This is an archive of past discussions with User:GizzyCatBella. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating editing restrictions as reported here on the page Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilNtalk to me14:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Extended content
The following sanction now applies to you:
Your are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland. You are invited to appeal this sanction in six months showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 20:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gizzy. Please take a look at this. I'm appalled at the personal attacks and unbacked accusations made against you by User:Sandstein. I wrote up a brief description of the situation, with the possibility of asking ArbCom to look at it, since it involves a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and by extensions discretionary sanctions in the topic area. Of course the complicating factor is that this is against an admin who is also active in enforcing discretionary sanctions (which to my mind, makes this even worse). However, since the attack was made against you specifically I thought I'd consult with you on how to proceed. If you want me to I will go ahead and file a request. If you have objections please make me aware of them.
Because some bad-faithed or vindictive individual may take your response to this message as a violation of your new topic ban (though really it should qualify under WP:BANEX) you should probably respond by email rather than on Wikipedia. I am writing on your talk page in the interest of full transparency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
May 2019
Extended content
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Sandstein 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Hey GCB,
You asked me not to post here, but you keep posting inhospitable messages on my TP. I don't think that's a fair arrangement, so I would appreciate it if you avoided posting there. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement warning
Extended content
Hi. Please be more careful in the future as further violations of your restrictions will almost certainly result in sanctions. Best wishes for your health and safety, El_C17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@El_C Thank you, I’ll be extra careful. I’m not reverting any vandalism anymore either .. Thanks again and please stay healthy and safe also. GizzyCatBella🍁23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement appeal
Extended content
Hi again. I have closed your appeal as declined. Sorry, I know this isn't the result you were hoping for. I hope this doesn't discourage you too much from continuing to contribute to the project. I hope you are able to take the criticism offered by various parties constructively and build on that. Anyway, let's give it another 2 years, at which point you're welcome to submit another appeal. Best wishes, El_C18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm so happy you're excited Kasia, me likewise. May I suggest you do some copy editing into this article [3] before I publish my draft? I think Irish crochet might need some touch-ups.GizzyCatBella🍁09:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello GCB
This kitty isn't quite as cute as the one on your userpage (and the bubble animation is excellent as well) but I had to drop it off to say thank you. It looks like things have been dealt with for the moment. Thanks for you vigilance.
Hi, as I wander through Wikipedia I came across your username and clicked it...would appreciate if you were able to offer me help with my latest contributions. Much thanks, of course - and I understand if you are too busy. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@*Notrium - Seeking to get your opponents sanctioned for disagreeing with you as you just did here [2] that later continued to the below is not a very wise thing to do. It only demonstrates your attitude and sooner or later will get you in trouble. I wish you all the best, and I hope you will resolve your grievances here [3] using conventional channels.GizzyCatBella🍁23:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason I wanted Oliszydlowski sanctioned is because I thought that could make his editing behavior less disruptive, make him read some policy, etc. Turns out I can't recognize the actual lines somebody may not cross before being sanctioned. As for you, (even though I could have spent my time much more effectively) I am proud to have shed light on your repeated violation. A Wikipedia with nobody to report somebody else in such a case would be a Wikipedia with no rules at all. Notrium (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Look Notrium, if you don't see anything disrupting in your behaviour then that's not good and quite sad... But I don't believe you don't, and I don't believe you are proud of it either. The reason you kept edit warring and later went on a cheap hounding/reporting adventure is that you lost an argument, and you couldn't control yourself. I hope you overcome this aggressive behaviour one day. In any way, let's close this discussion right here. Good luck to you and happy editing. GizzyCatBella🍁03:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Asserting that I "couldn't control" myself feels to me like a personal attack. The "good luck" at the end does not change that. Notrium (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The "cheap hounding adventure" claim against me is definitely against WP policy, as I am obviously not hounding you. Notrium (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
