User talk:SlimVirgin/August 2013

Flickr RFC again

Apologies for bringing this up again, but when you closed an RFC at Talk:Flickr you asked if the current wording was a compromise (it wasn't) and what issues remained, so that you could judge consensus - your (indirect?) response to the clarification was to suggest another RFC to vote on a possible wording, and you haven't responded since. Can I just check that "no consensus, hold another RfC" is your final, considered opinion on how the previous RfC should be resolved? I'll look into raising a straw-poll RFC if so. --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only list when notable

I asked a question from User:Nymf, and he referred me to you. So let me please ask you.

I noticed in this edit that he removed the names of parents and children from a {{Infobox person}} because they are not independently notable. That condition is not listed on the documentation page. It does say for children, "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." bit 1. that is only a suggestion, and 2. only for children, not for parents.

In his reply he said that such is long-standing consensus, and referred to you. Can you please explain to me if indeed such is the consensus, and if it is, where was this discussed, and why this is not in the documentation. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jog the memory of SlimVirgin, since it has been a while ago, this is what I referred to when I deferred the question this way. As far as I can tell, the notability wording was there for over 5 years prior to the change. Nymf (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Baker Eddy

Dear SlimVirgin, don't know if you saw my post on Mary Baker Eddy's talk page about morphine, but just want to make sure you're aware of it. Best regards, Bridge bendek (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield Foods

Hi SlimVirgin, If you're around and interested, the oft-debated Teitz article is under fire again at Smithfield Foods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Smithfield_Foods. I read you were quite heavily involved in the last go-round, so wanted to let you know in case you wanted to jump back into the ring with me. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. a13ean (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP

Hi, SlimVirgin. There is a discussion how to move forward with the DWH section of the BP article. Do you agree to take the role of informal mediator? Or maybe you could propose some other non-involved editor who could do this? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SlimVirgin. As you have not answered this request, I suppose you are not want to deal with this issue any more. If so, it is sad but I can understand the reasons. I would like to say that although we had some different opinions, your facilitation helped to improve the atmosphere on the article's talk page and created a hope that the issue would be resolved. I still hope you may reconsider. Anyway, thank you for your work. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we added our comments simultaneously. Yes, I think that formal mediation could be an option and I agree that it should be focused on DWH subsection only. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Death of Keith Blakelock

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Death of Keith Blakelock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of GregJackP -- GregJackP (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Death of Keith Blakelock

The article Death of Keith Blakelock you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock for things which need to be addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, Slim

FJ noticed it today and started tweeting about it an hour ago. Hence the influx of vandals. Hugs Draco^E 23:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you, and it's lovely to see your name again here. I wondered what had sparked the sudden interest. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you know me. Never able to resist a nice hornet's nest. ;) You sure got yourself a good one there, lovely. And that hashtag is trending. Question is, protect the article or sit back and enjoy the lolz? Draco^E 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen has filed an RfPP, so hopefully the cavalry will arrive soon. I'm a bit reluctant to do it myself given that I created it. But hey, we're trending on Twitter! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fine article by @brokeymcpoverty about the appropriation of black twitter by sites like Gawker. Like I said, it's a hornet's nest. Draco^E 00:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, undoing an addition made by Daniel Case a few weeks ago, note [1], [2] and other recent tweets by him. I guess it's a problem with snippet quotes, and the context coming off differently than originally intended. Best, Andreas JN 466 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to leave it out if the context isn't clear. I've removed the sentences about the Rachel Jeantel criticism too, to be on the safe side; will look at it again when I have more time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the general sentiment of DE's section header, I had occasion to read Night (book) the other day. As I went through the page, it became clear to me you had written it, even before I checked the contributions history. Thanks for that article. Andreas JN 466 03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very nice thing to say, thank you! (assuming you didn't mean you recognized it by its awfulness). :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I'd love to ask you a few questions about your Black Twitter page. Is there a way to contact?--@thewayoftheid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:1580:65:B062:DC3:F1E8:75CF (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know whether you'll see this, but you're welcome to email me. I'll leave a note on your talk page too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Death of Keith Blakelock

The article Death of Keith Blakelock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock for comments about the article. Well done! GregJackP Boomer! 23:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VE usage 9% but only 1-per-100 new articles

