User talk:SlimVirgin/June 2019

Barrett Watten BLP

Sarah, having now read the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education and done some cursory further research, I have no doubt that both parties most involved in the recent editorial conflicts on this BLP are not neutral parties and should be given no further discretion in curating the page. Both clearly are party to the situation, as on May 15 each shared insider information only known to the public after publication on May 30. I do believe the credible sourced allegations and confirmed investigation merit inclusion, as does the subject’s denial and attempts at disputing the claims. Given the contention, I would like to run any potential edit by you, so as to avoid engaging in the back & forth. Conflictorabuse (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it curious that this new editor immediately jumped into the fray at Barrett Watten, and not far on the heels of administrative actions you took related to the article. I was coming here to see if you were aware of the situation and had any observations. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Added this to my watchlist. - Donald Albury 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Fred and Sarah, I was alerted to this conflict on Twitter, where multiple accounts linked to the aforementioned “talk” page and addressed some controversy occurring there. I created an account for the purpose of adding a reasonable voice and working toward consensus. Conflictorabuse (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV You wrote on my page that I should come here to dispute my banning but it seems the conversation got here before I did. Without any knowledge of how Wikipedia arbitration is settled, I can't very well dispute the action taken. However, I want to make it clear I am not involved in any "campaign against a particular person" but am simply disputing the censorship of serious allegations and that are relevant to the Barrett Watten Wikipedia article. I have been editing the page from a neutral point of view, I am not "involved in the situation," and I would sincerely appreciate if someone could help me understand why my edits are deemed a violation, especially after I followed administrators' advice: including a credible source, taking care not to make any claims of facticity, and limiting the discussion in the introduction to a simple sentence. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stophidingbehind: So, you are "disputing the censorship of serious allegations" from a biography of a living person. Unproven allegations can have a serious negative effect on the life of a person. That is why the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons requires us to be very careful about the verifiability, weight and tone of our coverage of living people. We need to err on the side of caution in covering any controversy that may harm a living person, particularly in dealing with unproven allegations. After any investigations are completed there will be time to evaluate what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a living person. - Donald Albury 19:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

C.Fred and Donald, I don't know to what extent you're willing to become involved in that page as editors. I considered posting at the BLPN, but with just one RS, it may be too soon to spread that there's an issue at the page. What's needed is for uninvolved editors to decide whether to include anything when protection expires, or whether to wait for more sources and/or the university investigation to end. I'm also pinging Nyttend, WhatamIdoing, Doug Weller, and Boing! said Zebedee, who've worked on such issues before. If you're willing to take a look, please see this. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sooooo tempting to ask the CUs to handle this dispute... WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I had the same thought. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like different time zones. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Doug, if you're willing to look up any new accounts that arrive, that would be very helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Conflictorabuse, mere allegations are almost never appropriate. What was the result of the allegations? If the person's guilt or liability were proven, bring in the charges as the basis for why the person suffered some sort of consequences. If the person were exonerated, or the charges ended up not being proven in some manner, say "The person underwent these allegations, but they were disproven" or something of the sort. But if you have the charges just hanging there, whether because the result hasn't happened or because you're not sure if the result has happened, who's to say whether those charges will be seen as significant in the long term? News reports can't demonstrate whether the event will matter one bit in the long term, and it's the long term that encyclopedias report. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing (article)

FYI. I have a question for you at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia here:

Talk:Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Companies_have_argued_for_leeway_with_"ignore_all_rules"

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

David, I left a response there. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean

The picture in the info-box shows the Auschwitz Birkenau photo from the Auschwitz Album,so you are right about keeping it simple since it shows it all ready.Jack90s15 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15, thanks. I'm reacting to this. I think we need to do a slow rewrite of that article to make everything clearer, and the first paragraph is the most important. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more then happy to help with this project of a slow rewrite,I have a lot of sources from the USHMM and Yad Vashem and some google books that can help with this. I can put my suggestions in there own section here so its not one big wall of text.Jack90s15 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

opening paragraph

Since the paragraph was rewritten a bit I think it can fit Back in this is what it would look like.