To enforce an arbitration decision and following the consensus at Arbitration Enforcement, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. RexxS (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Again, GizzyCatBella, there's no other option but to do thorough review of all pertinent submissions so long as you continue to edit in the topic area of Poland that heavily. So, hopefully, a few days away will resonate the point of that. Hope to see you back editing at that time. Best wishes and kind regards, El_C23:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, I made a mistake and it's only my fault for missing the fact that there was a word "WW2" in the restored text. I'm taking full responsibility for it and accept the sanction. I'll try my best going forward, but most likely I will appeal the ban at one point sooner than later. I really think it doesn't serve any purpose anymore since I have learned from my mistake a while ago. Wikipedia is a strange world where alliances are formed and "enemies" produced. Sanctioned as such are being used as a weapon to silence opponents, this is really sad but I guess because of human nature, unavoidable.GizzyCatBella🍁00:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It is sad, but it's the world we live in. Can I suggest that you read back on the two occasions when Sandstein wrote about your topic ban (the original placement and your request to lift it)? In each case he suggested you demonstrate six months of trouble-free editing and then appeal the ban. I fully agree with him on that, and I'm sure you'll have no problem doing so. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'll. For the next 6 months, I'll try to avoid anything that has "Poland" in the text (just to be sure) and might focus on translating some articles into English in my sandbox on Polish Wikipedia. Those articles could be later transferred into English Wikipedia. Thank you guys for your time, and sorry for the breach of the topic ban.GizzyCatBella🍁00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
You specifically make anticommunist edits and don't let people to fix bias that is a such. This isn't an uncommon thing among Poland history contributors and you just make the situation worse. I suggest you to stop your biased counter-productive actions. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Comrade-yutyo - Halt that ethnic generalization of editors, please. How the hell you know who I am, and if I'm anti-Communist or anti-whatever? Slow down here, please, okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁21:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: I haven't specified any ethnicity. I have just said you are one of people that mostly edit Poland-related history articles, who are mostly doing biased edits mostly having anti-communist nature and don't let people to fix that as you do now at Prostitution in Poland. I am just asking for neutrality. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Now you are accusing me of bad faith...Comrade-yutyo you got to be careful with these things around here. I'm not such a person who runs and reports editors if I don't feel that administrative action is absolutely necessary, but many people do. Let's stop talking about me and move away from my talk page to the related article page. Okay? I have to take some rest now but will look for your comments there later.GizzyCatBella🍁21:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Copyright problem: Stanisław Michalkiewicz
Extended content
Hi! In [23], you added what appears to be a direct translation of a source ([24]) that doesn't appear to be in the public domain or licensed appropriately for Wikipedia. It therefore seems to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
They need to be more creative because it's monotonous now. I'm kind of bored with it: Sometimes, I feel like conversing, but I noticed I often ignore it. (@my fan - come on, my aficionado! I know you are reading this. Come up with something better; you are getting incredibly boring) - GizzyCatBella🍁10:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for getting these followers around you Zezen because of me. Wherever I go, they follow me like "muchy do gówna", you know.. That creates frustration for other editors. I'm not too fond of that. - GizzyCatBella🍁10:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess Fear, uncertainty, and doubt is the proper name of their strategy: sowing all these first among the editors and admins, coupled with wikistalking, nitpicking (e.g. re these copyright claims) and then winning the TBs or more over the points or by e.g the Jimbo route or even external Twitter and press appeals.
You have rightly resorted to humour and reductio ad absurdum, at least in some cases. It worked.
OK, I am leaving the proposed invitation to prettifying the Aplysinidae or other crocheting-like Poriferaphylums mainspaces to you, as you have much more experience, defter flappers and badinaging levity than me.
@Zezen - that is not Ken (??),(why this your one above) it’s most likely "my fan" (not %100 sure yet, they need to write a little more for me to be sure) but congratulations, if that’s them, you are on "my fan’s" radar now. Enjoy - GizzyCatBella🍁16:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Aha. I will enjoy. In my spare non-mainspace edits time.
