Jump to content

User talk:SlimVirgin/May 2020

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

Issue 38, January – April 2020

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: comment on antisemitism

[edit]

Hey Sarah,

Wiki rarely loans itself to deep discussion, but that's a really well-articulated observation: "Antisemitic themes thrive in societies that are already antisemitic. Libels don't cause antisemitism; rather, they seem to make sense only within antisemitic cultures" (emphasis mine).[1] Thanks for that, and for your overall involvement. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi François, thank you very much for saying that. SarahSV (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Serbs

[edit]

Dear Sarah, I hope you're doing well these days. I've noticed your extraordinary contributions to the Holocaust articles. There is some kind of edit war in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. There is also an ongoing debate about the lead and Background section, the chronological order of events, broader context etc. Unfortunately, we have created a slightly tense atmosphere so far. If you have time, I would like you to look at the situation and try to give your opinion, as a neutral side with extensive experience. I would be honored if you would take a part in our discussion and improve the quality of the article. I'm sure you can help a lot. All the best.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WEBDuB, thank you very much for the kind words. I'll take a look at the talk page, but I have to say it's unlikely I'll be able to contribute. I have a list of things that I want to work on, which involve reading sources, so it's a question of maintaining a train of thought. But I do promise to take a look in case I can add an opinion. SarahSV (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Francisco Duran

[edit]

Arlington (Virginia) Public Schools' School Board last night announced the appointment of Dr. Francisco Duran to be Superintendent of Schools from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023. This appointment affects all 250,000 people in Arlington and many outside the county. Our local newspapers convey the story: https://www.arlnow.com/2020/05/07/nationwide-search-finds-new-aps-superintendent-in-fairfax-county/ https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/arlington-turns-to-fairfax-for-new-superintendent-of-schools/article_571d25d6-911c-11ea-b161-27d370a587b0.html and soon, The Washington Post. To create an article about Dr. Duran, I copied his biography from the official Fairfax Schools web page https://www.fcps.edu/staff/francisco-duran

I think his selection merits inclusion in Wikipedia as a person who will hold great influence over a large population. Jay.wind (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up...

[edit]

You may want to pay attention to this, we're getting the old trope of "no women editors so no women's issues are written about" ... which always strikes me as trying to shove women editors off into only a few "legitimate" subjects for them to edit. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. SarahSV (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using intimidation to gain an upper hand in a content dispute

[edit]

I would appreciate it if you did not try to intimidate me with false accusations or peculiar interpretations of scope of a topic ban. As the article clearly states: "The idea originated as anticommunist propaganda at the time of the Polish–Soviet War (1919–1920) and continued through the interwar period. The term itself appeared in the post-World War period." And indeed my edit concerned events of 1968.

Rather than trying to be confrontational on the talk page or leaving intimidating messages on my talk, you could instead address the issue at hand; please stop engaging in original research on talk as an excuse to remove a source per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and if you really think that an academic book is "too old" because it's from 1991, ask for outside input at WP:RSN. That is how you're suppose resolve such a disagreement and you've been around long enough to know that. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah's comment was on-point, and you should probably take a break before this escalates. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, Guerillero, and Galobtter: I'm pinging you as the three uninvolved admins who closed the latest AE related to Poland and World War II. Volunteer Marek was topic-banned during WP:APL from "the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland". He is editing Żydokomuna, which is about the antisemitic canard/conspiracy theory of Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. His edits to the article; and to the talk page. He says this is not covered by his topic ban. My comments to him: [2][3] His response is above.

Would you be willing to make a determination about this without a trip to AE? I'm not asking for a sanction, just a decision about whether the article falls within the topic ban.

Żydokomuna/Jewish Bolshevism is the idea that communism was specifically Jewish or that Jews were particularly invested in communism. It's one of the founding myths of the Holocaust and World War II. Hitler stated in 1939 that another world war would mean "not the Bolshevization of earth, and thus a Jewish victory, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". According to the historian Paul Hanebrink (A Specter Haunting Europe, Harvard University Press, p. 4:

Over the course of the twentieth century, the belief that Communism was created by a Jewish conspiracy and that Jews were therefore to blame for the crimes committed by Communist regimes became a core element of counterrevolutionary, antidemocratic, and racist ideologies in many different countries. ... During the decades between the two world wars, the idea of Judeo-Bolshevism inspired a variety of countries to enact policies that discriminated against Jews or placed them under surveillance. When Nazi Germany went to war with the Soviet Union in 1941, its leaders told themselves (and the men they commanded) that the Judeo-Bolshevik threat required them to wage war on the Eastern Front with relentless and barbarous cruelty. They also made the idea of Judeo-Bolshevism a crucial element in the origins of the Holocaust. Today, nationalist extremists and far-right movements across Europe embrace this history and make its memory central to their own political identity.

