User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2014

Books & Bytes, Issue 4
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014 News for February from your Wikipedia Library. Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Question (gabe)
RE: "I think instead you should challenge that admin's interpretation so that he doesn't make it again".
 * Which guideline would I cite if I were to do that? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You could cite the 3RR policy: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." If any edit counts as "reversing the actions of other editors", then any admin action counts as "reversing the actions of other admins," but no admin would support that interpretation. But Gabe, bear in mind that four reverts aren't needed for an edit-warring block, so you're arguing only about the theory and I'm not sure there's any point. If he felt you were edit warring he could have blocked you regardless of 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I agree, but Bbb23 admitted that the other party made three reverts, so I'm not sure how he could have blocked me for EW when, by his own admission, I only made one more revert than Static made. If Bbb23 was to invoke WP:EW then the other party would also have been blocked, but the technical definition of 3RR was used a justification to block only me, since according to Bbb23 I made four reverts and the other party only made three. I think that there is a point to this because if we clarify that the community does not view every change as a revert then Bbb23 and others won't be able to hand out these types of blocks. Don't you think that his interpretation needs to be shown as illegitimate? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried to word something along the lines you suggested but I couldn't find a version that wouldn't have been gamed. I think you were blocked for the way you were editing, rather than 3RR, even though 3RR was invoked. That would be my guess. It's unusual for that to happen. Responding by changing the policy will just weaken it for everyone, and it really does work well most of the time by giving us that bright line. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not really about my block, because as you say I could have been blocked just for the "meatpuppett" comment, but I'm not understanding why there is resistance to making the 3RR guideline consistent with the community consensus ala: "Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy." As long as Bbb23 and other admins think that the first of a series of edits is a revert then this will happen again. Why don't you think that this can be clarified at WP:3RR? Isn't it at all possible that we need an actual policy that clearly defines what is an what is not a revert? This seems like a pretty vital topic to the project as a whole. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're quoting an essay that's written in quite a confusing way in places. We would need to be precise for the policy, but the wrong kind of precision creates more problems than it solves. To show a need to change policy, I think you would have to show that multiple people were making the same mistaken interpretation. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you and I want to thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, but as far as I can tell I'm not suggesting a change to the guidelines; I'm suggesting a clarification. It seems that we are in total agreement that his reading is misguided and you seem to think that the community agrees with us; you went so far as to suggest that you doubt that anyone else agrees with him (unless I misread you). So, if this is the current community consensus, then why is there nothing in WP:3RR that explicitly supports your opinion that we can point to? Are you saying that the guideline should be vague? I wish and  would would join this thread.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't find a way to word a clarification that wouldn't make things more confusing for new editors, or that wouldn't open the policy to gaming. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we just need to make it clear that we reject Bbb23's interpretation and do so so in a way that is separate from any individual incident. His reading would mean that we need to block any editor that edits an article four times in a twenty-four hour period, which I don't think is a position that anyone shares.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it not clear enough already? – "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors ..." It might be more appropriate just to ask Bbb23 not to interpret the policy his way again (if that's what he's been doing; I'm going by what others are saying here). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 refuses to discuss it past asserting that he is right. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If we shouldn't change 3RR, then why not create a policy or guideline that defines what is and what is not a reversion? As far as I can tell that's only detailed in essays, which I think is a big mistake. Why doesn't WP:REVERT link to an explicit definition-based guideline that attempts to dispel any possible confusion? Maybe we should hold a community-wide RfC on what constitutes a revert and develop language derived from that. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Slim, per your above comment: "I can't find a way to word a clarification that wouldn't make things more confusing for new editors, or that wouldn't open the policy to gaming." What if we implemented the simple rule of thumb similar to the "tree falls in the woods" analogy? If an admin cannot name the specific editor that created the reverted text then its not a revert. That's both simple and not an easy target for gamers. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When people file a 3RR report, they have to provide the version reverted to. The word revert means going back, as does undo. Sometimes they are complex, partial reverts and it can be hard to provide versions reverted to for each point, but the way to handle that is to isolate one word, phrase or sentence and show how it kept re-appearing or disappearing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is all my fault. When Bbb23 caused disruption back in November over the same issue of "any edit is a revert", I should have pursued the matter instead of letting it drop. In the AN thread it was mentioned that there were other instances of Bbb23 causing such problems. However the AN thread was closed, permitting Bbb23 to continue the same behavior. I have said all along that this is mainly an admin problem, not a policy problem, as evidenced by the fact that no admin (of which I am aware) shares such a plainly absurd interpretation of policy.


