't normally end with commas. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk. SarahSV (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm considering responding to your remark at Talk:Stanley Green saying "Sorry, I don't understand your final question." My purpose is to potentially achieve clarification of this comma issue in the MOS:LQ guideline. But I am wondering whether my further commenting there would appear to be trolling just to annoy you, which is not my intent. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * no, I wouldn't regard it as trolling, but thank you for asking first. That's very considerate of you. Please do go ahead. I'm quite interested in these rules myself. SarahSV (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission of Ian Stephens (editor) at the Did You Know nominations page
Hello! Your submission of Ian Stephens (editor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 12:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Events
The last time I submitted evidence to an arbcom case was back in about 2008, and given last night I might well leave it another 10 years before I engage there again. But anyway, I thought you were very clear sighted yesterday, and was it not for your insight and perseverance I would in all likely hood still be blocked, deeply confused, and the whole thing would have petered out. In the end I think they came down fair, and I was very impressed by Euryalus. Anyhow, this is to thank you very much for your input and help. Again. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, glad it got sorted out, and thanks for the kind words. SarahSV (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk
Hi SV, I hope you're well. A recent discussion on my talk pointed me somewhat in your direction as an editor who might be willing to throw in a few thoughts as to how the above article could be improved...? As undoubtedly it can; anything you want to contribute—as little or as much as you like—would be greatly appreciated and of immense value. If, however, it's something that doesn't interest you, that's totally understandable—no problem. Thanks very much for any help you can give—take care!  >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * it's not the sort of article I'd be interested in, but thanks for asking me and good luck with it. SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers! It did seem slightly les—cultural?—than your usual, but had to be worth a punt :) glad you don't mind. Take care!   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 21:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Andrea James
I saw the cite, but it's out of context. Oh well, I tried. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Will reply on talk. SarahSV (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

help
Please keep an eye on this:, this crazy IP is out of his head...Modernist (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi SV, if you bother to look into this, please look closely at the article's recent edit history, my talk page (Modernist's talk page is protected so I can't discuss there), and the article's talk page. I have repeatedly asked Modernist and another editor to back up what they add with reliable sources but so far they have refused to do so, and have refused to have any discussion of substance. Sources are cited, but they don't confirm everything in the edits. Note also that there was a global unsourced tag in the section in question that had been up for four years. It also seems that Modernist is trying to rally other editors to this cause. There wouldn't be a problem if Modernist spent the time badmouthing me in actually finding sources that confirm the edits. Sorry you got dragged into this. Feel free to message me about any concerns. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This IP is edit warring rather intensely. This IP clearly doesn't like the article, is too lazy to do anything but delete whole sections. I have referenced it and I have suggested to this IP that they attempt to do some editing as well...Modernist (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting further into this mess of false accusations and assumptions about what I like or don't like. SV, I trust you completely to do what you think is best. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've replied at User talk:75.182.115.183. SarahSV (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)