User talk:SlimVirgin/July 2017

Arbitration clarification request archived[edit]

The GamerGate arbitration clarification request of June 2017, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work on Jill Valentine and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, this is one example of why I don't do source reviews for "pop culture" or similar FACs. It's just too dispiriting. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, thanks, very much appreciated! SarahSV ^(talk) 01:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out[edit]

[1], it appears that the visual arts is under attack...Modernist (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:William Bayliss by Elliott & Fry.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:William Bayliss by Elliott & Fry.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

For me, it is a special honor to get the support of an "old timer", if you will forgive the expression. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome, Cullen. Best of luck to you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI onot COI[edit]

Hi SV. Could you please comment at talk:Nanette Gartrell and Talk:Dee Mosbacher. Thanks. Chris (Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Chris, I've left a couple of comments. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy journals[edit]

I don't feel strongly about it, so I'm happy to go with your preference if you do, but I thought that categorising journals as open access didn't match up with categorising journals based on area; fairly obviously, it will lead to overlap; PI is both an open access journal and a generalist journal, and BTS is both an open access journal and an ethics journal. I'm thinking, given how many articles we have on philosophy journals, that maybe multiple templates would be useful (or multiple navboxes within a single template) so perhaps there would be some room for listing them separately as OA in addition to listing them by area. (The other alternative is marking each with {{open access}}.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, if you'd prefer to reorganize, that's fine with me. I was thinking only that, for people without access, it would be helpful to signal clearly which ones are open access. But I don't mind how it's done. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your thoughts- I'll ensure that any changes I make continue to pick out the open-access journals. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]