User talk:SlimVirgin/April 2019

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burial ground at Millbank Prison.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Burial ground at Millbank Prison.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting our Wikipedia reputation

I've been following the recent conversation here [1] and I'm concerned that an editor may be able to make such disparaging remarks about another editor and then just walk away without backing them up. I've looked up to you for years, including the times we have been in disagreement, with respect and even admiration for your fairness, good judgement, and knowledge of and willingness to stand by WP policy standards. What can be done to correct the ongoing situation? Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandydancer, thank you for those very kind words and for saying something here. I'm upset and unsure what to do. Also, I've come down with an illness in the last couple of days that's causing a bit of pain and fatigue, which isn't helping. Hounding him for years? I mostly try to stay out of his way! I don't recall even reading the GMO ArbCom case, and I had no involvement in it, but now he's saying he proposed the ASPERSIONS ruling because of me? I started reading the workshop a few minutes ago to see whether I'm mentioned anywhere. So far nothing.

I don't know what to suggest about how to correct this. As you know, I'm far from being the only target. It seems that ASPERSIONS applies to everyone but him. It upset me that Black Kite closed the discussion without action, though I'm glad that Lourdes has now said something. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I stand with Gandy who said it perfectly. You were essentially my mentor in the early days. I hold you as a model editor and have great respect for your work. I wanted to pop in to say that I am so sorry you're feeling sick on top of being attacked in this way. I hope you can rest up, enjoy some tea, and know that the truth will prevail. Others are taking up your case at various talk pages as we speak. Be well, petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bandwagon I am happy to jump on. You were a great mentor when I was a noobie 13 years ago, and it hurts to see such attacks on you. Hang in there, and keep on improving WP. - Donald Albury 13:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Sarah is a wonderful editor, and should not be the subject of unfounded attacks, and I would support her insistence that her accuser put up evidence or withdraw all charges with apology. But I would also urge a sense of proportion: she is also a long standing administrator, main author of a dozen FAs, more GAs, large parts of 3 important policies, work at WikiProjects, DYKs, and even more, while the person attacking her is none of these things, was recently blocked, and according to their talk page seems in real danger of yet another block. So I wouldn't worry that Sarah's impressive reputation is in much danger. I would venture to say that most people are quite clear on where the truth lies. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree SV is a wonderful editor. King withdrew the attacks, or at least what seemed to be the worst of them. @ SV - thanks so much for helping us achieve NPOV on the decline article, and so sorry it caused this unwelcome drama. I hope you quickly recover from the illness. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan47, Donald, GRuban and FeydHuxtable, just a brief note to say thank you everyone so much for the support, which is hugely appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against indigenous oral traditions

Respectfully Sarah, but my edits are based on preserving the actual ORAL histories as told to our people, those of our Ngati Tama Kopiri, Te Arawa, Te Awara O Te Rangi and other hapu that I represent.

When you state "cite references" - you are referring to a colonised version of "learning" that is writing a version of history that is leaving out a VITAL part of our history, an indigenous perspective that is being lost. Many of our kamatua are dying, and with them, the stories, the TRUE stories, that will be forgotten, without their unique lens to share their version of events, from their unique Maori world view.

Many of the references that Wikipedia cite as sources, have been written by conquerors, a colonist view-point, or by some of our people who have been educated by a colonist system... our own educational institutes are still in their infancy and we have only just started to see the doctoral graduates of our own educational programs and they are yet to contribute to academia in terms of a reliable body of work to "cite".

My edits come from hui - many of them from Waitangi tribunals, where we are fighting against the very systemic racist institutes who have NOT allowed our people a voice at the table, nor given us any way to have a voice in the conversation. To be able to share, our stories of what happened. Wikipedia has given our kamatua an opportunity to correct this.

I have searched your records, and shared these with those who ACTUALLY LIVED THEM! How can you deny this? From eye witness accounts of people who where there, or lived on these places and were forcibly removed? How can you say these people are not the descendants to these lands and who do you have the right to say these are NOT Tangata whenua?