It seems self-evident to me that this falls within "the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland", even without "broadly construed". SarahSV (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I would appreciate it that if you are going to talk about me, you'd ping me.
As I already pointed out the article SPECIFICALLY says that the term originated in the POST WAR period. Its usage has been exclusively confined to the post war period and is mostly related to the anti-semitic campaign of 1968. 1968 or 23 years AFTER the war. Of course there are similar concepts out there, there is some background (which is where anything related to WW2 in the article appears and which I made no edits to) and at the end of the day you can ALWAYS try to play the "six degrees of separation" game to try and connect anything to WW2 in Poland. You keep bringing up the article on "Jewish Bolshevism" - but I did NOT edit the article on Jewish Bolshevism. Maybe if I did you'd have a case. But the very fact you keep brining up SOME OTHER article, that I did NOT edit, kind of shows that you got nothing here.
And there is the matter of the nature of your edits on this article. You blatantly engage in WP:OR on talk page, calling a scholar's argument "bad", misrepresent that scholar, and then try to use that as an excuse for removing that scholars work as a source per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Oh and you invent another flimsy excuse, that a particular book, published by a reputable academic press, is "too old" because it was published... in the 1990s. When you are asked to go to WP:RSN, which is what you're suppose to do, you become belligerent and leave threatening messages on my talk. It is extremely disappointing to see a long time user act this way and try to completely circumvent and obstruct Wikipedia policies.
And just to be clear - why exactly are you so insistent on removing the fact that this concept is a "pejorative stereotype"? You know that's a "bad thing", right? And this based on a scholarly work, published by an academic press, by a Polish-Jewish author who himself was subject to anti-Semitic persecution in 1968? This whole episode and controversy is just... strange. I am having trouble understanding why you would want to play down the negative nature of this stereotype. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s also unclear why you chose to escalate this since I’ve made no further edits to the article since this came up (aside from removing obvious harassment by an SPA sock puppet who has now been indef banned), though not because of any TB violations but simply because I have better things to do. Why didn’t you just drop it? Volunteer Marek 03:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shes suppose to ping you in a thread you started? Um...well okay.--MONGO (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When she replies to me and “calls in” a bunch admins? Yes.
And MONGO? What are you doing here? I sincerely hope this isn’t you just jumping into a discussion which doesn’t concern you just to get some kicks in because we’ve had numerous disagreements on other topics. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that "Żydokomuna" is just the Polish case of what's more generally known as Judeo-Bolshevism, which has a strong connection with wartime antisemitic propaganda. François Robere (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to view this as a violation of Volunteer Marek's topic ban. The dispute is about Schatz, who is mentioned in the lead in connection with WWII. While I appreciate the effort Volunteer Marek has undertaken not to mention WWII in the course of the discussion, these mental gymnastics notwithstanding, what the article says (Schatz writing about WWII) in relation to what the dispute is about (Schatz' credentials), at the very least skirts the 'broadly construed' line. I also would caution Volunteer Marek against overly aggressive section headers: Using intimidation to gain an upper hand in a content dispute is a bit much. As is the protest that Sarah should have pinged him in a discussion they themselves started. El_C 19:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That mention of Schatz in the lead is confusing. The paragraph seems to go chronologically, the first sentence starting at 1939, while the third sentence going to 1941 — with Schatz in the middle, yet his mention is not about WWII, somehow? This is not easy to immediately parse. El_C 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Shatz quotes in the lede are *specifically* about 1920s, not ww2. Same is true for his description of the term as a “pejorative stereotype”. In fact almost all of his book is about the interwar period, not ww2. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without reading the pertinent work/s, I am no longer confident that Schatz covers WWII with respect to mentions of him in the article. Rather than strikethrough further (to the point of making my first comment incoherent), I'm just noting this here in a separate comment. The topic ban violation is no longer clear cut to me. It is borderline. Because WWII and the Holocaust are so pivotal to the history of the Jews in Poland during the post-war era, even if Volunteer Marek limits himself just to a discussion of the post-war time period (which he has been doing), other participants in the discussion cannot be expected to do the same for his benefit. If WWII wasn't so pivotal to the topic, this would not be so much of an issue, but it is that pivotal, so it is an issue which at the very least, greatly constrains Volunteer Marek's participation in relevant discussions. El_C 21:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for the comments. My thinking is that the article and topic in their entirety are covered by a Holocaust/WWII topic ban. Żydokomuna is just the Polish term for Jewish Bolshevism, which is an antisemitic canard. It isn't a different type of thing. The myth of Jewish Bolshevism helped to cause World War II, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust. Someone banned from the Holocaust and WWII is ipso facto banned, in my view, from editing any part of Żydokomuna and Jewish Bolshevism. The idea argument that some parts of it aren't about the Holocaust/WWII explicitly (e.g. restoring to the first sentence that it might be a stereotype rather than a canard) can't hold up.
By the way, the article on Żydokomuna is not in good shape, so be wary of basing any decision on its current content (e.g. if it says the term was first used after World War II, which is not correct). SarahSV (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of simplicity, I tend to agree, Sarah. As mentioned, WWII and the Holocaust are pivotal components of the article, so again, I'm not sure how Volunteer Marek hopes to otherwise engage the topic, be it through mainspace edits or talk page discussion while, essentially, walking on eggshells. El_C 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I changed my 21:38, 17 May post to say "argument" rather than idea. SarahSV (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this article and "Jewish Bolshevism" are the same thing is something you added to the article recently, as are all the changes to the lede which have made it into one confusing mess. If they're the same thing why are there two separate articles? In fact, as the article itself clearly states the term is actually from the POST-WAR period. And it's not that "some parts" of the article aren't about Holocaust and WW2. It's actually the opposite. MOST of the article, except for a small background section are NOT about these topics. The article is about the post war period (as it should be) and if the lede did what it's suppose to do, summarize the article, then that'd be clear from the get go. As it is, what has happened is you took an article which is not covered by the topic ban and inserted enough WP:OR and tangential material into it to make it so that it would potentially be covered by the topic ban.
I also object to your characterization of my edit as arguing that "it's a stereotype rather than a canard". That is simply false. It's both. If I believed what you claim I believe I would have removed the "canard" part. But I didn't. Please don't misrepresent my edits (or sources like Shatz for that matter).
Having said that, I don't have a particularly strong interest in this article so I'm happy to leave it alone, as I would have done had you not escalated this disagreement. Volunteer Marek 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, what's happening in this section is the topic area in miniature. Very little of the above is true, but it's stated with a straight face, including "I am having trouble understanding why you would want to play down the negative nature of this stereotype". (I'm pinging Jpgordon, who elsewhere discussed recently why "stereotype" is weaker than "canard".) It isn't only VM; this is the situation at those articles in general, so I've decided to withdraw from editing them. I got briefly involved in response to Jan Grabowski's article in Gazeta Wyborcza complaining about the Polish Holocaust articles, but it's hopeless. It requires help from the whole community, including admins, functionaries and ArbCom. It isn't something that one editor or even a few can fix.

