User talk:SlimVirgin

Icke

Hi, Please see User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator. Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Finally, you're adding bare URLs as sources, in violation of WP:CITE." I've learned how to do it now. Thanks for the tip! Arrivisto (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

You seem to have taken on a massive rewrite of Jonathan King. I too have become slightly obsessed and have read both his biographies and watched his two films on his life. Do you really mean Dorset or Dover street? Did he have two apartments? Why change one source from Telegraph to Independent and give it the wrong writer (Chalmers not Moore)? Why miss out all mentions for Who let the dogs out and Tubthumping and Orson - surely these were more significant than price of homes or exam results? And surely the fact that the man who started the investigation initially did not mention (by his own admission) King to Max Clifford should be included? Since you're correcting it constantly I thought to mention such things here rather than change there and be reverted. Ballymorey (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dorset is fixed; don't know what you mean by Chalmers/Moore; Dogs and Tubthumping are now there (can't find a good source for Orson). And I can't see what difference it makes what was first said by that man. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I see on my talk page that you and another editor feel I should not change the article so I'll keep my suggestions on the talk page there. Ballymorey (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A Jstor blip?

Hi, Sarah. I'm sorry that I only seem to talk to you these days when I have an anxiety about my Jstor access. Today I find I can log in to my account, but I can't get beyond the previews. Is it the same for you? Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we're in the "renewal is pending" phase again - you're not the only one with that problem. See User talk:Nikkimaria##JSTOR... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Brian, sadly, yes, it seems we're locked out temporarily. See Nikki's page. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. I assume there's nothing we can do but wait in hope... Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, as a Cambridge alumnus, you can get JSTOR access via http://www.cantab.net/ for life - if anybody here is in urgent need of an article, I'd be happy to forward a copy if I can find it, on the assumption that you'll be entitled to it anyway when the renewal is sorted out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to your emails

Sorry I wasn't around when you tried to contact me. I was away for a few days. I am sure that what you did was the best thing to do, under the circumstances. You raised the question of salting. I have gone ahead and done that. It is perhaps borderline for WP:BLPDEL, but I think in a borderline case we should err on the side of protecting privacy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thank you very much for doing that. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

AFC

Thank you for closing that thread, Sarah. I agree that it would not have become so personalised if I had pursued a resolution via the AFC WikiProject. I'm very sorry that LaMona seems to want to leave Wikipedia, and I wish she'd reconsider. As I remarked on the first occasion I posted on her talk page, she's done so much good work and it would be a shame to lose it. Having seen the thread above, it's worth noting that I didn't know her gender until I was composing the ANI report and didn't want to keep using she/he as the pronoun, so I checked her user page to see if she had stated her gender. The version at the time had an "Identifiers for me" section which gave her ORCID identifier, linking directly to personal information. It might be worth rev-deleting those versions of the user page and somehow warning others that they risk outing themselves if they post those sort of links, which may be a particular concern for our female editors. All the best, --RexxS (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

LaMona and RexxS, you both do good work here, so it's a real shame that this has blown up. LaMona, if you've enjoyed your work on Wikipedia, I hope you'll come back to it. Perhaps you could both find a quiet spot and discuss whether to recalibrate AfC expectations.

LaMona, I've removed the section you started above because it involved someone else who, because mentioned, had the right to defend himself, and it seems pointless to let things escalate again.

When an editor has operated openly under a real name, then changed their minds about doing that, other editors are (generally speaking) asked to respect that decision. But when the material is available in multiple places, and the editor has only recently thought better of their own decision to make it available, to call any reference to it "outing" stretches the meaning of that term somewhat. Having said that, as a matter of courtesy, people should avoid using it or pointing to it once you've made your preference clear. If you would like identifying material to be removed from the history of any page on Wikipedia, please let me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I never openly operated under my real name. I briefly had my name on my user page, but that was years ago. But the main point is that i never revealed my Wikipedia name in real life. I never made that connection. So having someone post about my Wikipedia work on Twitter is still outing. It's one thing for it to be in the history of a page, it's another to have someone else make the decision to out you on a social medium you use for important aspects of your profession. This is unacceptable. There is much about me that can be found online, including my home address. How should I feel now? LaMona (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify the last point, I can't promise to do anything because it depends on when and where, but I can look at it, and of course you can email me rather than draw attention to it here. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think it is ok for a user to be taking this to my Twitter feed?! I can't believe that. That feed has been my main connection to my colleagues, many of who are survivors of sexual attacks. This is unbelievable, and just more proof that Wikipedia is totally unsafe for women. I have done nothing wrong on AFC; I was one of the more diligent, helpful reviewers. But now you say that because people were able to figure out who I am, it's ok for them to continue to harass me. This is just unbelievable. I have absolutely no recourse for this harassment, and you think I should rethink and stay around? I have been accused of things I never did, attacked for not responding, attacked for responding, and now attacked for trying to defend my tweeps. And your statement that "if the materials is available in various places" is exactly contrary to the recent discussions on ANI and elsewhere. I couldn't be more disapointed. LaMona (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)