SlimVirgin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
INeverCry 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi SV. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear SlimVirgin,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
The Feminism Barnstar | ||
For your contributions to the Women in 2014 article. Well done, Slim. GRuban ( talk) 18:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC) |
Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Slim Virgin! Hope you had a wonderful holiday season. I don't know if you are interested, and I assume you are quite busy with your own projects, but if you have any extra time, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at an article I recently wrote, Irataba. I have it at GAN now, and I'm not sure if I need to wait for a random person to pick it up, or if I can request a review from somebody skilled as yourself. If not, don't worry; I'll understand. Rationalobserver ( talk) 23:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
In January 2013 there was a " RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB ( talk) 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have set up a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Big sister | |
I don't know what the hell is going on on your talk page, but here's a pretty distraction instead. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
You write "If white racists were to start editing articles about black people, they'd be banned immediately by admins or the community." I generally agree with the rest of your points, but I think that Wikipedia has demonstrated that "racial realists," will be given a great deal of room before being banned by ArbCom along with the people that tried to stop them - for example - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because someone has a pro-GG bias doesn't necessarily mean that they're sexist. They may simply be concerned with what they perceive to be a problems with ethics in video game journalism, so I don't think that's an accurate analogy at all. If you're concerned about sexism, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Granted, I don't claim to understand everything about this topic-space, but I have been following it off and on, and ArbCom's proposed decision seems to be pretty spot on. In fact, when I read the first draft, I was actually pretty impressed with how well it was written. Please don't believe everything you read. It is a rarity when the mainstream press covers something on Wikipedia accurately. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"Devil's Snare, Devil's Snare... What did Professor Sprout say? It likes the dark and the damp-"
"So light a fire!" Harry choked.
"Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands.
"HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"
-- J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
In several places recently, you have complained about the lack of admins willing to take action against sexist disruption, especially of the GGTF. [2] [3] [4]
Do you, or do you not, have a mop on your user page? Are you or are you not active in the GGTF? If you see what you think is undisputable sexist disruption and do nothing ... what is the point of being an admin? Did the people who gave you the mop do so so you could better complain on talk pages about those darn do-nothing admins? Go. Stop complaining. Do stuff. All that stuff that you wish "admins" did. In case you forgot - you is one.
Recognize this line? "If not I, then who? If not now, then when?" -- GRuban ( talk) 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
First, apologies that my userpage doesn't mention Arbcom. I've never used it for biographical details and i suspect you're the first person ever to go there with an interest in on-wiki roles. Will think of a way to mention this somewhere so it's clearer in the future.
The article offers an opinion on the Arbcom outcome and how it will be perceived. There are some immediate factual inaccuracies in the article, and there is some discussion on what if any.thing might be done to correct them. There are also opinions on bias and on Wikipedia - I don't immediately agree with these but the author is entitled to his views.
However the reason why I hatted the conversation (after flagging with the Committee that I would do so) is that it adds nothing to the case evidence and is not useful in determining the way forward on the remaining Findings or Remedies. The author implies the Committee's decision is one-sided and let's a bunch of pro-Gamergate editors off the hook - but it doesn't name any of those editors or provide any evidence besides a view that the majority of people listed in the PD are in the authors view, from the anti-Gamergate side. That's not surprising as it is an article and not case evidence; but a vague assertion that unnamed people are escaping the outcome is not actionable, nor especially useful in resolving the case.
Further, nothing in the article is especially new or insightful. As you know there's a veritable deluge of commentary on all sides, alleging bias one way or the other. It's interesting to read, but the Committee can't make a decision based on these external opinions. Discussing them on the PD talkpage isn't going to be a useful exercise for the Committee, which is aware of endless external commentary pieces but needs to decide the case on what is principally on-wiki evidence.
Less importantly, the requirements of the PD talkpage are for people to comment in their own section, in order to keep the discussion manageable and let all participants have an equal say. A threaded discussion at the bottom of the page is against the process. However, as I say, this bureaucratic nicety is a smaller issue compared to the above.
I should add two things. If you or any other editor feels the committee's decision is one-sided or will reflect poorly on Wikipedia, and have specific suggestions on addressing that, please feel free to post them on the PD talkpage in an individual section. I for one am interested in the views of actual editors on issues to be addressed in this case, and whether or how the PD addresses them. I am vastly less interested in the Guardian's views on the same things, or the accuracy of its coverage.
