User talk:SlimVirgin/November 2013

Suburban Express
Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I responded. One additional point: I strongly support lede you proposed on the talk page of the Suburban Express article. Best Suburban Express President (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Again. I don't have the ability to counter AlmostGrad's assertions on the SE talk page today. But I want to make sure you understand that AlmostGrad is a COI editor. On AlmostGrad's user page: "I have a Conflict of Interest with Suburban Express stemming from my interactions with them on the UIUC subreddit." So she has established a link to Reddit. On Reddit, AlmostGrad100 has tirelessly posted unsubstantiated claims about Suburban Express. AlmostGrad100 seems to have catalyzed the very negative blog coverage that AlmostGrad repeatedly cites on Wikipedia talk page. As for AlmostGrad's recent addition to the talk page: I consider all false statements to be problematic, including the trivial examples which are cited in the most recent addition. The existence of trivial errors does not preclude more significant errors, and there are. And I intend to enumerate those ASAP. WRT Streisand Effect, attempts by AlmostGrad to add Sub Ex to the Streisand Effect article have been rejected. Thank you for your time. Suburban Express President (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please heed the above comments by Suburban Express with caution. Suburban Express has consistently claimed "false" information is being posted on its Wikipedia page/Reddit/Facebook/etc. Suburban Express has also stated for the past number of weeks that it would "correct" these "false" claims, yet has continuously delayed and remained absent in following up. It is a trend for Suburban Express to be very ambiguous and vague when describing such aforementioned "false" claims (as seen in the above comment). An example of the way Suburban Express manipulates "facts" can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suburban_Express#Response_to_SlimVirgin.27s_BLP_violation_concerns 12.238.238.104 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. As you are aware, I have been waiting patiently for name change to be processed before I post my specific criticisms. The name change seems to be stalled, and I wonder, can I just register a new name instead of waiting for the change to go through? I'm concerned that if I do that, I'll be swarmed by haters crying foul. Thanks in advance for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suburban Express President (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't see why you need a name change, but if you want one, yes, you can just go ahead and create one. Post a note on your current user page that you've got a new account, and that should be enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, just letting you know that new username Arri at Suburban Express has been registered and I plan to start posting text integrity errors as previously discussed. I mentioned our interaction regarding registering a new username on the talk page of Suburban Express President, hoping that might prevent sockpuppet claims. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello SV, My intent is to post some specific errors to the Suburban Express talk page as time permits. However, a user I was talking with by email started a discussion regarding a particular error. The error is not huge, but it is emblematic of a general problem: The article pursues a very anti-Suburban Express position using half-truths and citations which are not literally true. My instinct is to attack every small error as a means of forcing the article to change. But I am concerned about creating a boy who cried wolf situation as a result of pursuing small errors. I am not sure how to proceed here. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added three new sections to Suburban Express talk. Best Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to call your attention to another problematic edit by CorporateM: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=580292474&oldid=580259980 Edit is described as constructive, but examination of the edit revealse more deletion of your proposed language -- and the edit, like most CorpM edits, is done without discussion or consensus. Yet CorpM reverses edits by others, citing lack of discussion as his justification. Should this sort of thing be posted on the AN? I'm having a difficult time figuring out the right course of action. Best Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I really preferred the revisions you made in early November. Tonight (Nov 22) CorporateM has substantially reverted them, and the article now has its old "hue". I was wondering what you thought might be done? KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just noticed this. I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich
Hi SlimVirgin--sorry to be a party pooper, but what's the fair use rationale for the Kate Bush cover? Now that I got that out of the way: thanks for bringing this up to GA. Great work. The kids and I watched the Cloudbusting video this morning; it always brings tears to my eyes, and they liked it too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Drmies, thank you. I love that video too! The Kate Bush cover has been there for years, and I've been so glad that no one has challenged it. :) The only rationale I have is that it's the strongest example of pop culture bringing Reich to people's attention in recent decades, but I don't know whether that's a good-enough reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sounds like a rationale to me. My original research confirms it; let's hope that Werieth doesn't find out. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Me and my (tsk) articles are hiding behind the filing cabinet from an increasing number of white-space people. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Carl Hewitt