BTW, I have decided to drop this Aryanization in the See Also. Not worth it. (FYI, in case you wondered how I got there: I have just rewatched the great Obchod na korze (an anti-fascist masterpiece, in case anybody second-guessed my intentions, the SPA readers here included :) in the Slovak original, then read the wiki materials about this including the interesting statistics (similar to other pre-war CEE countries), and decided to link (not compare) these, by way of q.v. only)
@Zezen - Yeah, made up out of their ass, fabricated and manipulated to the max charges were their usual modus operandi, so the word "compare" despite the fact no one compared it. But as I said, you are on their radar now, so expect more trolling. Have fun with my fan. - GizzyCatBella🍁17:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D they follow me around for like 2-3 years now, hides behind proxes, I don’t want to waste my time on them. Notice that they added WW2 substance in Poland - thats the topic I can’t edit due to the stupid topic ban. Long story. Just ignore them. - GizzyCatBella🍁11:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Please do report them so the account can be blocked. If there is some kind of long-running harassment, admins or the Wikimedia Foundation may be able to follow up - by range blocking IPs, etc. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I might do that eventually but there are around 70 accounts to report and all of them behind the proxes so it’s hard to prove. I don’t have energy for that Nick. - GizzyCatBella🍁11:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D I left the note on the admins. talk page [29] but I feel sorry for those guys that they have to deal with all this crap. I'm trying not to overload them unless it is crucial. - GizzyCatBella🍁11:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Please report it. Admins and checkusers can deal with this kind of stuff very quickly. Even playing whack a mole with sockpuppet accounts usually works. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Nick-D: Since the odds are that this is related to this, as someone who spend countless hours compiling the evidence, only for more than half to be dismissed as "not enough", I am not sure if the system really works. From where I sit, one spends hours preparing evidence, only for a CU to say "hmmm, proxy, similar POV, similar interests, not conclusive". The moles have a very good shield in our apparent super-high evidence standards, at least those uphed by some CUs, for whom seemingly nothing but the sock admitign to their previous identity would work (as long as they got themselves a new proxy). Nonetheless, I'd encourage GCB to submit evidence to the CU, at the very least, we should be able to publicly confirm or deny whether those accounts use a proxy or not. If they use a proxy, it means it is probably that indef banned user (and if I was a betting person I'd also bet this is the case). If not, it could be someone else, the world is a big place after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
It has been too long, I think since you received some wiki-love. Thank you for your contributions, and don't let any vandals ruin your day! Where is the picture of your cat? Have a kitten, anyway :)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I closed the report with no action [30], with the same understanding that if problematic edits resume sanctions are going to be imposed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement appeal accepted
I have closed your arbitration enforcement appeal as accepted [31], with the understanding that problematic editing from your side would result in more severe sanctions swiftly imposed. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Please read MOS:ENGVAR for why your edit was reverted by someone else. This policy came about because people repeatedly and unthinkingly imposed their own English variant on this Wikipedia. And then edit warred about it. It seems amazing that readers of Wikipedia wouldn't catch on that there's a whole world out there. Consider both wikt:metalled and wikt:prepone. 