(The murders were carried out in pogroms and mass shootings; by a policy of extermination through labour in concentration camps; and in gas chambers and gas vans in Nazi Extermination camps in occupied Poland: Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka). scholarly Institutes do refer to it as Auschwitz-Birkenau where the gas Extermination happened do you think it can Fit putting Auschwitz-Birkenau in? Jack90s15 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC) SlimVirgin http://auschwitz.org/en/history/auschwitz-ii/ https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about/final-solution/auschwitz.html

For info

Thank you for your kind note [1] about Digwuren/ARBEE discretionary sanctions. In case you weren't aware of this, I've just celebrated my 10-year anniversary on Wikipedia, which has mainly been spent in the Eastern Europe topic area. It has not once incurred sanctions, even on especially fraught articles. Most recently, I've reworked Jedwabne Pogrom which led to the NPOV banner being removed. I've also put in a lot of work assisting Wikipedia with disruptive editors in the topic area, one of which after years of time-wasting disruption was permanently banned. I would consider many administrators in the area my friends, and you might not recognize my name because I've been semi-retired in recent years. I look forward to working with you. All the best, --Chumchum7 (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chumchum, thanks for introducing yourself. I look forward to working with you too. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I see what you did thank you

I see what you did I see how you linked it to the bottom of the page,that talks about the extermination camps. And the list does mention it as a whole Camp complex so that really takes my concern away about it.Jack90s15 (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks, glad to hear it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Weird FGM edits

HI, I'm really concerned about this series of edits. It looks to me like Balolay has added stuff that is not sourced ("Protestant", for example, and reversing "does" to "does not" etc) and probably overegged the pudding regarding the effect of the fatwa. Could you take a look? - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I'll take a look. I mostly don't check that page, but I go in every so often and try to tidy, so I'll do that soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for imposing. I thought that you might have had a substantive involvement in it. Someone with both topic area source knowledge and Wikipedia markup knowledge has been involved with it at some point. I could check the edits myself but there are a lot of sources to wade through & I doubt that I have access to many. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, it's fine, you're not imposing. It's just that I'll need time to think myself back into it. I'm focused on the Holocaust at the moment, and I don't want to lose my train of thought, so I won't get to that article immediately, but it will happen soonish. Thanks for pointing out the issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Not home...

Moving a load of books to new place, will be scattered in access until Wednesday. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, understood. Best of luck with the move. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to corect rather the definition of The Holocaust?

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.

---

What is you expertise in Barbara Engelking? Do you read Polish? Why don't you explain your edits before you impose them? Please prove that BE isn't a sociologist.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

the study alleges that hundreds of thousands of Jews were betrayed by non-Jewish Poles

The study doesn't. You are biased anti-Polish.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, please don't post here again. If these issues belong anywhere, article talk is more appropriate, where involved editors are more likely to see it. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:28, 11 June 2019 (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.

Possible POV Fork

See Marketing of electronic cigarettes and see Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes. There is significant problems with the page. There is off-topic content and failed verification. The page is also littered with primary sources. The page was copied from these pages and Electronic_cigarette#Marketing. I am having trouble cleaning up the page for over a year. Copying content from multiple articles and creating a new article without significant new content does not make for a quality article. See "Among children, e-cigarettes are the most commonly-used tobacco product."[2] This content is off-topic for the Marketing of e-cigarettes page. It belongs in another article without using the misleading word children. Similar problems were happening at the Nicotine marketing page and the Marketing of e-cigarettes at the same time. See comment on 2 June 2018: "Since some of the questions at issue here are identical to those discussed at Talk:Marketing of e-cigarettes (stanford.edu source, Truth in Advertising source), I have responded there."[3] Forking dispute content into the Marketing of e-cigarettes page is by definition a WP:POV Fork. The topic is under DS. I think the Marketing of e-cigarettes page should be redirected or nominated for deletion. If any editor is causing problems they can be topic banned. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru, that looks like a content dispute. If this is a request for admin action, I can't see anything that suggests it would be appropriate. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, many thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 20:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A wrong link on your user page

Hi. A link in "Sonderkommando photographs" section on your user page leads to "Auschwitz concentration camp" article, just as link two sections below. It's probably a copy/paste artifact, apparently, no one has clicked on this link before. MBH (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

MBH, fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Good to know there's one reader! :) SarahSV ^(talk) 02:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you here - "Privileged". Victoria (tk) 13:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

Hi, please could you advise on a discussion on the COI Noticeboard talk page "One_or_more_items_in_the_What_is_a_conflict_of_interest?_list". I mentioned you in the discussion and am posting on your talk page as I didn't ping you properly.TSventon (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I see you haven't been on Wikipedia much since I posted on your talk page. I have edited the COI Notice board header as explained on the COI Noticeboard talk page. TSventon (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)