Do you think the semi on Talk:Carl Hewitt can be lifted, now or any time soon? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've unprotected it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, can the article also be unprotected? says I should ask you about it as well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * HJ Mitchell was the last protecting admin, but as he's indicated that he doesn't mind, I've reduced it to semi-protection for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Online source
Template:Online source has been nominated for merging with Template:Press. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Jstor
I still have access, though I live in daily expectation of severance. How about you? Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still connected. I got the impression from Steven that we wouldn't be cut off before JSTOR's evaluation, and perhaps not at all if they wanted to keep it going. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy or guideline
By the way, I think we can get a policy or guideline passed about the education program, but it will center on the concept of professors ultimately taking responsibility for article issues (kind of like them being the "editor" or person who passes GA). What do you think? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 20:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can see this position being discussed at the bottom of WT:ASSIGN, FYI. I also throw in the concept of sandboxes, as I also now do on my user page itself. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 19:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond to this. I'll take a look at WT:ASSIGN, and I agree that it would be good to write a guideline about who takes responsibility. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA
I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express
I thought you may also want to comment in response to user:Drmies post here since you sort of salvaged them from the initial block discussion.

As discussed, if there are BLP problems, I think the community should just fix it, as oppose to trying to work with COIs. CorporateM (Talk) 16:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

McCann
Sorry, forgot you were into edit summaries. I had never heard 'second last', so I changed it to 'second-to-last'. Rothorpe (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Second last means not the last day, but the day before it. I don't think I've ever heard of second-to-last. :) Also, don't worry about edit summaries; I actually don't mind one way or the other. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good, I'm sure you can read my mind. As for second-to-last, Wiktionary FWIW says it is an Americanism, and there was I thinking your version might be. I suggest changing it to 'penultimate'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post
I have mentioned you in an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Nunt (book) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nunt (book) 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/Nunt (book) 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. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ghettoization warning
Amie_Thomasson has been ghettoized. A NY Times article will be soon written if you don't fix it. :0 --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, thanks for pointing it out. I've left her with one foot in the ghetto (American women philosophers) and the other in the sunlight (American philosophers). Please don't say the word "diffusion" or I will cry. I wish we could just have American (or whatever) male this, American female that, for everything. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ugh. I don't think that a good idea. That ends up making the category strcuture extremely complex - see whats happening with american actors right now -its a confusing mess and only people like johnpacklambert can understand such a tree. Also I don't think it's a good idea to always match male to female - male politicians was recently deleted for example. Do you really want to have female feminists, and female radical frminists, and female radical christian feminists from demoines? we should only categorize on things which are defining, and I think excessive genderizerization can do more harm than good, because non- diffusing (hold yer tears) cats are extremely tricky to manage in complex category trees. The result is mis- population, ghettoization, and hundreds to thousands of incomplete categories. Often times in addition to ghettoization I find the reverse which is just as insidious - hundreds or even thousands of women who aren't in *all* of the right women's categories - during the American women novelists saga we discovered that out of 600 women novelists there were an additional 1200 that were never even categorized as such, so anyone looking at the tree (and many did) would assume we have poor coverage of women novelists, which simply isn't true. I recently added a ton of women to . If you show me any arbitrary bio of a woman on Wikipedia, I will show you how she is ghettoized, almost without fail, and how she's not in some 'women' categories she should be in, again without fail. See my essay linked from my homepage for much more detail. I've tried to chip away at it but its quite hard in general and takes a lot of time and clever use of category intersection tools to sort it out. I think we should move to full-scale use of category intersection which would mean the vast majority of cats would be non-gendered, while allowing, for any arbitrary cat, division into men and women, because we'd have a top-level cat like 'American women' and 'American men' and even 'American transgender people', allowing intersection against any arbirary category. no non-diffusion issues, and only one 'gender' cat per person. See Category:Singaporean poets for an example of what we could do. My general philosophy is, we shouldn't determine cats solely based on whether some random Wikipedia editor thinks its interesting - a cat should be complete - fully filled - otherwise it is misleading in a way a stub isn't (with a stub, you know more could be added, but with an incomplete category, how do you know?). Fewer categories is the solution, which cat intersection would give us. Oherwise, entropy means we will constaly have poorly filled categories and confused editors who dont understand non-diffusion algorithms and can't sort out whether a second cousin cat deghettoizes properly or not. My essay has an example of this for medieval poets. let me know if you want to help.