Either you are ignorant to the actual wheels of racism, that create barriers to indigenous people, which is exactly what continues to perpetuate the white agenda - or you accept, that there is still much to learn in how indigenous people can play a part in the digital landscape in collecting what is an important and valid part of history.. Otherwise, you, are simply, like the other writers of history, not recording the truth but your version of truth - and it belies the damage and hurt, and often, those most affected by this, are those most vulnerable and unable to contribute, because they can't play "by your rules". I am happy to provide you with my phone number if you wish to discuss this with me further - as my edits represents the opinions of over 35 kamatua, or elders of 1 hapu alone, and over 2500 other iwi members depending on the pages we have collectively edited. Some just don't have access to the internet, or the skills to write such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomprincess (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Sarah, but as she's apparently unavailable for (hopefully!) a short while, I'll take the liberty of explaining in her place. She would probably have stated it better, but hopefully she would agree with the essence of my explanation. I gather this is about Sarah's statement on User talk:Freedomprincess#Warning and her reversion of your edits such as this one?

The problem is that Wikipedia can be, and often is, easily edited by anyone, whether by careful and conscientious scholars, or by bored ten year olds trying to make a joke. Because of this, one of our key editing policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability; everything we write in our articles needs to be verifiable, which means a reader should be able to check the references or sources that we provide to tell the difference between accurate information and that put in by error or malice. The content you put in did not have any references of that kind, and needs to. Please follow those links for more details on verifiability and references or sources.

Yes, unfortunately that does mean that we discriminate against oral information that isn't recorded anywhere yet; sorry about that. We can't be the first place that this oral information is recorded, it need to be recorded elsewhere by reliable sources, and only then can we cite it from that recorded form. Follow that link as well to see what we would prefer by reliable sources. Thank you for your contribution, and apologies for the difficulty. --GRuban (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freedomprincess, thanks for leaving a comment here. The edit of yours that caught my attention was this one, and when I noticed other issues in your history, I left the note on your talk page. I take your point about the difficulty of incorporating oral history into Wikipedia. As GRuban says, one of our key content policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which means that readers should be able to check everything we add to articles for themselves. I've briefly looked around for oral-history projects on Wikipedia for you, but I could only find the Women of Rock Oral History Project. We do have WikiProject Countering systemic bias; you could leave a note on their talk page. Our internal newspaper, The Signpost, published a report about their work in 2014; see WikiProject report.

I know that Montanabw has been active in trying to expand the range of sources we use about women. I'm also pinging Carwil, who I believe is interested in oral history and may have some ideas for you. Freedomprincess, is any of the material you want to add available in printed sources or recorded interviews? SarahSV ^(talk) 06:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/history/inglorious-dastards-rangiaowhia-raid-and-the-great-war-for-new-zealand/ There are several other NZ Encyclopedia's that references the massacre. My account was written from the of the grandsons who had the story told to him by his grandfather. Perhaps it could have been written better...for you, it is a record of history, for us, it is the memoirs of an atrocity.

Verified by a white-world view and it completely disqualifies indigenous people and regulates our knowledge and method of participation in PRESERVING AND WRITING HISTORY, to merely being the ones being told to shut up and read what the white people have to say.....Brown people are sick of being told to shut up and listen to white people and to fit into your framework.

A source, for an indigenous person, should be an elder, a Kamatua. We have a process that this goes through to be recognised as a Kamatua. Our people are communicative and sharing of knowledge in this way, is what indigeneity, and Indigenous Identity and practicing that, authentically is about. I don't accept, that, in the 21ST we still have such a white bias, and so overtly practised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomprincess (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freedomprincess, just as an FYI, I know it doesn't fix anything, but Sarah's not unsympathetic to your concern. She actively works in related issues such as gender bias. I would say most of the editors I've worked with here on WP see the issue of systemic historical bias as a major concern and many of us work hard on just these kinds of issues. --valereee (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, while I appreciate your comments, truly - it's a bit like telling Rosa Parks, "Rosa, we're not unsympathetic and we see you sitting there, but it's not our bus...." It's an unfortunate reality, that we (non-white, non-conforming), are still asking for equality and equal and fair representation in all spaces. This is one of the barriers as to why our people don't even try to participate in this space because we are not welcome, not unless we are willing to conform to a white ideal and a white identity.

