User talk:SlimVirgin/November 2016

Books and Bytes - Issue 19
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 19, September–October 2016 by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti  Read the full newsletter 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
 * New Library Card Platform and Conference news
 * Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Tanning Bed
Just wanted to say that you're doing amazing work over on tanning bed, but I'd really like to keep the preemptive archive URLs, as per WP:PLRT (though I see now I shouldn't be using that and access date). Granted, it's only a how-to guide and not a policy or guideline, but I think it's reasonable if one wants to take the time. --tronvillain (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for saying that. The article is hard to read and edit because of wordiness and repetition in the text, and hard to edit because of citation clutter such as unnecessary access dates, unnecessary quotes, etc. Re: archive URLs, I can see the point where there's reason to believe the URL is unstable, but with agencies such as the FDA, we can trust them to maintain the websites. I take the same approach with quotations in references: they might be needed for an offline source, or where a point has been disputed (or where we anticipate that it might be disputed or cause surprise), but otherwise not.


 * Do you mind if I move this to article talk? If we continue there, others can join in. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. --tronvillain (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tanning
Could you finish the effect of the move of Tanning and the creation of the disambiguation page. I do not know how many links there are left, but you created 1288 links to disambiguation pages, including some in templates. Could you fix that ASAP? The Banner talk 18:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see if a bot can make the fixes, but note that there aren't 1288 pages that contain the link. I've just checked a few that are listed and there's no sign of it, either in the article or a template. I've noticed this many times before with the "what links here" feature. SarahSV (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on this now. bd2412  T 22:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for doing this! SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! bd2412  T 00:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Forthrightness: Baby and Bathwater ker-splash!
I can see you did not remove all of the minor changes I made to the page on COnflict of INterest, but I am surprised by the insignificance of the ones it looks like you reverted back to the original...   Can you help me out here? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KDS, I didn't roll back your edits, as your earlier post said. This is the diff between my latest edit and the version of mine before it. As you can see, some of your edits remain.


 * Your changes introduced a few problems. For example, the otherlinks field isn't entirely optional (except in the sense that using the template at all is optional), because declaring other affiliations is part of the terms of use; people don't have to declare a COI in edit summaries; COI doesn't undermine public confidence in general but public confidence in Wikipedia, as the sentence said before the change; and in a few cases extra words were added that didn't have a function or that changed the meaning of the sentence.


 * One remaining problem is that you changed the requirement for paid editors. They must declare who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You changed that to "you must declare who is paying you and the nature of your relationship to that entity," which means something else. Then there are issues such as "[t]he client parameter is on whose behalf the payment was made". So I would like to do some more copy editing.


 * Do you mind if we continue this on WT:COI? I do agree with your latest post there about the broader issue, and I think we need to talk about it, though I have no answers. SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC question
Mandruss, this is about AWB reordering refs. It is about the feature that was added in 2009. If we make it more complicated and it confuses people, we will end up with no consensus. - I understand. My question is whether the question should be about all AWB reordering or only about bot AWB reordering. Am I mistaken that AWB could be used to do the reordering on a single article? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC is about the feature that was added in 2009, which (apparently) means AWB is doing this automatically and can't be switched off. If you leave it so that AWB editors can choose to do it, several will continue choosing to, so the problem will remain. (The problem of repetitive automated edits is deeper than this issue or this tool.) I think we should leave the RfC as it is. This is already more time-consuming than it needed to be. If you make the RfC complicated, and people get confused, or say yes to this but no to that, you won't gain consensus for anything. SarahSV (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In the case of no clear consensus, this logic depends on the premise that a no-consensus result means something one way or the other. Without that, the RfC will have been like a mistrial, and just more wasted time. I pray the closer will be one who understands that (and not only because I'll be the one who gets the blame for the time waste). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is already more time-consuming than it needed to be. My perception is that it has been more time-consuming than it needed to be for 7 f'ing years. Am I mistaken? My RfC aims to put an end to that, finally. One side of this dispute is going to go away unhappy, there is no avoiding that, but at least the issue will be settled at least for a number of years until the RfC result is considered to have passed its "expiration date".


 * Yes, very time-consuming. There are broader issues, including that several AWB editors believe BRD doesn't apply to them, and that the AWB rules are routinely ignored. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh didn't you know? BRD is Only An Essay! :) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cynefin
I appreciate the work you have done on the article, however there is one significant issue. The article has been subject to attack on several occasions by an editor who has a commercial partnership with Kurtz (who was previously my research assistant in IBM and a contractor to Cognitive Edge my commercial company). There has also been a rather nasty social media campaign by HVgard to claim that she was the co-author of Cynefin. He has made similar attempts to hijack IP with the author of the KIF model so its a common pattern and an irritant from time to time, although he has no academic standing or position.

A few articles (such as the one you reference) say that the framework was co-created by Kurtz as they have only read the 2003 article "New Dynamics of Strategy" which she co-authored (names alphabetical, corresponding author me). That was three years after the first article and five years after the first use of the framework. It was also developed when I was A Director (not Director) of IBM's Institute for Knowledge Management. The Cynefin Centre followed that, it was never a part of it, but that is a minor point.