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes my head spin, to be honest. The thing about female philosophers is that there aren't many, so I think it's important to categorize them separately (although also to include them in the default category). The lack of female philosophers was recently highlighted in various places, including the New York Times (and Thomasson was involved in highlighting it) during an alleged sexual-harassment case, and all the philosophy discussion boards agreed that there is a serious problem of female philosophy students not entering the profession because of unpleasant attention from male colleagues, or entering it and having difficulty throughout their careers. So in this case I think the gender-based category does matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * but you can't currently find American female ethical philosophers, or American lesbian humanist philosophers, or any number of other intersections which someone may find interesting. There are currently 7 more American female philosophers who are ghettoized, and likely dozens more in other countries - can you find them? I agree until we get cat intersections we may need some gendered cats, but if you look at Singaporean poets, you will have the ability to get female X (or LGBT X, or African-American X, or Jewish X, or even lgbt jewish of russian descent X) for any arbitrary category without need for cleverness on the part of the categorizer with cat intersection. Thus you still get what you want, with a much higher degree of accuracy and simplicity in categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could a script be written so that, when someone adds (say) Category:American women philosophers, a box pops up asking whether they want to add the name to Category:American philosophers too? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No - take a look at -- there are no people there; I assume the same thing will happen to the philosophers at some point. So for top-level cats that are fully diffused, you'd have to say "Please add this to a diffusing sub-category of American philosophers" and most people won't even understand what the heck you're talking about. You'd also have to have some clever code that knows whether a cat is non-diffusing or not in the first place (people rarely put the template up top) - but the place to un-ghettoize to is not always obvious, and you shouldn't warn the user if the person in question is already de-ghettoized. Detecting a de-ghettozied person is non-trivial also, as it is highly dependent on the current state of the category tree, so you'd need to understand the whole tree, and cache that understanding somewhere, and update it regularly as the tree changes. the whole problem with non-diffusing categories is it means embedding an understanding of the current tree in the categories for an individual; as the tree changes, even a simple change, could ghettoize thousands. For example, take a look at LaDonna Harris - is she ghettoized? If so, how? (I'll give you a hint, the answer starts with 'y'). What algorithm would you write to determine whether she was ghettoized or not?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What algorithm would I write? I would ask someone to write a pop-up box that would appear when a female category is added. The box would ask the editor who adds such a category to check that, if a woman is added to a female X category and there is no male X category, the woman should also be added to the generic (no gender) category. That would have stopped me from adding Thomasson to that women philosophers category alone – just a "please stop and think" pop-up box. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd have to deal with ethnicities (which are arbitrary - people are constantly inventing new ones), as well as religions (arbitrary again), LGBT, gay, bi, trans - and you'd also have to know if the category in question is fully gender diffusing (like actors, certain sports) or not. You'd also have to know if you were dealing with a bio, or a topic article into a topic category (like, in which case, you don't need to de-ghettoize. In short, to do it right w/o confusing the reader further in the general case I think it would be quite hard. I think I'd rather the script writers focus on making category intersection work...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of NFCR
Hi. I'd like to ask for your advice and assistance in your role as a WP administrator. I hope it's appropriate protocol for me to make this request of you, please let me know if it's not. A recent discussion at NFCR as been summarily closed by a non-administrator who claims that a "consensus" has been reached. As a result, I, as the uploader of some of the images under discussion, have been informed that the images are now orphaned and will be deleted within 7 days. The NFCR discussion is at Non-free content review/Archive 37. I've contacted the editor who closed the discussion and. So that's what I'm doing now. Here are the issues as I see them: Thank you for your consideration of this request. I hope it makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Also, please let me know if there's a more appropriate route for me to take in dealing with this problem. Jburlinson (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Despite 's contention, no consensus has been reached on these images. I question whether a "consensus" can be reached when only 2 or three people have even participated in the discussion. In particular, the discussion of one of the images consisted only of a simple allegation by one editor (Werieth) with a response by another (myself). How can this 2-person exchange result in a "consensus"?