As it would be difficult for a man to understand the world view of a woman, so it is for a non-indigenous person who has not experienced the impact of colonisation to truly appreciate how disempowering this entire process is. Wikipedia is proliferating a white version of history, and doesn't even realise it!

Freedomprincess, sorry, I didn't mean to make the situation worse, I just wanted to let you know Sarah's an ally. We want you to feel welcome, we want you to participate, and we want to do what we can to make that possible. --valereee (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, we do realize it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias attempts to address it, within our policies. Also, if you write 4 tildes, ~~~~, after your posts on talk pages like this one, that will sign and date your posts, and make it easier who wrote what when. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, this page was the first one I read after reading Sarah's comments - This is only one aspect of my frustration. There seems to be no framework/room to address the tikanga of Indigenous people. Ian Malcom authored a paper on Barriers to Indigenous Student Success in Higher Education, and some of the findings are evidentiary of the same barriers that Wikipedia is reproducing, those being, as reported by Indigenous students:

- not open to accommodating students from other linguistic and cultural - Being questioned as to the appropriateness of their knowledge - Views of white anthropologists were not always correct or appropriate, as compared to the knowledge of the elders - Oral traditions of Indigenous cultures need to be recognised and valued within university in the same way as written, published knowledge. Malcolm, Ian. “Barriers to Indigenous Student Success in Higher Education.” Quality conversations: Proceedings of the 2002 annual … (2002): n. pag. Print. Freedomprincess (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freedomprincess, you actually have sympathetic ears here, but the problem is that Wikipedia itself is a written medium and thus relies on written sources. Also, no one can tell the difference between a respected indigenous elder and a New Age "culture vulture" other than by reviewing things that have been written down. So it's important in the 21st century for indigenous people to start getting things into written form if they want them to be preserved beyond the local community. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freedomprincess: There are many place for oral history and indigenous knowledge as sources of information about individuals and events of the past. And yes, it's particularly troubling when most of the compilers of history or tradition have been outsiders with problematic views. What Wikipedia needs, however, is some external record to connect as its reference, and to have that record placed within a system of knowledge. There are several organized ways that oral accounts of historical events can fit that bill. Since I'm not very familiar with Maori/Aoteoroa/New Zealand examples, let me offer some parallels in the US wars against indigenous peoples. Sources like these all meet the standard of verifiability, and are some of the best available sources for documenting events described in them:

Coleman, W. S. E (2002). Voices of Wounded Knee. Lincoln, Neb.; London: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-6422-9.
Marshall, Joseph; Blackstone Audio, Inc (2013), The day the world ended at Little Bighorn: a Lakota history, ISBN 978-1-4708-8705-6 {{citation}}: |first2= has generic name (help)
Deloria, Ella; Deloria, Vine (1998). Speaking of Indians. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-6614-8.

So the first threshold for inclusion is being able to find and locate the knowledge. And a second is systematic recording of that knowledge somewhere outside of Wikipedia within an established tradition. And yes, I believe that indigenous traditions are established, often longer-established than their Western counterparts. The nature of Wikipedia is not that we don't cite oral traditions, but that we don't put new knowledge here that hasn't been recorded somewhere else first (that's our rule on no original research).

That said, I noticed there are opinions in the text that you contributed above. These opinions might be entirely justified, but they still need to be attributed to someone, rather than told in the voice of the encyclopedia. You can read about that here: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

It's your choice whether to consider me as an ally or not, but here are some of my views about oral sources on Wikipedia.--Carwil (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mobile country code

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile country code. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman

Unfortunately, Red Slash is not budging re: Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019. MR? Would you mind doing the honors?