'Metalled' is an English word from Victorian England, no longer used there, but retained in India. If you'll look at wikt:Citations:prepone you'll see that 'prepone' was a joke, but then it wasn't - it became a 'real' word used in India and then elsewhere. English has become global, and MOS:ENGVAR asks that you take a global viewpoint when editing here. Shenme (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Look above: "for finally turning the tide", then comes straight to a long, sensitive, complex article, changes the meaning in several places, and changes a quote. And for what? What was the purpose of that edit? This is just nonsense. SarahSV(talk)03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been following all of the arbitration issues and frankly I don't see the issue here. I agree that GCB probably should be more careful (changing a quote, really?), but pinging an admin to take note is silly. Wait until there's actually something meaningful. Gbear605 (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, Sarah. Yes, I see the errors. A superfluous "the" was added to a quote, I presume without checking the source material (i.e. viewed as a typo for some reason). And Displaced persons camps in post-World War II Europe was turned into a red link. The remaining changes appear to be constructive gnomish ones. So, you go on to correct these errors, but for reasons which escape me, before you get a chance to finish, Gbear605 reverts. Mild excitement ensues, but it all gets settled eventually (I think). How is that for a summary? But, as for GCB, she has only made that one edit. She has not challenged your correction to it. She may well be perfectly content with your changes and is otherwise thinking: oops. The point, though, is that there is no POV creep that I'm able to discern, which is what I would be looking for. Again, she stumbled, you caught it (and then there's Gbear605, somehow) — end of story, no? El_C04:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see the errors now....changing the link into the red one and I thought it was a typo in the quote...sorry Sarah. I’ll be careful with that going forward. - GizzyCatBella🍁06:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Those weren't the only problems with that edit. Note also in Friendly fire, you changed "Soldiers fighting on unfamiliar ground can become disoriented" to "Soldiers fighting on the unfamiliar ground can become disoriented". And "combat stress may add to the confusion, especially if fire is exchanged" to "especially if the fire is exchanged". [32]SarahSV(talk)06:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Sarah, some respect and consideration would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps I'm oversensitive, but a little bit of politeness and simple words such as "excuse me" or "thank you" would help... - GizzyCatBella🍁08:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
When you make good and bad copy edits to a well-developed article, the next editor has to pick their through them, rather than reverting. That is time-consuming, so it would make sense for you not to make edits where you know you aren't strong, and that includes the definite and indefinite article.For example, at the Holocaust, you changed a source's quote, "whose role was to deal with 'all anti-German elements in hostile country behind the troops in combat'"; for some reason you thought "hostile country" needed "the". At "judgements ranging from acquittal to death by hanging", you added "an" before acquittal; did you mean there was only one acquittal? Then "West Germany initially tried few ex-Nazis, but after the 1958 Ulm Einsatzkommando trial, the government set up a dedicated agency." Adding "a" before "few" changes the meaning and makes "but" inappropriate. I also wonder why you arrived at that article, a day after coming off a topic ban. It seemed provocative. Now you've returned to Friendly fire, and having changed "fire is exchanged" to "the fire is exchanged", now you've changed "fire" to "shooting", so it says "if shooting is exchanged". But people don't "exchange shooting".I'll leave it there, but please bear these issues in mind. It isn't petty. The whole point of copy editing is to improve flow, grammar and vocabulary, so it isn't petty to point out when an edit doesn't achieve that or even achieves the opposite. SarahSV(talk)21:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:ONUS actually says, "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So it's not an argument for restoring removed content. (t · c) buidhe00:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello GizzyCatBella, I send you warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!.