 * 2) WP:NAC states: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous." It's clear to me that there is a controversy about the merits of these images. The controversy is expressed in the discussion that has been peremptorily closed. The outcome of this controversy is not "clearly unambiguous". Therefore, it was inappropriate for this discussion to be closed by a non-administrator.
 * 3) The NFCR covered six separate images. They were all lumped together into one cluster and the closure didn't even pretend to consider the separate images based on their individual merits, even though there was specific discussion for five of the six images. This implies that there was little to no evaluation of the discussions involved, simply an action by a non-administrator based on a foregone conclusion that all the images were of equivalent status and therefore equally doomed.
 * 4) During the period that the discussion was open, the images had already been removed from the article. This is contrary to proper procedure, as has been pointed pointed out at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226. As a consequence, any editor who saw the banner about the NFCR at the head of the Luis Bunuel article would have no idea of the impact or value of the images involved, since they had been deleted from their appropriate context. Such an editor/reader would have had to go back to a previous revision of the article in order to see the images in place in order to form a judgment concerning their appropriateness.
 * 5) I have repeatedly tried to get from the editor who deleted the images a clear statement concerning the exact meaning of the phrase "critical commentary". This has been used as the reason why these images have been deleted -- that they lack "critical commentary" in some way. The term apparently lacks a clear definition anywhere in WP policy or guideline. As a result, it is interpreted in a highly subjective fashion. Apparently, a couple of editors who agree on the meaning of "critical commentary" are now in the position to impose their interpretation on everyone else, even though they do not provide a clear explanation of what they think the phrase means. At a minimum, there needs to be much more clarity on the meaning of this phrase if it is to be used as a magic wand to zap WP content willy-nilly.


 * Hi Jburlinson, the first thing to do is to look for commentary about these images; that is, look to see whether these particular scenes were highlighted by critics and add any discussion you can find about them to the image pages. Once you've done that, then perhaps the discussion could be re-opened (for some of them anyway), on the grounds that there is new information. Which images already had critical commentary added to the image pages? In the meantime, I will ask the closing editor to close the discussions separately. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your response. . Just to be sure I understand, though. Are you saying that there must be critical commentary about the image itself? Jburlinson (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's never clear what's meant by "commentary". The way to fulfill the requirement is to show that the image itself, or the thing it depicts, have been discussed by commentators. The more sources you can find that mention the image or its content, or that use the image so that it has become iconic or historically important (or the thing it depicts is iconic or historically important), the easier it is to justify using it on Wikipedia. See Non-free use rationale guideline and Non-free content. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per request, I am working to close each piece of the full discussion separately. The phrase critical commentary is thrown around a lot on discussions dealing with non-free content. It is not mentioned in any policy to my knowledge, save for on the guideline: Non-free_content. As SlimVirgin says above, critical commentary is not describing what the image is (as that would mean the image is replaced by text and therefore fails WP:NFCC). It is referenced commentary about the image.  For a more tangible explanation, look at the image in E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial. That is a very iconic image, and although it is most likely in the wrong section of that article, it would be impossible to showcase that image in just text, and more importantly, it would leave the average reader not understanding the referenced sentence: "Empire called Elliott and E.T.'s flight to the forest the most magical moment in cinema." The "commentary" by Empire magazine is about the image, what is going on in the image, and what is important about the image.  As the discussion will remained closed, when I finish closing the sub-sections of the discussion, I expect it should remain in the archives, but I will notify all participants of the discussion.  If there is new evidence, the best course of action would then be to open a new discussion at WP:NFCR, linking to the original archived discussion. If there is no new evidence, the consensus stands, and therefore it would be inappropriate to reopen the content discussion immediately.  