Thanks,... --В²C ☎ 21:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He may reconsider. I think we should give him a bit more time, although you're welcome to go to MR if you prefer. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about giving him more time, but if he doesn't relent, due to my uh magnetic personality, I think it's best if someone other than me initiates the MR... I was hoping you would. --В²C ☎ 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 April. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about IPs

I'm asking you since I know you are an admin with substantial experience.

There's a new IP who I believe is doing good edits. The IP showed up originally at User_talk:59.96.135.31, who I have been giving advice to and having a discussion. They said they had to reboot and now is editing from User_talk:59.89.40.79. I feel confident they are editing in good faith. How is this handled when the same user uses two different IP's but is clearly not a WP:SOCK? Is there a policy with regard to this? It's challenging when it comes to talking with them, since they end up with multiple talk pages, and confusing to them as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, it's not a problem if someone has to change IPs if the edits are okay, especially when it's obvious that it's the same person and they've acknowledged it. It does mean splitting discussion between different user talk pages. Perhaps you could discuss the issue on article talk instead, or suggest that they open an account. If you do the latter, please make clear that editing while logged out is fine too. You could direct them to Wikipedia:Why create an account?. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Decline in insect populations

On 21 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Decline in insect populations, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some insect populations have declined dramatically? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Decline in insect populations. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Decline in insect populations), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People of New Guinea

Hi. Could you restore the maintenance tags[2] to the article? (Though the inline OR tag at the top should be the full tag.) Or, failing that, at least return it to its pre-edit war state,[3] rather than only leaving out the section that contradicts Epf2018's POV and which he deleted, and leaving in the ones that contradict the other editors? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard these requests by Kwamikagami. The body of text in the article is completely sourced from reliable studies. There is no OR. Papuan is a valid ethnographic terms used in the scientific literature, but this user seems to be obsessed with categorizing all groups of the area into some unified "Melanesian" group which lacks specificity. Every study makes a clear distinction between Melanesian populations and Papuan populations. He hasn't provided a reason why there can't be two articles, and has been highly hostile and obtuse in trying to reach a consensus. 99.251.88.76 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epf, three editors have problems with the article, and two think it's nonsense as it currently stands. Personally, I don't have a problem with a version supported by RS's (as in, sources in the field they're used to support, per WP:RS), but that's a matter for discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work by mere assertions of WP:TRUTH, or unilateral claims that sources support your TRUTH when other editors disagree. — kwami (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely entering what the sources say. It is you and another who seem to have a problem accepting that all the studies distinguish between the groups based on culture, language, geography, history, customs, as well as some genetic differences. There's only two of you. Epf2018 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for this debate. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami and Epf2018: I see the article was recently moved without discussion, so let me know if that needs to be reverted. You have a content, merge and naming dispute, so please keep discussing it on talk, find out what the high-quality sources say, and make sure any edits and moves have consensus. See WP:RM for how to hold a move discussion, and WP:MERGEPROP for how to propose a merge. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. (Actually, there was discussion. A third editor agreed that the article might be worth keeping at the new name.) And what of either restoring the tags, which per our conventions should not be summarily deleted, or reverting the article to the version from before the dispute? — kwami (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the point of restoring an earlier version. I see it was you who started the dispute, so I wonder why you prefer to restore the version to which you objected. As for the tags, before deciding on whether to hold a merge discussion, you and the other editors should decide whether the move needs to be reverted; otherwise you'll just increase confusion. The OR tag wasn't added properly, and the page will survive without it for now. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to not favor one side when you enter into a dispute as an independent admin. Because of that, standard procedure is to revert to prior to the dispute. Epf made quite a few changes since then, and those get to stay, despite his repeated deletion of tags because he speaks TRUTH (which AFAIK is against WP policy) and even though Dianaa noted that section as a content fork. And there are two editors who object to epf's conflation of genetics and language, which is what that section is about. Yes, I (and others) object to the original version, but freezing it per one editor's preference is not appropriate. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure is to protect the version we find (see m:The Wrong Version), so long as there are no issues such as BLP violations. Instead of spending time arguing with me, please go to talk and hash out the issues. The page has been protected for three days, not all of eternity. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]