Just FYI. I sampled 20,000-30,000 article-edit entries daily last week, and confirmed that wp:VisualEditor is only used for 9% of edits, while 91% use either the wikitext source editor, AWB, wp:ProveIt, wp:Page_Curator, etc. Almost no one is writing new articles with VE, as only 1 page per 100 new articles. So, despite forcing the "Edit" button to demand VE for JavaScript browsers in July, few people are "drinking the VE Kool-Aid" (80% of RfC survey said shutdown VE as Opt-in only). Even the new usernames instead run the wikitext editor for 65% of edits. (Looks like the users might also be smart enough to write encyclopedia articles or something!) Meanwhile, overall IP edits remain about 27%-28% of total edits, and the pattern of editor-activity levels seems unharmed by the attempted VE coup, although several people have complained of losing entire large edits when VE cratered. I will re-attempt to focus on fixing the simple edit-conflicts, which is crucial for multiple people editing the same paragraphs/lists, but it has been difficult to get attention for fixing the important problems, when the focus has shifted to mobile-device editing, as if the world has been waiting to write an encyclopedia entry between tweets. It's not just WMF people. For decades, many computer people have been distracted in similar ways, tinkering with the latest computer toys, rather than focus on major needs of the users, and a software manager must skillfully direct developers to fix important issues. But it is always easier to scrawl a new painting than to carefully restore or reframe a masterwork. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BradleyChelsea Manning

What would you think about semi-protecting the article for a few hours? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief: my internet connection went out until this morning, and what a surprise I find. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, "I'm glad that flurry of changes has died down." I thought too soon! :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what your view is on the name change Slim Virgin, beyond the edit war itself, what is your opinion?--Mark 21:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I support the name change. This came up a while ago on the talk page and elsewhere, when newspapers first reported that Manning had named herself Breanna. Some people wanted to move the article then, but it was resisted because she hadn't made a public statement about it. My position was that as soon as she made a public name change, the title should be moved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. That is my view as well. I didn't see the public statement that recently came out until just the other day, but remember around the time I removed myself from the GA review for personal reasons that this became an issue and that I had reverted the content because there was as yet to be any such comments from the subject. As long as it is very clear that this comes from the subject (and it appears to be) we should accept the name change now. Thanks again for you comments.--Mark 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I remember that. I wondered at the time what had caused the problem, but I didn't want to ask. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that big a deal really. I sent you an e-mail explaining.--Mark 19:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has a question on full protection you did for Asian Fox Developments

Hi. Somebody wanted to re-create Asian Fox Developments which I had deleted some time ago. They came back saying it was fully protected. I searched and found it was (by you) and the reasons which I explained in my Talk page: User_talk:Alexf#Hello_Alexf.21. Wanted to give you a heads up. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SlimVirgin!

Hello SlimVirgin, as you are administrator I just wanted to know if I can create article on this topic or not? Your comment on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexf#Hello_Alexf.21 Benjohnson61 (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, I've responded on Alex's talk page. You can reply there; I'll look out for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SlimVirgin, Actually as you are administator, so that's why I have added this to your talk page. Benjohnson61 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SlimVirgin, I actually wanted to work on real page article, if you can remove protection. So I can work on real page. Thanks Benjohnson61 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, that's not possible as the article subject was protected from creation for a reason. Follow her directions and create it in your sandbox, then tell us when you think it is ready, we'll check it, and if it complies with policy, we'll move it to mainspace for you. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexf, thanks for your reply. I'll definitely try with this article if I can and after creating it I will write on your tall page to inform you. Thanks to SlimVirgin and Alexf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjohnson61 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Labiaplasty quarrel: a reply to your request in the labiaplasty talk page.

Hello, Slimvirgin,

Per your "Welcome" sign, I have come to your page to speak with you, because in the Labiaplasty Talk Page your friends intervened, and we could not communicate clearly. My reply to you follows this copy of your correspondence with me. Please, let us communicate directly, without intermediaries. I want to specifically discuss with you the corrections that Flyer22 noted about your censorship and pov-pushing violations of Wikipedia policies, regarding the Labiaplasty article, so that you and I can agree upon the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs) ---

Hi Otto, I've replied to you on Talk:Labiaplasty. If we keep the discussion there, it means others can join in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Hi Otto, would you mind discussing your proposed edits here on talk first? There seems to be a significant COI, and people have expressed concern about it a few times on WikiProject Medicine; for example, see 18 June 2009, 6 November 2011, 27 January 2013, and 8 August 2013. Also see this section of the COI guideline, which says that anyone with a financial connection to a topic should use the talk page to suggest edits, or the {{request edit}} template.

That apart, your edits seem to violate some of our polices. Removal of the risks and the comment from Linda Cardozo is arguably a violation of Neutral point of view and WP:LEAD. Rewriting the criticism section to add your own opinions violates No original research. Some of the material you're adding is unsourced, violating Verifiability. Other sections are sourced to primary sources, in violation of WP:MEDRS, which is our sourcing guideline for medical articles; it says we should mostly rely on secondary sources such as review articles. You're also adding distinctive formatting.

For all these reasons, I'd appreciate it if you would post your proposals here on talk, together with the sources, so that they can be discussed before adding them to the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Slimvirgin and cohort:

Your POV-pushing version, and your censorship of the legitimate medical photographs, already were factually countered by the Adminstrator Flyer22. So, you, Slimvirgin, a Wikipedia Administrator, and your cohort, are obliged to follow the rules that you ask me to follow, that is, you must prove your accusations, because the word "seems" indicates your doubts about what you claim is wrong with the article.

