User talk:SlimVirgin/May 2017

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
 * Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news
 * You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
 * There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
 * Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous
 * Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

R'ham
I'd ignore 'im. It may be rice wine to you but it's saki to me. Also (and more interestingly) my poorly-judged opinion is that the "institutional political correctness" thing didn't come from May's response but from a briefing- the Telegraph and the blog PoliticalHome reported it on the same day as a decision to mount an inquiry into IPC. The headline in the Guardian uses the phrase but doesn't tie it in to an inquiry. The Telegraph's byline is 6 hours after May's response (which was after 12.30 pm) and the Guardian 2 hours after. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. All the more reason not to put it in the lead. It's not that I think it's wrong (though it's simplistic, just one factor and hard to interpret). It's more that I think we should avoid political soundbites in the lead. SarahSV (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nom on talk page
Re this edit: I know it's not mandatory to transclude the nomination on the article's talk page, but it seems to be a fairly common practice, especially with a nom as likely to inspire discussion as this one may be. Do you have a reason? Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I have an idea for a different hook that doesn't have to try to encompass the entire article, just one interesting detail, with no sourcing problems or wording problems likely. I have to go out and do something I actually get paid for in a little while, so it will be a couple of hours before I can do this. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, good. I'll stand by to torpedo it. :)  E Eng  20:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Note
Hi Sarah, I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the nice note on my page. I might be able to edit a little this weekend, but generally I'll be out for a number of months. It's discouraging to watch articles deteriorate and not be able to work on them, but I think that's something I'll have to get used to. Hope you are well. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, nice to see your name pop up! I can put articles on my watchlist if you're worried about deterioration, so let me know if there are particular ones you need watching. They do decline fast when the main authors stop looking. Part of our punishment for writing them. SarahSV (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering. I've decided not a lot can be done about watching articles deteriorate. Either we curate them and have to be here all the time fighting for a stable version or we let them go. I've decided to learn the art of letting go. I know that you and lots of others have Ezra on watch, which is one of the main ones I'd be concerned about. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hard. I've done it with several articles. With some I really have let go, and with others I do it for awhile, then can't stand it and fix them. I rarely create or significantly expand articles now because of it. SarahSV (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I came to organize some sandboxes, but whenever I come here to edit there's some sort of drama and I'm not up for it these days. I can understand not expanding articles anymore. It's not good for the project but good for us. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I worked on a couple recently that I half thought I could take to FAC. But then people turn up objecting to this or that minor issue, and it doesn't seem worth the effort. That's why we're running out of FAs. I wish there were some kind of "entering the FAC lane", whereby if someone seriously starts to take an article in that direction there's semi-protection, combined with a culture of not thwarting it. And semi-protection of FAs to slow down deterioration. SarahSV (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of that. I recently looked at Isabeau of Bavaria and noticed that a table has been added at the bottom for all her children. The problem there is that I had to get a scholarly book through inter-library loan that came from a university library in another state and that I could only keep for three weeks. That was the best source I'd found for all the relevant dates and I spent a lot of time on getting it right. All that work is now gone from the article. It's still in the article history, but I've not had the chance to dig it out and revert. If the article had been semi-protected, I doubt it would have been as easy for someone to make a change like that. Let me know if an initiative like that ever gets going. I'd certainly be interested. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see it happening until the project values featured work. I think it will place a higher value on it once it becomes clear that it's declining, but then the instinct will be to lower standards. I don't like that table. SarahSV (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably not helping, but I've got 5000 articles on my watchlist. My only advice is "strength in numbers." That and be real aggressive about curation -- which is one reason I have some folks who dislike my approach... the problem is that we all have our niches and WP:CANVASS is applied inconsistently, often the bullies gang up together against those who are trying to curate quality. Montanabw (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

TM ARCA
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Manul ~ talk 17:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hm, someone gets upset that they got reverted -- and called for outing -- and so they file at ArbCom? Really? Sheesh.  Montanabw (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Green
Sarah, I'm considering picking Stanley Green as a rerun TFA in June; it's been six years since it was last run. Let me know if you have any objections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for asking, but I'd prefer not, in part because there's no date connection (but only in part). SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem; I'll re-run something else. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of PhiloSOPHIA for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PhiloSOPHIA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/PhiloSOPHIA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — swpb T 19:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)