User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2018

Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lourdes†
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
 * † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news
 * The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
 * Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
 * A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
 * A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news
 * CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
 * The edit filter has a new feature  that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards:, , , ,.

Obituaries
 * Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Condoning grotesque insults
It was sickening to see how indifferent you were to someone throwing out such a grotesque slur as "Holocaust denier", on top of their absurd lies about edit summaries, false accusations of vandalism, and false accusations of bad faith editing. I'd only just signed up to edit, and I'd made articles clearly better. But that didn't concern you, did it? What a poisonous place this is, and what a poisonous part of it you are. 82.132.225.242 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I agreed that it wasn't Holocaust denial, and I believe I was the only one to defend you. When I did that, another editor familiar with you said there was no point in further responses because it would only result in more abuse from you. I'm pleased to see how wrong he was! SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You think you defended me? I'll tell you what that would have looked like. You or someone would have said to the sick-minded individual throwing that disgusting insult about something like "you've made an incredibly serious accusation against someone, without any backing at all. In fact, a specific word that you claim triggered your accusation is one that you yourself added to the article. You've also accused them of vandalism when none of their edits remotely fall under that classification. Such grievous insults and false claims are highly disruptive and have no place on Wikipedia. If I see you doing that again. I will block without hesitation." What exactly was your "defense"? I saw nothing but mean-spirited indifference. I can only reiterate that this is a truly poisonous place and your encouragement of disgusting behaviour is clearly a significant contribution. Do you feel pleased by that? 82.132.243.18 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are my posts. I agreed with you, regarding the edits I looked at. That's all I know about it. SarahSV (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC statistics
Here are a few FAC statistic from my private vault which may help to answer some of the questions currently being raised at FAC talk. I prefer not to get involved in that discussion directly:

These figures don't tell the whole story, but they tell a story. Current FAC traffic is running at about a third of its 2008 level, and the percentage promoted has risen sharply since 2011. I have further unprocessed sample figures which indicate that despite the fall in traffic it now takes on average between two and three times as long to get an article through FAC (even unproblematic ones) than it did before 2012. There are no doubt many conflicting factors that contribute towards these numeric trends, depending on what point we wish to stand. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , thanks for this. It's very helpful. As you've posted it publicly, I'm going to assume it's okay for me to copy the table over to WP:FAC. SarahSV (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A shameless and presumptuous solicitation of assistance
Hi SarahSV. I was trawling various talk pages when I came across your name on WT:FEM, and I vaguely seem to recall previously seeing you around various literature-related articles in the past? I may misrecall or just be confusing it with your reviewing work for FAC or something.

In any case, I'm trying to find editors who might be willing to act as advisor and help out with research on Feminist criticism of English Renaissance theatre (also referred to as early modern English literature). I'm mainly interested in the articles within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, but someone interested in anything even roughly adjacent to this area would be helpful. And the need involves all literary criticism, but Feminist criticism is particularly precarious for various reasons.

There's an immediate need that triggered my search, but this is long standing issue relevant to a lot of articles in the project's scope (all the articles on Shakespeare's plays, the sonnets, certain notable productions, adaptations in film and music, books, etc.). And the project is triply troubled here: there are very few editors working in this area (I can count the active editors on one hand); those there are are generally not focussed on (not interested in) literary criticism; and of those, there are none that work on Feminist theory or even Gender studies. Personally I can sometimes digest some forms of literary criticism (the now out of favour character analysis lens), but my eyes tend to glaze over pretty quick, which means I have trouble even doing the necessary research.

Thus it would be very helpfull to have someone that could point the way to surveys or overviews: things like Dorothea Kehler's bibliographic history for A Midsummer Night's Dream. Someone who could do ad hoc reviews on whether an article or section seems comprehensive and reflects the literature accurately and proportionately. The sorts of things I would have once asked Awadewit for help with (minus the incredible copy editing skills; that's not the most pressing need in this case).