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I am talking about people born and active in Lithuania that were using Polish names and language in their day to day life. As I said many times before for me massive lithuanisation of their names is incorrect for historical and encyclopedic reasons. I will try to describe it more extensively later, it's very late now. Marcelus (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that could mean "I had no choice." But the question is: why? I, as a volunteer contributor, always have a choice to drop the subject, edit something else, stop editing at all, whatever. Besides, this is just an educational website. If someone blocks me ideff, that's fine, good for my real life and work. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
No one forces me to stay here or edit any specific pages, and there is a choice. I stay here only as an addict and did ask to block me for that reason: [35]. Unfortunately, that resulted in certain problems, so I would not do it again. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Language thing
You understood well, the word "forced" in Italian could be used also as "I had no choice" (I thought in English could be used the same way). "Fighting" can also be used to say "to deal with" about something hard to do, an harsh discussion for example. Unfortunately, I can't answer to you in the AE because I'm just under 500 words (I hope so!). If you want, you could report there my explanation. Thank you for understanding and for suggesting it.--Mhorg (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
So, why did not you have a choice? You just recently started editing this page, and you could easily start edit something else given that you felt uncomfortable during discussions here, here (this is a continuation of the same thread) and elsewhere, started an absolutely irrelevant discussion here, and to be honest, started this AE request, instead of following WP:DR as you initially wanted? If anything, your involvement on these talk pages looks like WP:BLUDGEON. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
"I had no choice" because this is the first time in 6 years on Wikipedia that I had such surreal discussions with a user who questions ANY controversial issue of a politician supported by tons of RS. On the Italian Wikipedia I can assure you that I have never seen such a thing. Maybe the communities are different, there are probably different rules... or maybe there is something wrong in this case. And believe me, I always try to find a mediation with those who help build the encyclopedia. I think I never dared to remove large parts of controversal content from an article, and of course never with the accusation of "Undue weight", even though I felt politically close to a certain politician. I tried to open the DR, when the only outstanding issue was the Georgian one. When you started questioning everything, I felt inside me that something was wrong. And don't think I'm happy with what happened, in fact, I ruined my days "fighting" in the discussions or tracking what you were doing on the article. I hope that the matter will be resolved and that we can return to collaborate in the future in a better way, as I already wrote to you some time ago.[36] If instead they decide that I was wrong to evaluate, well, I apologize in advance.--Mhorg (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I never said or acted to remove all "controversial issues". In fact, this whole page is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time, and it is still there right now. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph here, on the page. I did not remove it. It just uses more neutral wording than you suggested. Can we add more? Yes, perhaps we can if there will be a consensus on the talk page. So far I do not see it. Start an RfC if you wish to include your text with "rotten teeth" and "cockroaches" [37]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I read all your answers. I understand that you somehow want to avoid being held accountable for your mass deletions and the abuse you have done by accusing everything controversial of "Undue weight". I just hope that the administrators will check what I have reported, comparing it with your answers. I am also asking if I can exceed the 500 word limit so that I can answer to your statements there on AE request. You're distorting everything again, like you've been doing since I got to argue with you.--Mhorg (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I assure you that if you close your eyes that report will not disappear. Everything is written there. And there are also all the discussions where everything is "Undue weight" for you.--Mhorg (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Look, what you brought to AE is just a content dispute on a single page. Moreover, this is a disagreement between you and a few other users (not just me) on one small issue, i.e. the exact wording/text for describing views by Navalny on the old Georgia-related events. My position: I do not think this is due on the page, but it might be included if we frame it as his general views on foreign policy as described in the scholarly source [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Recent tagging of sources
Can you say what you meant by this at the Holocaust? You wrote: "Please take a peek at this and adjust the text to meet WP:APLRS conditions. I tagged it for now."
There are three sources in the bundle you tagged, supporting footnote f: "The term shoah was used in a pamphlet in 1940, Sho'at Yehudei Polin ("Sho'ah of Polish Jews"), published by the United Aid Committee for the Jews in Poland." Sources.
Two of the sources support the point directly: Crowe 2008, p. 1—that's David M. Crowe, The Holocaust: Roots, History, and Aftermath—and Yad Vashem. A second Yad Vashem page is offered as a "see also" source about the definition of the Holocaust generally.