If there is further issue with my closure, save for that which I am working to fix, I will unclose and unarchive the discussion and will turn my closure statements into discussion comments. Please give me a bit to get the closure broken down into sub sections. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  02:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the request of an editor uninvolved with the discussion, I have expanded the explanation of the consensus in the discussion that I previously closed. The discussion is: Non-free content review/Archive 37. The consensus of the discussion, nor have my closure have changed, simply the explanation has been extended to include the individual images discussed. I am notifying you because you rightfully should be made aware when anything is changed regarding to a discussion you participated in. No action is required. As I have stated many times before, if an uninvolved administrator finds fault with my closure, I am more than happy to reopen the discussion. If a situation of that nature should arise, I will once again notify all parties involved in the discussion. Thanks for your hard work and happy editing! -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for doing that. Just a note about saying images can be replaced by text. Almost any image could be replaced by text, so if you could avoid relying on that in future I think it would help. We do allow fair-use images of, for example, book covers, which aren't the subject of commentary and could almost always (and perhaps always) be very easily replaced by text, so seeing the rationale for deletion depart so much from current practice is confusing, and it leaves editors feeling they haven't been treated fairly. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do want to make one thing clear, when an image is being used as the sole form of visual identification for that work, on the article about that work, (book,movie,album,company, ect) the need for critical commentary on the contents of the image are not necessary (Its a long standing practice that 1 file may be used for identification where it is used on the article about that subject). Any additional files or usage of that media in a different manor is subject to far more strict usage. Werieth (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, and this is why I explained all points. What I should've said more plainly (which was the consensus) is those specific images can be replaced by text without losing understanding or identification of the context. I will say, I personally disagree that all images can be replaced by text, there are very very many that cannot for sometimes you just have to see, but in the case of non-free files, if they can be replaced without out hurting the article, they fail WP:NFCC#1. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  03:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "could be replaced by text without hurting the article" is such a subjective test, so if there's any hint of it being applied too strictly, people feel they've been treated unfairly. It leads to ill-feeling among content contributors, and given the focus on editor retention, it's worth making sure editors understand that these subjective parameters are being applied reasonably. Anyway, thanks again for your extra attention to this. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance and advice. I just want to let you know that I'm giving up on all this. After confirming that the images in question are in the public domain in the US,. Life is too short. Again, thanks and best wishes to you. Jburlinson (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on Stefan's comments, I wonder if they just need another tag. I've asked him here. Don't give up now – the end is in sight, I think! :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for all your assistance and support. I'm afraid all that's happened as a consequence of your message to Stefan is a frenzy of deletions of other images relating to Luis Bunuel on Wikipedia Commons. Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jburlinson#File:Luis_bunuel_1920.jpg
 * These images were all tagged with creative commons licenses, but apparently that's not good enough. At this point, it's clear to me that somehow I've gotten myself on a blacklist, I suppose because I challenged Werieth and the posse. I can't help wondering what's next. Can I look forward to being blocked? Jburlinson (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose deletion → Keep
I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

COI limit
SlimVirgin, I started a discussion at conflict of interest limit based on a overview of what you and other editors said. Please review it when have the opportunity. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Data on paid advocacy editing?
Hi SlimVirgin, sorry to bother you, but are you aware of any data on the extent of paid advocacy editing? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Revised CFD
Note: I revised the nomination at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_10 into a merge to the already extant categories, with a purge of individual biographies (sub cats, like could remain) Please take a look and see if that changes your !vote. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

David Coombs as a proxy for Chelsea Manning's opinion.