If you know of anyone that roughly fits that profile and might be willing to help out, I would be very grateful for a pointer. Or if you know of someone who might know of someone, that would be very helpful too. I'm hesitant to post general requests to places like WP:FEM and the GGTF because I have an impression (possibly mistaken) that they tend to be drama magnets, and I'm not sure WP:BARD would survive getting dragged into another WP:ARBSAQ. Boring stuffy literature scholars, rather than socially conscious activists (or even worse, reactionaries), is what I'm hoping to find here! :) --Xover (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to take so long to reply to this. For all things Shakespeare, I turn to, and may be able to advise regarding literary criticism. SarahSV (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sarah. Yeah, Nish and his SAQ sidekick – ;) – are a great resource on Bardish issues in general, but so far as I know neither one of the louts are particularly interested in lit.crit. I will hold out hope, however, that your kind introduction might persuade Victoriaearle to assist? --Xover (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't be of any help. I don't follow criticism in terms of gender. I've read a middling amount of what are called gender studies in literature, but, like much postmodern criticism, I found it offputting to have to wade through by now familiar gender-theory rhetoric, to ferret out a nugget of empirical information or a genuinely historical insight. This may be just an excuse for not working any more than I do in another area.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "All this newfangled stuff. Bah. Humbug! Gerroff my lawn!" You're betraying your age there Nish. :) --Xover (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Betray my age? Dear, dear me!! I would never ‘traduce’ the pleasure I have in being statistically, closer to death than I was at birth. Whatever incipient, or advanced senescence may do to my residual neuronal networks as I toddle into slipperish pantaloonydom, my unease at deconstructiive/post-modernist/gender criticism comes from early exposure to the infinite playfulness of language, in poetry, classical prose, wherever and I grind my graveyard chompers when I have to wade through philosophical or literary texts that prove rank in the latest brand of high-falutin discursive rhetoric, not least because their mechanistic pseudo-defense of the marginal eye destroys its serious political edge. If that is a prejudice, it was theoretically grounded in readings  of such masterpieces as Stanislav Andreski’s The Social Sciences as Sorcery, in polemics by Raymond Tallis, and many others.  The magnificent Julia Kristeva wrote at the time, seeing how her own Parisian deconstructionist/feminist mode was being hijacked by its  tenure-anxious sutlers among  doctoral students abroad, and  complained that American universities were becoming “‘an immense machine turning Western discourse into refuse.” (Toril Moi (ed), The Kristeva Reader, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1986 p.281) David Lodge’s Small World  novelised the ironies. Nothing to do with antipathy to deconstruction in itself, or feminism: I’ve enjoyed from the outset following Germaine Greer’s  in-your-face version, and she wrote an interesting book on Shakespeare’s wife. (Exit the old geezer, thinking of dinner, with drooping dacks, snuffling wheezily and, as he nears the wings, reddens as he catches a glimpse in a stage prop mirror, of puffed cheeks and the huffy mien of Nigel Bruce in Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, and mutters:’Fuck! Alf Garnett’s next up, and the ineludible seventh age shirtfronts a lingering aspiration to play in a  masque of a seventh sage in the Temple of Time, which would require a sex change:). Best wishes to you both.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See? It's always worthwhile to needle Nish about his age. He's so concerned about slipping into dotage that it can't fail to elicit such expostulations (etymologically related to expustuleations? I'm sure we can find an ancient Greek that supports such an argument!), chock full of references and allusions it will take days to untangle. Of course, since I find almost all literary criticism since Hazlitt impenetrable, I have a certain inherent sympathy with the aversion to neo critique. Oh well. I propose that in the future we conduct all philosophical debates about the relative merits of various critical lenses on Sarah's talk page: they will surely appreciate all the extra notifications Mediawiki so helpfully provides. In any case, many thanks to both of you for responding to my shameless unsolicited solicitation! --Xover (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Helen Vendler’s commentary on Shakespeare’s sonnets confirmed for me she was up there with Christopher Ricks and William Empson as a brilliant reader. It has nothing to do with her gender (but a lot to do with the fact she mastered chemistry and math before taking on literary criticism, much like Empson, a mathematician of genius before changing stools (is a ‘stool pigeon’ one that battens on crap?!). She wrote witheringly on the abuse I alluded to decades ago ('Feminism and Literature,' New York Review of Books 31 May 1990) and her ex cathedretical castigations gave rise to a polemic in that august literary rag’s columns which you can follow up here.