One thing that needs to be established is that the Antisemitism in Poland topic bans will be upheld, which is why I opened this. If that can't be resolved here, I can open an AE. But the claim that the canard of Jewish Bolshevism/Żydokomuna isn't inherently tied to the Holocaust is so outlandish that I want to persist in establishing it. I'm pinging Worm That Turned. Not expecting you to comment, but please observe what continues here, even after the case. SarahSV (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry Sarah, but it was you who tried to misrepresent my edit as claiming that I was saying it was “only” a stereotype. I, of, course, did no such thing. You also keep saying how you “don’t want to take it to AE” but yet you keep escalating the dispute, keep pinging more and more admins, and keep repeating the false assertion that my edit had something to do with WW2. sorry, but that doesn’t look like “I don’t really want to do this” to me. It looks very much like “I’m gonna try to call in some people to get you blocked without going through the process”. And all this started because you wanted to circumvent Wikipedia policy and substitute your own WP:OR in place of what a reliable source says, and because you couldn’t be bothered to go resolve the disagreement by going to WP:RSN like you’re suppose to. I guess following procedures is for the “little editors”.
And now I see that you’re claiming that you’re being harassed on User:TonyBallioni’s talk page

[4].

Except... you were never actually harassed you only “think” that hypothetically you were going to be harassed sometime in the future. Why exactly? No idea. Because someone disagreed with you? Well, here’s a newsflash: the only people who have suffered harassment, doxxing and abuse are me, and Tony and a bunch of others who have disagreed with user Icewhiz whom you seem fit to praise. And the only harassment, doxxing and abuse has been carried out by Icewhiz and his friends. You are trying to blame the victim. Which is shameful. You could at the very least show a bit of empathy and awareness of what it looks like when you defend someone like that, someone who threatens violence against my family and contacted other users’s employers to destroy their lives, and when you make edits which are very similar to his.
Here’s the thing, I already stated that I wasn’t going to edit that article anymore. And you yourself claim that you’re going to step away from the topic. So... why not just drop the whole thing? Reset. Why do you keep pinging more and more admins when the first two didn’t give you the answer you wanted? Volunteer Marek 00:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here you say “last thing I want to do is go to AE”. Now you’re saying “if I don’t get what I want here I will go to AE”. Even though I’ve repeatedly said I don’t plan to edit the article anymore. I’m sorry, but your actions, rather than words, look like the EXACT OPPOSITE of “not wanting to go to AE”, which is exactly why I titled this discussion the way I did. I’m not new here. I’ve been here as long as you. I know very well what passive-aggressive BLOCK shopping looks like.
So do what you actually say and just drop this. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C and SlimVirgin: This is totally unacceptable.[5][6] A T-banned editor driving away an editor in good standing from the very TA he's banned in? When are admins going to deal with VM's aggression issues once and for all?[7][8][9][10][11][12] @Piotrus: any comments on WP:AGF? François Robere (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure why I was pinged, but since I was, few thoughts. 1) I felt intimidated by [13], but a non-admin complaining by about an admin... why bother? Complaining about admin abuse is a low-payoff activity that makes few friends, to say the least 2) I don't see why you assume there is a connection between SV's decision and VM edits; I don't believe they interacted much except yesterday 3) recently the area hs become toxic, and a good part of it is due to the efforts of Icewhiz; now, are you still going to defend him and say that he is not socking? 4) accusing other editors of aggression is not a particularly AFG-thing to say. 5) Frankly, I don't have much interest in this entire mess, if people would just focus on content creation and not POV-pushing, this would help a lot 6) since both SV and VM said they want to de-escalate, how about we help them and withdraw from this, and hopefully, they will go their separate way? 7) The purpose of the topic-ban and interaction-ban handed to Ice and VM was to deal with their clashes in the TA. With Ice banned, and i-ban already rescinded, the solution is pretty simple (hint: if there was no t-ban, this entire discussion wouldn't be wasting our time). 8) You know what would be AGF? If you stopped backing Ice's line and admitted that the topic ban on VM is not constructive. This is how you de-escalate and rebuild relationships in a topic area, not by accusing others of misdeeds. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I thought you'd be interested. You often talk about the importance of WP:AGF, and I've seen you drop into a discussion (that didn't otherwise involve you) more than once to say just that. So I'm giving you a chance to tell Marek to "calm down, stop seeing threats everywhere, and respect Sarah and your T-ban" - a cordial, constructive comment from a friend that could help bring him back to the fold. What's more, that in itself would be a demonstration of AGF, showing that AGF isn't just a hammer to swing at fellow editors, but an actual, equitable way of conduct.
        Moving forward, I think it's be important for the community to consider how we do things today. Icewhiz is long gone,[14] and (relatively) new faces like Sarah's should be welcomed into the TA, not shunned. François Robere (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) François Robere, why ping Piotrus to this discussion with a question that seems too terse to be useful? I'm pretty sure Sarah doesn't want her talk page to descend into a battleground by the usual parties. More broadly, I hope that Sarah doesn't give up on editing the topic area in frustration. Rather, I encourage her to take any and all steps she sees fit toward improving its editing environment. More specifically, I note that Żydokomuna is subject to ARBAPL#Article sourcing expectations, which Schatz may or may not live up to. As for Volunteer Marek, he has announced his intention of withdrawing from the article. So, I think that concludes this particular dispute. I would, however, still caution him to avoid skirting the line with respect to their topic ban. I simply don't understand why he would choose to engage in a discussion with hands tied behind his back. It just seems like a losing proposition from the outset. Again, other editors cannot be expected to limit themselves to pre- and post-war Poland when discussing the article for Volunteer Marek's topic ban benefit. That isn't a reasonable expectation, even in the most collegial sense of editorial collaboration. El_C 08:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance you could put the WP:BATTLEGROUND on pause for a bit? I think we’re all sick of it and your continuous sniping from the sidelines in discussions that have nothing to do with you, and your repeated efforts at escalating disagreements, that also have nothing to do with you, is not exactly helping to resolve anything. Volunteer Marek 17:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