And the one remaining thing - sorry for the wall of text. -- Euryalus ( talk) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Question_about_signature_change -- just go for it and do the rename. Although it's a tolerated practice I always find it confusing to see one name in a edit history and another a talk page. [[User talk:|NE Ent]] 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. Wrt your question here. I understand the reasons for the restrictive format (it prevents all hell from breaking loose as a result of parties continuing their pathetic feuds, which also means the rest of us don't get drowned out by the bickering), but it does make it difficult for those of us who don't have axes to grind. Anyway, the answer to your question is that the parties who have been responsible for BLP violations are being topic-banned from Gamergate and from "any gender-related dispute or controversy", broadly construed. Most of those who have lasted long enough to be parties are not responsible for the most egregious or disgusting edits—those editors have mostly been blocked or topic-banned already, some of them through the existing community sanctions. ArbCom are also authorising discretionary sanctions, which are backed up by sharper teeth than the community sanctions and allow admins to come down hard on BLP violations and other misconduct. If you come across something that you don't feel you can deal with, either because of "INVOLVEment" or because of unfamiliarity with the procedures, but which needs dealing with do feel free to let me know—I hope I've established a reputation over the years as an admin who comes down like a ton of bricks on libel, harassment, and other abhorrent behaviour which has no place on Wikipedia. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. I noticed the comments by Gamaliel and you at the PD talk page for the Gamergate case in relation to discretionary sanctions. Actually, I've previously noted here that others have expressed concerns about the complexity of DS, but as you will note at the end of the the section below my comment, the issue appears to remain denied or buried in some archive - which is disappointing. Unfortunately I don't have the same sort of time available for this project that I once had, but any efforts to get that issue sorted would certainly be appreciated. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see the talk page at The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley which is, surprisingly, a lifestyle center. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you could add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations to your watchlist. I don't expect you to second nominations (that is what the page is for, although that would nice). Rarely there is a discussion regarding policy. There is one now. Your input would be helpful. Buster Seven Talk 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Women's rights in 2014 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
INeverCry 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi SV. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear SlimVirgin,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
The Feminism Barnstar | ||
For your contributions to the Women in 2014 article. Well done, Slim. GRuban ( talk) 18:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC) |
Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Slim Virgin! Hope you had a wonderful holiday season. I don't know if you are interested, and I assume you are quite busy with your own projects, but if you have any extra time, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at an article I recently wrote, Irataba. I have it at GAN now, and I'm not sure if I need to wait for a random person to pick it up, or if I can request a review from somebody skilled as yourself. If not, don't worry; I'll understand. Rationalobserver ( talk) 23:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
In January 2013 there was a " RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB ( talk) 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have set up a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Big sister | |
I don't know what the hell is going on on your talk page, but here's a pretty distraction instead. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
You write "If white racists were to start editing articles about black people, they'd be banned immediately by admins or the community." I generally agree with the rest of your points, but I think that Wikipedia has demonstrated that "racial realists," will be given a great deal of room before being banned by ArbCom along with the people that tried to stop them - for example - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because someone has a pro-GG bias doesn't necessarily mean that they're sexist. They may simply be concerned with what they perceive to be a problems with ethics in video game journalism, so I don't think that's an accurate analogy at all. If you're concerned about sexism, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Granted, I don't claim to understand everything about this topic-space, but I have been following it off and on, and ArbCom's proposed decision seems to be pretty spot on. In fact, when I read the first draft, I was actually pretty impressed with how well it was written. Please don't believe everything you read. It is a rarity when the mainstream press covers something on Wikipedia accurately. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"Devil's Snare, Devil's Snare... What did Professor Sprout say? It likes the dark and the damp-"
"So light a fire!" Harry choked.
"Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands.
"HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"
-- J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
In several places recently, you have complained about the lack of admins willing to take action against sexist disruption, especially of the GGTF. [2] [3] [4]
Do you, or do you not, have a mop on your user page? Are you or are you not active in the GGTF? If you see what you think is undisputable sexist disruption and do nothing ... what is the point of being an admin? Did the people who gave you the mop do so so you could better complain on talk pages about those darn do-nothing admins? Go. Stop complaining. Do stuff. All that stuff that you wish "admins" did. In case you forgot - you is one.