 * But(t) 'this business is well ended. My liege, and madam, to expostulate!' and 'you have discharged this honestly.'(suitably in All's Well That Ends Well). But I must allow that expustulate has tickled that ‘potty’ wizened wiseacredness of a befuddled Casaubon way beyond his muddled middle marches - 'an old poor man  who …hath many a weary step.'(As You Like It). In Greek the root of expustulate  would be  πῦον (pronounced, aptly 'phew on/poo on'!), which has no comic uses however, though interestingly it looks  cognate with πυός, which leaves all English translators sighing because the corresponding term in our language for πυός, 'beestings' (lovely ambivalence in the subtextual music of honey pricks) has fallen desolately into desuetude, (and we don’t even have a word for the first shit a post-natal child produces from being suckled on beestings, preferring an ugly terminus technicus like meconium, unlike the alert Germans, who fondly call it  Kindspech, and the Japanese even have two native words for it,  kanikuso(crabcrap) (蟹屎) and kanibaba (蟹) the second of which also means 'deathbed feces', reminding us melancholically of Jaques' (jakes?) reminder that dotage is indeed 'second childishness').


 * Japanese does better for much of Shakespeare could be punned on endlessly from the fact that their word for festering pus, umu, is ripely polysemic, and is differentiated only by the character employed to write those simple syllables: 膿む 'to form pus'; 産む 'to give birth'; 熟む 'to ripen'(Men must endure their going hence, even as their coming hither: Ripeness is all);厭む 'to grow weary of doing anything' (Words, words, words. . . How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable Seem to me all the uses of this word!); 有無('being or not being/yes or no'=Hamlet’s  'to be or not to be'). Well, I’m pooped by these nunclish festering paranomasiac divagations, and my host on this page must also feel this is getting somewhat turdgid, and thinking that, like Magnes in Aristophanes’ The Knights, it is a case of τοῦ σκώπτειν ἀπελείφθη.(line 525) more or less contextually 'bereft by age of a whilom wit.' (By way of apology and whining pleas for tolerance of my folly, full disclosure in Nestorian mode, Sarah. The scatological raffishness is not incidental, but wholly due to my taking in recently a kitten some old thug nearby had kicked, shattering its tibia, femur and pelvis. It has healed slowly, managing to go a few steps until she pauses and sits like a  bunny. But she farted rankly when caressed, from residual fright at human contact, and still occasionally does. Always wary of naming anything - nomen est omen, I took a month to find an adequate term to sum up her behavior, discarding 'bunnyskunk' for putzi, despite the unfortunate cross-gender Yiddish-German echo. I.e. puzzare to stink, and 'pussy', of course).Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah and, apologies for the late reply. It's an interesting query but I'm not up on that period. I know gender studies criticism exists for that area but nothing I can put my hands on or suggest. Thanks, though, for thinking of me. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding . Yeah, this period isn't exactly overrun by editors with a literary bent (vs. history), hence my bugging you (two) for assistance and pointers. But no worries: we'll muddle through somehow. :) --Xover (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Connected contributor (paid)
Template:Connected contributor (paid) has been nominated for merging with Template:Connected contributor. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Expert review
Hi Sarah. I just got back from a week camping offline and found your question at WT:FAC. What an excellent discussion that was. I think it touched on most of the current and perennial problems with featured articles.

I don't know what to say about expert review. I started writing up my thoughts on my talk page, or Barbara's, or somewhere but, yes, I didn't follow through.

I took myself to Bali for a month recently hoping to chill out enough to complete it but just chilled and did no writing at all. Back home I can't get onto it. The social and emotional currents that swirl around me here (nothing special, just ordinary human, family, friend, neighbour stuff, but I'm pathologically pathetic) keep crushing me or dragging me off. So I'm now going to exile myself to London and just stay there alone until it's done.

Nothing is more important to Wikipedia than it's unreliability, in my opinion, and, given Wikipedia's role, it's unreliability is a serious and urgent problem for humankind.