Hi SlimVirgin! Since you were able to contact David Coombs directly, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on how he related something to you. There's been a change to MOS:IDENTITY allowing a subject to opt out of using feminine pronouns (in the case of trans women) to describe different parts of their life. The change asks for an indication from the subject themselves. Now normally I'd think a lawyer would be an acceptable spokesperson for a subject, but in this case Chelsea Manning has specifically directed people to consider David Coombs as a spokesperson for legal matters only, and not as an official spokesperson for her opinions and positions on non-legal matters. Statements or positions filtered through my attorney or other representative should be considered unofficial, unless they deal with purely legal issues or positions, or they are accompanied by a signed "official" letter or release. David Coombs says she may change her mind about this, but she hasn't yet. What I was wondering, based on your more direct knowledge, was David Coombs relating to you an opinion of what pronouns he thought Chelsea would prefer if asked, or was he quoting Chelsea herself? I ask because her direct letters say she has felt female since early childhood, that she wants people to use feminine pronouns, she thanks people for using feminine pronouns, and she asks people to get her opinion on her non-legal positions directly. I think the spirit and letter of MOS:Identity is to respect the actual preferences of the subject regarding their gender identity; trans people sometime have a hard time being heard directly, even over friends and allies, and I think we should get it right here. Thanks for considering this. __ E L A Q U E A T E  11:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I really can't add anything to what I've written already about this. I assumed at the time that it was the lawyer giving me his views based on his discussions with his client, but I didn't ask him, so I don't know that for sure. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for getting back to me! I didn't want to bother you about it, but it looked like people were wanting to use you as the cited authority for what Chelsea Manning truly wanted for pronouns. I admit I'm a little worried that the new phrase added to MOS:Identity might prompt more of those Wikipedians uncomfortable with changing pronouns to send messages to trans subjects directly to fish for preferences. But that's just a worry, maybe people will be fine. Anyway, thanks for answering my wall of text! __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Self Cite
Hi Slim. There's a thread at ANI where I had informed the editor "Your contributions to Wikipedia articles appears to be limited to posting summaries of information you wrote, placing footnotes to source material you wrote, and/or providing links to pages outside of Wikipedia to material you developed. You need to stop contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests." The editor's reply (on my talk page and elsewhere) is to note that self-citations are allowed per SELFCITE. It's probably not reasonable for an editor to exclusively edit by using material they have written or published, but I think WP:SELFCITE could use some additional language to give more instructions to newer users. What is the reasoning behind allowing editors to WP:SELFCITE? It is not clear from WP:SELFCITE and there is that clear external relationship to the source material that raises the COI red flags. Perhaps if we added the rational behind allowing editors to WP:SELFCITE, that would help instruct editors such as the one in the ANI to make better decisions. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been meaning to start a discussion on WT:COI for ages to try to get rid of SELFCITE. I can't remember how it ended up there, or why it has stayed so long, but it definitely doesn't describe best practice. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Found it. In sum of the extended text below, citing yourself is in the COI page due to a timing fluke from when the page was changed on 10 October 2006 from the vanity guidelines to COI policy. Citing yourself is a form of editing by editors who may have a conflict of interest. Citing yourself has nothing to do with writing about yourself and your work (which is where it currently is listed on the COI page). Since COI Non-controversial edits already covers citing yourself, the COI citing yourself should be removed from the COI page.