 * Compounding the issue, there is a pattern of Bbb23 refusing to provide proper explanations per WP:ADMINACCT, as partly shown in that AN thread and in Gabe's interactions. Again this is my fault -- in February I had a clear-cut case of a direct WP:ADMINACCT violation, but I did nothing about it. I should have immediately taken Bbb23 to AN so that he would understand that stonewalling key questions that impact editors is not acceptable. vzaak 23:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We ought not to discuss without pinging him. I read some of his posts about this and they were a bit ambiguous, so I'm still not sure that he's interpreting it that way all the time. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Ezra Pound to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,317 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You're the best...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, everyone, that's great news! Full credit has to go to as subject-matter expert, for doing most of the work, guiding the editing and pulling the whole thing together. She has done a really tremendous job. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV, that's nice to say, and I won't deny (especially with the library fines I managed to wrack up!) that I did a full subject immersion again, but your writing and sense of how to structure an article really pulled it all together. Thanks so much! Victoria (tk) 20:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations SV! Finally after all the years the work has paid off! It was an honour to help. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the FA star for Ezra Pound. I just finished reading it earlier today and had I had the chance at FAC would have been glad to support it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protection
You seem to be doing well protecting articles but when it has an expiry date, it doesn't show when the article is protected. If you're having trouble putting the expiry dates in the protection templates, you may ask the other administrators. Happy contributing :). MegaGardevoir68 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the note. I use a script to add the protection templates and I'm afraid it doesn't include the end date. But you can see the end date in the edit summary that adds protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite DNB issues...
I know you've had some discussions in the past about this... would you like to weigh in at User talk:Ealdgyth? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for sources
Hello ! Our courses have intersected previously with my somewhat abrasive review of Female Genital Mutilation (sorry about that... part of my wiki maturation-process!) and I'm on my way to trying to nominate Cervix for GA. One major obstacle is that I can't find anywhere about the anatomical and social history of the Cervix. Some users have said that is WP:UNDUE but I would feel strange nominating without those components. I was wondering if you had any ideas where I might find those sources, or could point me in the right direction? Would be very grateful! Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, no worries about the review, but thanks for saying that anyway. As for the article, I have no idea about sources for that, sorry. The best place to start would probably be WikiProject Medicine. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Non-free film screenshot
I requested on WP:RPP that Template:Non-free film screenshot be dropped from full protection to template protection, and you responded with "Already protected". Can you clarify this? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jack, I misunderstood. That's done now. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected article
Hi there. You protected the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. That is why I kindly ask you to add the present photo to the section Turkish-Armenian War of the same, with the note: "Iğdır Genocide Monument and Museum, erected to the memory of Turks killed by Armenians." Thank you very much. --212.174.190.24 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, the best thing is to wait until the protection expires (on the 19th). If it's something that might be contentious, it would be a good idea to ask on Talk:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims whether anyone minds. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Slim. It is very kind to think about other people's feelings. No-one ever asked anybody when linking even food articles to certain historic tragedies, in WP. I wish I had that generousity of feelings that you seem to do. Nice to meet you. --212.174.190.24 (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/11/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for DJ Cassidy
Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 05:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Sturmvogel. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DJ Cassidy
Dear SlimVirgin: I see that you have recently made an article about DJ Cassidy. There was an existing draft about the same person previously created, but not finished. Is there anything in this old draft that's useful, or should it just be deleted? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anne, I think it can safely be deleted. It reads like an ad and isn't sourced, so there isn't anything there we could use as written. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Qualcomm Sales/Marketing exec articles
I'm taking a bit of inventory of about 20+ Qualcomm-related articles, where I have a COI to see which we should improve, which should be deleted, or which are fine the way they are. I came across a couple articles on marketing and sales executives Jim Cathey and Anand Chandrasekher. I just got off the phone with Anand and can confirm WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the Cathey article appears to rely on primary sources, quotes, brief mentions, etc.

I was wondering if you could take a look and see if they are good AfD or CSD candidates RE notability, etc.? CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi CM, sorry, I wouldn't be able to judge that without looking around to see what sources exist. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science
The article The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 17:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)