I think we have to engage experts, and we have to allow academia to join us. And I think I have something important to say about that but it will take time to research the history, and focus to write up a persuasive case. I'll ping you when I'm in London and let you know how it's going. I'm so glad you're still here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * it's lovely to hear from you. Please do ping me and let me know. I strongly agree about engaging experts, and several people have had good ideas. It's a question of working out how to put them together. SarahSV (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It might take me a month to disentangle and extract myself. May I tap you for links to those earlier good ideas when the time comes? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. SarahSV (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Bikini lead image?
I recall the lead image was a noticeable concern for you at one point. Is it no longer a concern, or did you just miss the return of the image that you replaced for a few months? --GRuban (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to say that I did miss that, yes. Thanks for letting me know. I'll look, but I might not get involved. SarahSV (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hopeless help request ;-/
Could you maybe please watch my user page sometimes? I am being targeted online even my phone is hacked now with a Trojan, I fear someone might take over my account and do anti-vegan or otherwise hostile edits ;-/ Please revert all and delete my account if you ever spot any hostile absurd activities, especially anti-vegan ;-/ Thank you very much, I trust you knowing your good work since years ;-/ Veggieburgerfan (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I only ever edit vegan and vegetarian pages, and funny manga/fantasy, NEVER add hostile, racist, violent or otherwise absurd things anywhere, also stay out of politics or anything controversial excatly because of now years of bullying ;-/ If you spot anything hostile from my account delete it please, it would be hacked DEFINITELY Veggieburgerfan (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Veggieburgerfan, I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. Yes, I'll keep an eye on your user page. SarahSV (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much :,-/ It will take long till I can afford another smartphone, and I have no computer, and Internet access is nowadays almost impossible without smartphone or laptop :,-/ I believe the bullies just want to humiliate and wreck "funny" stuff, it seems to be funny to them, I found lots of "comical" racist and misogynist images in my other accounts :,-/ but this means so far I can be still sporadically online for short times, with network monitoring and disabling of countless apps etc Must finish this quickly, internet breaking down agai Veggieburgerfan (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for writing Women's Sunday. I've never heard of, or at least retained memory of hearing about, this massive and historically important march. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Randy, and thanks for the feedback. SarahSV (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Seasick Steve
Hi Sarah,

I recently went to the Seasick Steve article ( i have not visited the page in over a year) and was a little shocked to see that there had beed unsourced edits trying to change the artist name and age, I assume, based on the 2016 unauthorised biography Ramblin'Man by Matthew Wright. The biography alleges, amonst other things, that at one time the artist Seasick Steve went under a differnt name other than Wold over 30 years ago. Whether true or not, seems irrelevant to me. Certainly no basis to edit his name in the article.

Being a fan of this artist, I unfortunately bought the book when it came out. In my opinion ( and most others. re: reviews on Amazon.co.uk) it was very poorly written by a completely unkown writter who has tied his star to Seasick Steve and published through a publishing house I can still find no information on. The book itself was completely without references. The only historical source being an alleged conversation with, by the writters own admission, the artists estranged son who's motive appears to have been, at least in part, to have his own bands name published along side of Seasick Steve's in the book. The book is basically, just full of conjecture, 'he possible did this' and 'probably did this'etc. In my opinion, this effort certainly falls under 'Tabloid Journalism'

Somehow this book has been allowed to have its own section in the article. It has for the past 2 years gotten a free ride on an internationally known artist Wikipedia page and seems, again in my opinion, fairly blatant self advertising. It certainly is contentious and has been responsible for alot of contentious and unsourced editing by IP editors who seem intent on changing this long standing, well sourced article to align itself with the claims of this unauthorised biography. I have not been able to find one instance on an artist page on Wikipedia where an unauthorised biography has its own section. In my opinion, again, this unsourced, non referenced, unauthorised biography, falls directly under 'Tabloid Journalism' and therefore violates BLP. At the very least, does not deserve its own section in the article. It seems that its place in the article warrant some investigation. I would apprecite it if you might have a look at it.

Thanks for your valuable time. Aircastle (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I do have a vague memory of this. I'll look more closely soon. For now, I see there is a Guardian article about the book, so it may be notable enough to describe in the article, rather than just use as a source. SarahSV (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again Sarah. I remember when the Guardian article came out. Seemed at the time the book was picked up for the music blog, exactly for its sensationalism and not for being any quality, factual, informative type of biography. There certainly was no question at the time whether it was accurate at all or not. I guess my issue with the book (therefore its place in the article) is not that it disagrees with some of the present Wikipedia article but that it does so, so baselessly, with the absence of any real research, any facts and is more of a effort of guess work and lazy speculation by an author of no real previous credibility. I think it achieved its main goal just by being 'sensational 'which is what, in my opinion, Tabloid Journalism is about. It certainly got itself, in this Wikipedia article. Anyway, I just thought It was worth bringing to your attention to see if you think this should be considered a,'Quality Source'

Thanks again for your reply and taking time. Aircastle (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarah again. Thought I would give just one strange example from the book.