In August 2006, the COI page was called vanity guidelines (it's funny how that used to make sense). On 22 August 2006, now blocked sockpuppet User:Pproctor added text from Original Research to the vanity guidelines, reading: "If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the  third person and complying with our  NPOV policy." Now retired Duncharris first revered and then revised it to read "If you wish Wikipedia to cite your own reliably published work, please bear in mind WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It is probably best that you do not cite your own work, as this may be misintepreted.  You can however suggest that changes be made to the talk page of the article in question, so that other editors can discuss and make those changes if they are worthwhile. The reverted each other for a bit, with Duncharris posting the last revert, noting "no, you can't get around vanity guidelines like that." On 11 September 2006,  GTBacchus revised Citing oneself on 12 September 2006 to read: "If an editor has published material in a reliable source that is relevant to some Wikipedia article, and they reference that material with a proper citation, that is not necessarily a vanity edit. Such edits are of course subject to the neutral point of view and no original research policies. In order to avoid disputes regarding neutrality or the appearance of vanity editing, self-citing editors are encouraged to discuss their edits on the talk page of the article in question." The vanity guidelines then were change to be COI policy on 10 October 2006 since "vanity" was a  derogatory term. That resulted in the page needing significant rewording to emphasize COI and remove focus on vanity. This 31 January 2007 version of COI cited to Autobiography and No original research. The original focus on experts being able to cite them self has long been removed. Wikipedia:No original research no longer has anything to do with citing oneself. It looks like the current version of COI citing oneself was the result of a timing fluke. GTBacchus' edit to the vanity guideline relied on an editor making an edit referencing their published material not being a vanity edit. That was swept into COI along with everything else. All that text, including citing oneself, was reworded to focus on COI and not use the derogate term "vanity." Looking at the COI page with this above in mind, it is clear that Citing yourself in various articles has nothing to do with "Writing about yourself and your work". In the ANI example I noted initially in my 18:43, 23 November 2013 post above, Hkettani is not writing about himself and his work. Rather, he is summarizing his work to make edits. He has a COI in this regard and edits made by editors who have a COI - the citing yourself situation - already is covered by "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest" on the COI page.


 * When you start the discussion on WT:COI to get rid of SELFCITE, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's interesting history there; thanks for digging it up. It explains how those words have managed to linger there. I'll ping you if and when I start that discussion. Please ping me if you beat me to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've done a couple Talk page posts where I had a self-citation COI with RTI International, a non-profit contract research organization that publishes a lot of studies in peer-reviewed journals. A few editors gave me feedback on things like whether the text should mention "According to a study by RTI International" and when it was an unecessary plug, etc. and to only use a self-cite when it is the best source available. At the end of the day, I was more comfortable with a BrightLine(ish) approach. "Hey here's a great source for this article" and see if anyone picks it up. CorporateM (Talk) 13:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert I deleted arbcom pages
Re: Wikipedia_talk:ARBCOM. Would you mind undeleting and blanking the pages, to conform to our policy, per this discussion? Since you deleted them in the first place, you are best placed to uncontroversially take care of this issue. Cheer, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Piotrus, I have nothing to add to what I've already said. Also, it's best to keep the discussion in one place. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Does this interest you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Anthony, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Speciesism
The question about whether speciesism views different species seems non-trivial to me. If those against speciesism treat primates, dogs, cats, rats, worms, vinegar eels, and termites differently, is that not a form of speciesism? I want to understand a clear definition, and the article does not yet give it. Some days ago, I asked for a clearer definition along these lines. Nobody has responded yet. Any insight is happily received, though I will now be out of contact for a couple days. Gently, Pete unseth (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

History of women in Puerto Rico/GA1
Hey SlimVirgin, it has been a long time. I never thought about nominating the article for GA, but you know how it is, someone comes along and does it and then you (in this case me) are left with doing all the work. I hope that you won't mind, but I may take a little longer then expected because, last week I was hospitalized with "heart failure" and I now have a "life Vest" on since only 15% of my heart is working. I know, what a bummer, right? Then again, what can you do? That's life. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, good to hear from you. I'm really sorry to hear about your health, and this is probably the last thing you need! I didn't realize someone had nominated the article without your knowledge. Probably the best thing is to add the fail template, with a note that you've withdrawn because you didn't know it was going be nominated. (Unfortunately there's no "withdrawn" template.) That would mean you could re-nominate it at your leisure. Does that sound like a plan?


 * The other alternative is simply to leave it on long-term hold. Let me know which you'd prefer. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi SlimVirgin, thank you for your message. A long-term hold sounds about right, since I will be working at it little by little. I will let you know of the corrections and updates in your "talk" page. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay,, sounds good. You can ping me here or on the GA review page; I'll keep a look out for it, but take as long as you need. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)