Earlier references include:


 * 1) Snowden, D. (2000) “Cynefin, A Sense of Time and Place:  an Ecological Approach to Sense Making and Learning in Formal and Informal Communities”  conference proceedings of KMAC at the University of Aston, July 2000
 * 2) Snowden, D. (2000) “Cynefin: a sense of time and space, the social ecology of knowledge management”. In Knowledge Horizons : The  Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management   ed. C Despres & D Chauvel  Butterworth Heinemann October 2000.
 * 3) Snowden, D. (2002) “Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness” in the Journal of Knowledge Management – Vol. 6, No. 2, (May) pp. 100-111 (recently assessed as one of the ten most cited papers in the field)

Others have been involved in the development, Boisot in particular was a mentor. Kurtz developed many of the methods and co-authored two papers with me. Boone made a major contribution to the presentation in the HBR cover article, Marks in respect of application to Health (two co-authored papers). I could go on, and have always gone out of my way to acknowledge sources. But no one (including Kurtz) would claim it was other than my creation. To credit Kurtz is wrong in terms of citation history (see above) and unfair to others who made a larger contribution. Snowded TALK 04:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Snowded, thanks, I'll take another look at the sources. SarahSV (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To continue the theme. Kurtz's biog on the article says that she 'helped' found the Cynefin Centre, mine says that I founded it.  Several other people helped found the Centre and Kurtz was employed as a sub-contractor - three other full time staff members of IBM were also founders.  The fact I enjoyed writing with Kurtz gives her some prominence on one article but that is it.  It would be legitimate to say that I funded the Centre with the help of Kurtz AND OTHERS.   Sorry to raise this and I appreciate the effort you are putting in here.  But there are BLP issues and claims by commercial partners of Kurtz which are problematic to say the least.  Everyone works with a team, and to emphasis the role of one person in that team at the expense of others is unfair.  On the earlier subject there are plenty of articles which say I created the Cynefin Framework which don't mention Kurtz.  Given that conflict the primary sources surely resolve the issue as to which should be used.  Snowded  TALK 05:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * (apologies just realised you are still editing) Snowded  TALK 05:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you mind if I copy this to the talk page and reply there? SarahSV (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not if you manage some of the Trolls who may well appear.  You're not the one having to face false accusations of having 'stolen' Kurtz's work in an attempt to promote someone else's business.   Snowded  TALK 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't understand your reply; can you clarify? I won't copy it if you'd prefer not, but I don't want to hold a discussion about the article in two places. SarahSV (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm OK for you to copy I was just making the point that (i) trolls may appear and (ii) there has been some very nasty stuff around attempts to claim Kurtz co-created (or even was the creator) of the model (their term as opposed to framework), So as far as I am concerned this is a potential BLP issue and I've had to deal with the accusation in academic and other environments,  Presenting the evidence (per the above references) normally resolves it but Wikipedia is likely to be used for said nefarious purpose in its current form hence my sensitivity.  Plagiarism is a very serious accusation in academic circles  Snowded  TALK 06:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

still bemused
OK Google Scholar as 1,470 citations of Snowden + Cynefin and 557 of Snowden + Cynefin + Kurtz. You have chosen to privilege one citation based on a reference to one article, Per WP:Weight and the publications cited above the origins of the Cynefin Framework precede the Kurt/Snowden article or any involvement by Kurtz. There is even a blog post by Kurtz talking about when I presented the Cynefin Framework to her at an early meeting. Sorry but this is a BLP issue Snowded  TALK 06:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

strange
I edited the new Malia article but see you redirected it. Could you undo this? It, like many articles that are new, is poorly written but I was going to try to fix it a bit. Samswik (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, you have page protected it so only administrators can edit it. This caused me to look up WP:R, the redirect page which states that page protection.... "Sometimes, a redirect to an article pertaining to a very controversial topic will be fully or, more rarely, semi-protected indefinitely."

This article is not very controversial. I don't see what the big deal is acting so strongly against an article. I am uncertain about the long term keeping of it (needing to think of it more) but talking it over is usually likely to develop a consensus that locking it up, like page protection.Samswik (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When editors disagree, the proper response is to discuss the issue and to engage with points raised by others. You just commented at Talk:Family of Barack Obama and that is the place where the discussion is taking place. Why not mention, say, two reliable sources and outline how the sources show the subject satisfies WP:GNG, bearing in mind WP:NOTINHERITED. Please do that at the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not yet decided if the article should be kept but I am initiating a discussion here about the page protection, which doesn't seem to meet the criteria of such action. Other redirect debates are not page protected like this nor are the page protection for redirect criteria met. Samswik (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please wait for consensus to form on Talk:Family of Barack Obama. If there's consensus for a separate article, the redirect will be reverted and you can help to build the page. SarahSV (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)