Could someone point me to the evidence that Icewhiz threatened anyone's family or contacted anyone's employer? I realize there may not be much or any onwiki evidence, but could someone link to whatever discussion took place about it? SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it, but obviously I’m not going to do it on wiki. Volunteer Marek 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to share it with me by email? I've found this discussion, but otherwise nothing. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, since this involves personal info of multiple editors (not just me) I don’t think I can share all of it, since that’d still be outing, since I don’t think you have any special rights in that regard (unlike ArbCom). I’lol be happy to share some of it, the parts that don’t contain personal info of anyone. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to send some of it, that would be helpful. SarahSV (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any news? François Robere (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Volunteer Marek 15:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you laughing? I was serious. François Robere (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
François Robere, Just out of curiosity, how does VM get away with violating a TBAN for so long? I was blocked for a one sentence TBAN violation in a discussion with an admin, not even in an article and I was blocked for a month. I've seen VM violate his TBAN many times and not get a block, let alone a warning. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admins work in mysterious ways etc. François Robere (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does the abbreviation stand for?

[edit]

Please tell me and the readers what the abbreviation stands for! dif — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs)

It's the name of his undergraduate degree, probably chemical engineering/engineer (Ingenieur). SarahSV (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not improvement?

[edit]

I don't understand why did you say my additions on The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion as "not an improvement" while I only rephrased from the same section that Hitler wrote in his own book about his view on "The Protocols." — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Musen, this was your edit. (a) There were problems with the writing (e.g. "had contrast view to Hitler"); (b) the source is an edited volume, so you need to cite the author of the article within the book, not the book's editor; but also (c) that book was published in 1980 and therefore it isn't a good secondary source for Holocaust history anyway.
That edit led me to look at some of your other work, including your creation of Legends of the Jews. [15] Did you copy that text from somewhere? In case you did, you might want to take a look at WP:COPYVIO. SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I said before about my addition, I mainly talked about {I only rephrased from the same section that Hitler wrote in his own book about his view on "The Protocols."} that related to sentence {Despite of Hitler's writing in Mein Kampf}, which you have reverted by saying "not improvement" while I surely disagree with you because in the same section, a direct quotation from Mein Kampf telling {Hitler refers to the Protocols in Mein Kampf:... [The Protocols] are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans [ ] every week ... [which is] the best proof that they are authentic...} so I think the criticism of Richard S. Levy that "lacks hard evidence" about large effect of "The Protocols" on Hitler's thinking is absolutely baseless, the fact telling Hitler admitted about large effect of "The Protocols" for him through his own writing on his book as "hard evidence."
For Legends of the Jews, I did find the information from the book itself, then I added to the article with some edits because it would give information about content of the book. — MusenInvincible (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you copied it word-for-word from somewhere, you need to rewrite it in your own words, or else quote the source so long as that doesn't lead to inappropriately long quotes. SarahSV (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you that accusing me 100 % copied the text, because I had changed several punctuations from the text and made links on notable figures to imply that their stories on the book. Then if the section is "Table of Contents", how can you rewrite the list? if you can, it wouldn't be "Table of Contents" but "Summary" instead. Have you seen these articles We_Can_Have_Peace_in_the_Holy_Land, Earth_(The_Book), Striking_at_the_Roots, etc? where no source quoted in the section and copied directly from the book, so If you object about "table of contents" of book in my addition, that's not originally mine but based on other book articles also (do) the same. — MusenInvincible (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FGM

[edit]

I notice that in this edit of yours you removed the first sentence that describes FGM as being practiced by several religions. Was that intentional? If yes, what's the reason (e.g. poor source)?VR talk 08:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section explains that it's practised by several religious groups, so the sentence was redundant. In addition, it was misleading as written: "some Christians, some Muslims, some Ethiopian Jews", as though it's spread equally between these groups. SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to give an introductory sentence to the section. Otherwise it is rather strange for the section to start with mentioning some countries but omitting other notable ones, like Ethiopia. I don't think the wording gave the impression that its spread "equally" (although does there really exist data that would say that its not?). Do you propose a different wording?VR talk 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to propose an introductory sentence if you believe one is needed, but it's better to do that on the talk page. SarahSV (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds good. Thanks.VR talk 07:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Hypatia.jpeg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Hypatia.jpeg. 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) 17:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

[edit]

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

    • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
    • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin/May_2020&oldid=1141018297"