Jump to content

User talk:SlimVirgin/November 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this. SarahSV (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please consider semi-protection of 'Marjorie Taylor Greene' rather than full protection

I do not see any justification for full protection of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Could you please consider changing it to semi-protection. If you decide to stay with full protection, could you please explain why (and citing policy would be useful, of course). Thanks. Nurg (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nurg, I've replied on the talk page. SarahSV (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Apologies for the random message, but I wanted to thank you for all of the time and work you have put into the female genital mutilation article. My brother recently read through after reading about the topic in a book and he really enjoyed and learned a lot from the Wikipedia. This is a difficult and sensitive subject matter so I have a lot of respect for how you have presented the information and its related research. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during this rather interesting year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Aoba47, that's very nice of you to say so. It's good to know that someone has read it (to have at least one reader is excellent news!), so thank you, I appreciate the feedback very much. SarahSV (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course. As I am sure you already know, you have done incredible work on Wikipedia. I would not be surprised if people other than my brother have also learned from the Wikipedia article. I believe this really showcases the best parts of Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, Aoba. SarahSV (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:User FAw

Template:User FAw has been nominated for merging with Template:User Featured articles. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:User FA

Template:User FA has been nominated for merging with Template:User Featured articles. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI questions

Replied elsewhere. SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi SV; I hope you don't mind if I ask some clarifying questions about the ANI issue you closed yesterday, particularly because everything already seems to be happening all over again at the same article with a different user now.
In your final comment at ANI, you said, Struthious Bandersnatch, please don't accuse other editors of "lying", 🔗; this was in reference to, while an unanswered comment from me was on the article's talk page in which I said that Stonkaments had deleted sourced content yet claimed it was unsourced, they reverted the same content restored by a different editor while claiming “consensus on the talk page”, which is what I'd described as WP:SHAMCONSENSUS.
I am rather confused by this outcome, above all because in my initial ANI report I'd already proposed that Stonkaments was lying about a lack of consensus; and so I am wondering whether your comment represents a finding that this was not a sham consensus? Or is it that even if it was, you're saying I must not call that “lying”? Or not use the word “lying” outside of ANI?
I am also just wondering what to do if, in the future, I'm faced with another user who deletes sourced material while claiming it's unsourced, or who claims they're simply carrying out talk page consensus in reverting multiple editors when they plainly are not; because bringing it to ANI doesn't appear to have been the right thing to do. And this is all on an article with AE page restrictions and an alerted editor doing it. (Sorry I didn't notice the alert until yesterday.)
Stonkaments did not even acknowledge at any point that they'd claimed a sourced statement was unsourced, or that the talk page consensus they'd stopped participating in did not support their deletions, and you apparently don't see a need for them to even do that; so I kind of feel like my hands are tied.
Your atop-closing comment was It seems that the issue is being worked out on article talk but, whichever issue you were referring to, nothing further had occurred in the related article talk thread since I'd posted at ANI; And in fact since you closed, a comment has appeared from a user dealing with Lmomjian (who commented at ANI) using the same tactic, repeatedly deleting the exact same content and more while claiming talk page consensus supports their deletion and changes. And Stonkaments, rather than participating at the article talk page where everyone would see, has gone to that user's personal talk page to presume to speak for everyone involved in the thread—deceptively, I would say, and intentionally so. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yet more bad faith assumptions and accusations of dishonesty and deception. You really can't help yourself. Please ping me in any conversations where you feel the need to continue to attack my character and intentions, even after being asked multiple times (including by an admin) not to do so.
I have already refuted all of your earlier claims, but I will address the new accusation of intentional deception: I notified Grayfell on their talk page so that they knew there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, and that there appeared to be broad support for a proposal related to Lmomjian's edit. Is that not the recommended approach? Per WP:TP: When other editors need to contact you, they will usually do this by leaving a message on your talk page. Stonkaments (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Stonkaments: I note that you did not ping me in the above comment, nor on Grayfell's talk page when you spoke for me and everyone else by claiming all of the editors who have been involved (on both sides) in the discussion supported Lmomjian deleting the same content you'd deleted while mentioning my name as opposing it in the deletion summary in the course of your linking to Aquillion saying, I would oppose any weakening of the wording as if that somehow is supportive of deletion. This is the kind of “refutation” of my claims you have been providing—statements that simply again manifestly contradict reality and continue to illuminate your my character and intentions. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
SV, if you see this I would urge you to renew your attention to this issue and get involved immediately. Stonkaments, despite pleading I'm a relatively new editor and things of that sort in various places, is WP:PRECOCIOUS in a variety of ways (not saying that the account is necessarily a sock or sockmaster, just that they behave like a veteran editor, though certainly newbies aren't always clueless)—they unhesitatingly and repeatedly revert multiple other editors toeing right up to the 3RR limit, they have lots of very definite things to say about P&G and will direct others to “get consensus on talk page” or “self-revert”, and most notably to me, within days of the account being created in the summer they:
  1. proposed a merge citing article title policy
  2. closed the discussion themself after 7 days and one other editor's comment
  3. carried out the merge comprehensively, for example using a redirect cat template
  4. and deleted a related Wikidata sitelink
This user is fairly prolific and notably their tempo has only increased since I filed the report at ANI, with multiple deletions of cited content in the tens of thousands of k. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Struthious Bandersnatch: FYI, there's a very handy guide that lays out every single step of how to merge a page at Wikipedia:Merging#How_to_merge. With that and some friendly guidance from Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help, I figured I would WP:Be Bold and give it a try.
I appreciate your close attention to my editing history (and the unintended compliment about being "precocious"); it's quite flattering really, though I'm also concerned that it's a sign you have some sort of personal vendetta against me at this point. I kindly request that you please leave me alone so we can get back to work making Wikipedia better - What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Stonkaments (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think SV can testify that if the worst undeserved consequence you suffer in a “personal vendetta” that involves accurately describing your behavior with diffs and references to P&G and essay links is flattery, you are not suffering much.
If you're going to continue doing things like claiming WP:BRD is justification to delete cited content eight times in the face of opposition from four different editors right above where BRD is quoted in another talk discussion saying BRD is never a reason for reverting and BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once then no, no one is getting back to work making Wikipedia better with tactics like that in play—that sort of thing is what makes simply proceeding with a tabula rasa assumption of good faith impossible. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SarahSV, I highly recommend that if you have not yet done so, that you read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Struthious Bandersnatch before replying to this user. The behavior there is unbelievably on the attack, dictatorial, and indicates an intention to WP:OWN the topic and to always assume bad faith. It is one of the most shocking attitudes I have ever seen on here; I am not exaggerating. Crossroads -talk- 20:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I would encourage anyone to read it as well—it does not reflect poorly on me to someone who cares about these issues, but on the user who describes a possible future Wikipedia where everyday casual racism is frowned upon as “totalitarian” and “dictatorial”. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SarahSV, sorry to keep bothering you, but someone in authority needs to know this. The AE case I opened was closed, and I feel it was a very unfair closure, and Struthious Bandersnatch got away with essentially nothing. They got the softest admonishment possible, and did not even have to apologize for accusing me of being disgusting, of racism, and most recently of transphobia, all based on good faith concerns over using plain English. I consider their stalking my edits (the only way they would have seen my edit on Transphobia), and then reverting it and accusing me of transphobia, to be a case of WP:HOUND and harassment. I am afraid that after they got such a weak admonishment, they will follow me around Wikipedia and revert my edits and accuse me of bigotry for anything that doesn't align with their POV. So, I am letting someone know and documenting my fears here. Crossroads -talk- 17:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • For someone who is supposedly afraid of being harassed by me, you've done a bit of following me around and joining discussions I'm involved in to tell people they really have to go read the AE case against me you opened. Unless I'm miscounting, you have done this in at least as many non-article-space pages as we'd ever interacted on before. (Two, I think.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • It has been you escalating it every time, from badgering me and insulting my education at the racial unrest article, to then calling me disgusting, a racist, and a transphobe at AE, and now still acting like your behavior was just fine at the AE closer's talk page and trying to get them to denounce me as racist: [1] I never, ever, insulted you or denounced you as anything. I can, however, criticise your proposal of how Wikipedia should be run. That you think anything and everything is justified in the name of fighting racism does not excuse your behavior. Crossroads -talk- 21:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Women's poll tax repeal movement