A little background first. It is commonly known from different articles that Seasick Steve moved to Notodden Norway from the USA in the early 2000's. Apparently they mainly picked the town because of the huge blues scene there but also because his wife ( who is Norwegian) had read the novel, T.Singer by the Norwegian writer, Dag Solstad. The book is apparently just a novel about a man moving to Notodden to change his life. According to Wikipedia, Dag solstad's '"early books were considered somewhat controversial, due to their political emphasis leaning towards the Marxist–Leninist side of the political spectrum" The novel, T Singer, has nothing to do with politics at all from what I can gather and yet the author of the unauthorised biography has inferred somehow and wtote that Seasick Steve's wife probably has 'Communists leanings' due to the fact she read this novel. It seems just ridiculous, baseless and certainly presumptuous to write somthing like that and also could be considered hurtful. BLP It also has nothing to do with the artist at all. This book is just full of this type of writing, making this book, again in my opinion, a highly unreliable and questionable source. I get the feeling that most of the ( mainly) IP editors have not even read the book. Just cherry picking the controversial parts that suits them to try and change the article. Just a little more info. Thanks again Aircastle (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about the book, but there is now a secondary source. I'll try to find time to look more closely, but I can't promise to be able to do anything. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah.

The same IP editor is still tryin to change the name in the article heading. Even in the unauthorised biography it says that Steve Wold changed his name when he married his wife in 1982. If in fact this is true and he was Steve Leach at one time he has been Steve Wold for over 35 years and has the right to have that be his name. This seems just like an editor trying to go and add a Women celebrity's maiden name just to make sure everybody knows she had that name at one time. This really seems an violation of BLP and completely unnecessary to the article about Seasick Steve. It just confuses the article and the information is already there in its own section for those who want to follow it up. This seems a real violation of privacy. I have reverted the edit but im sure this IP editor is determined to keep adding the alleged older name to the top of the article. Sarah please let me know if I have this wrong here as this will be the second time I have reverted the edit and I do not want to start an edit war. If you agree I would appreciate it if you could intervene to protect the article. Thanks very much Aircastle (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC
With this and this, I am concerned that it is time to draft an RFC. Obviously, neither Colin nor I should do it. Would you? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, I wouldn't be keen on doing that, and especially not at the moment. Ideally it should be whoever wants to keep them that initiates it; consensus is required to retain them not to remove them. SarahSV (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, Over at Jimbo talk, we now have accusations of forum shopping, so ... not sure by what path this will be resolved.  I am close to just deleting the two I am most involved with (dementia with Lewy bodies, and tic disorder ... I think a case can be made that there is sufficient consensus now, but history shows removal will lead to edit warring).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should certainly delete any you're concerned about. As for which forum, I'm still hopeful that Doc James himself can be persuaded to step back and let the videos be removed. Then we could all discuss together what to ask the community and where to do it. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about meta-wiki (or anything off of en.wikipedia) so I hesitate to weigh in. Would like to, but don't really know what would be appropriate. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know either. For now I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. SarahSV (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thx! But I don't know how to watch list, so in case I forget, please do ping me as discussion unfolds?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I managed ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving the comment. Will ping you if I see anything there first; please ping me if you do. SarahSV (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I added some info there, but don't know how to remember to watch list it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you added some "connected contributor (paid)" templates to talk pages like here. Since the videos have now been removed, I assume the template should go too? -- Colin°Talk 17:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the usual practice is to leave the notices in place, regardless of what happened to the content, because the point of the notices is that the article attracted COI/paid-editing attention; readers can check the history to see how the article was affected. But if you want to remove them, I don't mind. Perhaps you're thinking that the templates end up being another form of advertising, and that has indeed been a concern about them in other cases. SarahSV (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)