For two years, you have deliberately vandalized the article, and used the sources to push a pov that does not match the reality, either medical, clinical, or sociological, about this subject. In fact, your censorship and page-owner behavior were the subject of the January 2013 discussion that Flyer22 had with you and your fellow editors, in which she informed you that you are in the wrong in CENSORING the article, because you just don't like it. That is why we are quarreling. Everything I have contributed is true to the sources, after all, this is an article about an elective medical procedure, not about the sociology of Labiaplasty, which is the pov-pushing you have been doing for two years.

So, let us meet half-way, and you begin the dialogue, by showing the specific sections, subsections, and sentences that are factually untrue. Playing games is conduct unbecoming a Wikipedia Administrator, the ethical onus is upon you, because it is you, Slimvirgin and cohort, who disagree with the medical facts of a medical article. The sources are listed, please explain where the article does not correspond to the facts cited.

Come, let us begin.

Otto Placik (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, one more revert and you may shortly find yourself the subject of a discussion at AN/I. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it should be clear to you by now that your unilateral changes do not have consensus. Regards, Andreas JN 466 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have full-portected - although indef, am happy for any other admin to unprotect if discussion productive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now raised at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Otto_Placik_editing_plastic_surgery_articles. Best, Andreas JN 466 06:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ‎

I have an editor on this page that has placed in some non neutral wording to replace what you had put in place tried reverting with the problem stated in the edit summary with this as a reaction: "Thank you for stating what you objected to although I do disagree" This gives no reason whatsoever on the person's position but I do not want to revert further to break 3RR what should I do? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted and left a note on his talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and thanks, I have joined in the discussion on the user's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global renaming already as Chelsea

Just FYI. As you know, the rename as "Chelsea Manning" has occurred on several wikipedias, even though others are using a redirect instead (such as on French WP, German, Italian, Norwegian). The order of renaming, during 22–23 August 2013, for 8 languages has been as follows:

English Wikipedia rename (redone 5 times?):

(cur | prev) 12:18, 22 August 2013‎ Morwen (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (105,110 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: per [3], we need to do a bit of a copyedit on this!)

Swedish Wikipedia rename:

(nuvarande | föregående) 22 augusti 2013 kl. 15.29‎ Riggwelter (Diskussion | Bidrag)‎ m . . (2 158 byte) (0)‎ . . (Riggwelter flyttade sidan Bradley Manning till Chelsea Manning) (gör ogjord)

Persian Wikipedia rename:

at 17:09, 22 August 2013 ("‏۲۲ اوت ۲۰۱۳، ساعت ۱۷:۰۹‏")

(فعلی | قبلی) ‏۲۲ اوت ۲۰۱۳، ساعت ۱۷:۰۹‏ Ladsgroup (بحث | مشارکت‌ها)‏ جز . . (۱۰٬۵۶۴ بایت) (۰)‏ . . (Ladsgroup صفحهٔ بردلی منینگ را به چلسی منینگ منتقل کرد: تغییر جنسیت را آغاز کرده) (خنثی‌سازی)

Turkish Wikipedia rename:

(fark | son) 18:28, 22 Ağustos 2013‎ Ibrahim Dede (Mesaj | Katkılar)‎ k . . (3.497 bayt) (0)‎ . . (Ibrahim Dede Bradley Manning sayfasını Chelsea Manning sayfasına taşıdı: İsim değişikliği yapmıştır. Diğer vikilerde de madde taşınmıştır.) (Geri al) [otomatik olarak kontrol edildi]

Dutch Wikipedia rename:

(huidig | vorige) 23 aug 2013 01:40‎ RonnieV (Overleg | bijdragen)‎ k . . (11.587 bytes) (0)‎ . . (RonnieV heeft de pagina Bradley Manning naar Chelsea Manning hernoemd: www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/22/bradley_manning_chelsea_manning_wikileaker_s_lawyer_tells_today_show_that.html, nu.nl/buitenland/3556475/bradley-manning-wil-begin...) (ongedaan maken)

Danish Wikipedia rename:

(nuværende | forrige) 23. aug 2013, 01:59‎ da:Bruger:PalnatokePalnatoke (diskussion | bidrag)‎ m . . (4.466 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Palnatoke flyttede siden Bradley Manning til Chelsea Manning: nyt navn) (fjern redigering)

Catalan Wikipedia rename:

(act | prev) 07:31, 23 ago 2013‎ Jorsape (Discussió | contribucions)‎ m . . (7.811 octets) (0)‎ . . (Jorsape ha mogut Bradley Manning a Chelsea Manning: Reassignació de sexe) (desfés)

Finnish Wikipedia rename:

(nyk. | edell.) 23. elokuuta 2013 kello 11.22‎ Elena (keskustelu | muokkaukset)‎ p . . (2 251 tavua) (0)‎ . . (Elena siirsi sivun Bradley Manning uudelle nimelle Chelsea Manning: vaihtanut nimensä) (kumoa)

The Persian WP (Farsi) page was renamed 3rd (as "چلسی منینگ" - "Chelsea Manning"), but the Arabic title has not been renamed yet. I cannot read Hebrew, and I have not translated that to see if the page there has been renamed yet. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very interesting. Thanks for letting me know, Wikid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection expired

Hey the full protection for Manning's article expired I still think this could create problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has, and I agree. I've asked the admin who added the full protection to restore the prior semi-protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Thanks for pinging me. My concerns are several: first, that editors face automatic loss of JSTOR access after a year, regardless of the use they are making of it; second, that some editors in the "lucky 100" are sitting on their accounts making little or no use of the facility; third, that deserving editors presently outside the "lucky 100" should have the opportunity to acquire access; fourth, that negotiations should be extended to other paywalls. I am worried about the apparent lack of a guiding hand; Steve seems no more informed on these issues than when I raised them earlier in the summer, and the clock is ticking away. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I think it would be helpful if you were to add your voice to the discussion. The ideal thing might be if Steven would allow one or more of us to join in his discussions with JSTOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regan

Can you date this Image of Tom Regan? It looks a little older then 2008 to me, don’t you think? Here’s one from 2006. --goiken 11:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have a date for the first one, sorry, but they look consistent enough to me. I think it's just different lighting and in the 2006 one a less flattering angle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Chelsea Manning to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Chelsea Manning to Good Article status.

This one was trickier than most for me to estimate a readership for--there's a lot of peaks and valleys--but it seems to me that both last year and this year (already) this article has broken a million views, even discounting the most recent week of publicity frenzy. Thanks for all you did to get, and keep, this one in shape! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Khazar, that's very kind. It's good to know that someone out there is reading our stuff. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

You may want to look at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Just somebody copyediting to make the text make sense, but as usual, wording seems to mean different things to different people. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Smallbones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement you obtained from Manning's attorney

Hey SlimVirgin,

Maybe you noticed that I thanked you for your comment about the statement you got from Manning's attorney clarifying the remarks about what Chelsea "expects." I thought it was awesome that you asked on behalf of Wikipedia! Anyway, maybe you did this somewhere already and I missed it in the giganticness, or maybe it's not appropriate to share your personal correspondence so publicly – or maybe there's some other reason you won't want to do this; I'm hardly a Wikipedia expert – but I was thinking that maybe you could share somewhere exactly what the attorney said? I feel like there is still a lot of skepticism about the meaning of "expects" in the follow-up statement and honestly I'm not even sure about what I think of all of it myself. I'm not trying to suggest that you're misrepresenting what the attorney said in your summary or anything like that, I just feel like it would be interesting to look at. Thanks for your time. Also, thanks for doing such a good job maintaining such a controversial article with such a level head. Regards, AgnosticAphid talk 04:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can't add anything by way of clarification, but I'll leave an additional note on the talk page shortly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Chelsea image?

Could you contact Chelsea and see if she could somehow provide a good image to go with her article? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportfan, see the response from the lawyer: she would like the current image to be used until a new one is available. I'm assuming that as soon as she has a new one ready, the lawyer will publish it, probably via his blog. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to poke more but if it's easy enough can you confirm? I think we should update the FAQ to reflect that one is been asked for and will be forthcoming when it's available. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean can I ask the lawyer again, I don't like to pester him with questions as he's so busy. I'm sure if they go to the trouble of arranging one, they'll make it available. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you update the FAQ to preempt an image discussion? Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for removing the repetition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Canada (Auschwitz).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Canada (Auschwitz).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning merge

Hi Slim, nice to see you're still pounding the keyboard.

Regarding Manning, I'd like to get rolling with a move request to "Private Manning" but there's an ongoing merge request in the way, as you know. So I have to wait seven days, and then if someone slips in a request before me, then another seven days, et cetera? This seems screwy, especially since the current request seems to be heading nowhere, and even the requester is opposing the request. Any tips?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure what you mean by merge, but I'm assuming you mean the requested move (RM). Private Manning is currently a redirect to Chelsea Manning. If you want to propose that we move the article there, you'd have to wait until the current RM decision is posted (which will hopefully be tomorrow) and until any review of that decision is over. Then you could go ahead in theory, although the chances of it gaining consensus are slim. Even posting it might be seen as disruptive, depending on how willing people are to abide by the outcome of the current RM. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why disruptive? I already suggested moving the article to "Private Manning" at the article talk page, and most commenters were supportive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, if I even mention this idea at the article talk page, it will be immediately archived again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]