Hi Sarah. I am hoping that all is well for you and am wondering if you or gobonobo have time to look over this article that I am developing. I asked Gog the Mild to assist me, specifically because he is not from the US (and thus would be likely to catch historic things about context that needed development) nor is he a women's scholar (and thus would be able to evaluate it from a broad perspective). In that regard, I think the article would benefit from input by people who do specifically work on women's articles to ensure that the depth and focus is covered adequately. I guess I am sort of asking for a peer review without going through that formal process. I would truly appreciate it if either of you has time to look the draft over. Thanks so much. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SusunW, sorry to take so long to reply. Yes, I'll try to find time to look. Thank you for writing it! SarahSV (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much Sarah. I honestly just thought I was going to whip out a little piece for the election, but it turned out to be much bigger a topic than I thought it would and it's taken almost a month to write it with Gog's help. Truly appreciate your willingness to look at it. SusunW (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

  • New partnership: Taxmann
  • WikiCite
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi SV, Can't imagine how feasible it is that you might be able to find/create time to help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Medical_Women%27s_Association_of_Nigeria, but that's the ask ... :) w/ the prettiest of pleases (Textor Alector (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

Hi Textor, sorry, I don't have time to look at this, but best of luck with it. SarahSV (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. BunbunYU (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin/November_2020&oldid=991623255"