Recognize this line? "If not I, then who? If not now, then when?" -- GRuban ( talk) 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
First, apologies that my userpage doesn't mention Arbcom. I've never used it for biographical details and i suspect you're the first person ever to go there with an interest in on-wiki roles. Will think of a way to mention this somewhere so it's clearer in the future.
The article offers an opinion on the Arbcom outcome and how it will be perceived. There are some immediate factual inaccuracies in the article, and there is some discussion on what if any.thing might be done to correct them. There are also opinions on bias and on Wikipedia - I don't immediately agree with these but the author is entitled to his views.
However the reason why I hatted the conversation (after flagging with the Committee that I would do so) is that it adds nothing to the case evidence and is not useful in determining the way forward on the remaining Findings or Remedies. The author implies the Committee's decision is one-sided and let's a bunch of pro-Gamergate editors off the hook - but it doesn't name any of those editors or provide any evidence besides a view that the majority of people listed in the PD are in the authors view, from the anti-Gamergate side. That's not surprising as it is an article and not case evidence; but a vague assertion that unnamed people are escaping the outcome is not actionable, nor especially useful in resolving the case.
Further, nothing in the article is especially new or insightful. As you know there's a veritable deluge of commentary on all sides, alleging bias one way or the other. It's interesting to read, but the Committee can't make a decision based on these external opinions. Discussing them on the PD talkpage isn't going to be a useful exercise for the Committee, which is aware of endless external commentary pieces but needs to decide the case on what is principally on-wiki evidence.
Less importantly, the requirements of the PD talkpage are for people to comment in their own section, in order to keep the discussion manageable and let all participants have an equal say. A threaded discussion at the bottom of the page is against the process. However, as I say, this bureaucratic nicety is a smaller issue compared to the above.
I should add two things. If you or any other editor feels the committee's decision is one-sided or will reflect poorly on Wikipedia, and have specific suggestions on addressing that, please feel free to post them on the PD talkpage in an individual section. I for one am interested in the views of actual editors on issues to be addressed in this case, and whether or how the PD addresses them. I am vastly less interested in the Guardian's views on the same things, or the accuracy of its coverage.
And the one remaining thing - sorry for the wall of text. -- Euryalus ( talk) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Question_about_signature_change -- just go for it and do the rename. Although it's a tolerated practice I always find it confusing to see one name in a edit history and another a talk page. [[User talk:|NE Ent]] 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. Wrt your question here. I understand the reasons for the restrictive format (it prevents all hell from breaking loose as a result of parties continuing their pathetic feuds, which also means the rest of us don't get drowned out by the bickering), but it does make it difficult for those of us who don't have axes to grind. Anyway, the answer to your question is that the parties who have been responsible for BLP violations are being topic-banned from Gamergate and from "any gender-related dispute or controversy", broadly construed. Most of those who have lasted long enough to be parties are not responsible for the most egregious or disgusting edits—those editors have mostly been blocked or topic-banned already, some of them through the existing community sanctions. ArbCom are also authorising discretionary sanctions, which are backed up by sharper teeth than the community sanctions and allow admins to come down hard on BLP violations and other misconduct. If you come across something that you don't feel you can deal with, either because of "INVOLVEment" or because of unfamiliarity with the procedures, but which needs dealing with do feel free to let me know—I hope I've established a reputation over the years as an admin who comes down like a ton of bricks on libel, harassment, and other abhorrent behaviour which has no place on Wikipedia. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. I noticed the comments by Gamaliel and you at the PD talk page for the Gamergate case in relation to discretionary sanctions. Actually, I've previously noted here that others have expressed concerns about the complexity of DS, but as you will note at the end of the the section below my comment, the issue appears to remain denied or buried in some archive - which is disappointing. Unfortunately I don't have the same sort of time available for this project that I once had, but any efforts to get that issue sorted would certainly be appreciated. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see the talk page at The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley which is, surprisingly, a lifestyle center. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you could add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations to your watchlist. I don't expect you to second nominations (that is what the page is for, although that would nice). Rarely there is a discussion regarding policy. There is one now. Your input would be helpful. Buster Seven Talk 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Women's rights in 2014 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)