You tagged the whole thing as "Better source needed". Which of the three sources is the problem, and what did you mean about adjusting the text? SarahSV(talk)18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There it is used to support: "According to Haaretz, the writer Yehuda Erez may have been the first to describe events in Germany as the shoah. Davar and later Haaretz both used the term in September 1939."[1]
Given that part of the research would be the news organization looking through its own archives for the date, it seems fine. I've been meaning to look for the Yehuda Erez article but haven't got round to it. What do you think might be the problem with Haaretz for something like this? SarahSV(talk)00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
SarahSV - I don't think its anything wrong with the source personally; I just noticed that that particular source doesn't meet WP:APLRS conditions; hence I brought it to your attention. I'll let you guys decide since you have higher expertise here. - GizzyCatBella🍁02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering why it would need to meet WP:APLRS. It's in the terminology section. It isn't supporting a claim about Poland. Scholarly sources should be used for history articles in general, but a newspaper describing first use of a term, especially when that newspaper was one of the first users, seems okay. SarahSV(talk)06:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Enough. This is too much. This must be the 5th time you do this. Stop popping up after me with false insinuations. I already said no. Here is a big capital NO NO NO again. If you repeat this, I will ask an admin to make it stop.--Bob not snob (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC) - Blocked by ARBCOM ---> [41]
I agree, it needs to stop. As does removing valid material. [42] GCB, if you think a source isn't good enough, please look for a better one, rather than removing everything without checking. SarahSV(talk)19:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
No, what needs to stop is this kind of insane battleground hounding where a user who upon coming to Wikipedia immediately started getting into fights, is now demanding that check users rifle through people’s emails because... not sure why. I’m at a loss Sarah why you would support this kind of behavior.
As for that edit above, it was a good edit - it removed an obviously non reliable source with REDFLAG information. Again, I’m at a loss as to why you would want to defend such an edit, especially in this topic area where we have the APLRS restriction which I believe you support. How does that work? You’re in favor of the APLRS restriction but complain when someone removes a source which doesn’t even meet RS, much less APLRS? You’re also assuming bad faith by assuming that GCB removed it “without checking”. How do you know? Please don’t cast aspersions without basis. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please do not support me. If I find anything really problematic, I will make a post on an appropriate noticeboard. Happy editing, and I certainly appreciate your support. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Speaking about the joe-job: [44]. I understand, this is certainly not a fun for VM, but to be honest, I was laughing while reading it. Selecting someone who is so obviously not Ice and "proving" he is his sockpuppet with such ridiculous arguments that only sounds "legit"... This is basically a funny parody on SP investigations and VM. It reminds me KVN. User "All for Poland": Reported socks do not get to revert. Go. Away. Icewhiz. Whoever did it had a sense of humor and wanted to satirize VM. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
My very best wishes - Do you know what astonishes me? The fact that these people are still so furious about what happened years ago. What did you fellows do to them, for Christ's sake? Did they get banned and now are after you as retaliation? - GizzyCatBella🍁20:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, no I’ll give them some credit, it was kinda funny and. This. Part. Especially. At one point User:Drmies mentioned how much that annoyed him so I stopped for awhile but then couldn’t help myself because. Doing. This. Is. Funny. To. Me. (I’m always chuckling when I type that way). Of course the whole thing is still super creepy and skeezy but I do appreciate that they or he or she put some effort into it. Volunteer Marek 21:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not going to study that ancient story; I have no interest in this. My impression is that these sock puppets are entirely connected to past matters, that's all. - GizzyCatBella🍁22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
You know how fair and good I am, VM, and what self control I have? I almost rolled that back. Someone should block you for that harassment. AuburnPilot, bringing up this trauma again isn't fair, is it? Tide rolls? Drmies (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
One has to learn to recognize anomaly and not let one's self be drawn into an incorrect perception of reality. Tiderolls12:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Since these ENIGMA enciphered messages are posted on my talk page, could you tell me people what on earth you are talking about? Of course, I'm joking, never mind, probably another tale from 20 years ago. - GizzyCatBella🍁13:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Sincere apologies for hijacking your page, GCB. I can see where the answer would be anticlimactic, but you can find some background here. Tiderolls13:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I prefer GizzyCatBella better. As I mentioned the two folk songs you named aren't from that time period. Also some of the nobles maintained separate identity, some didn't. Also we aren't talking about their identity but about their names, and those two things aren't connected. Marcelus (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Bad, your version is better. As I said earlier those folk songs aren't historical, and claim that they maintained separate identity onto 20th century also is incorrect and ahistorical Marcelus (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey GizzyCatBella, I have this article in my watchlist and I noticed your change. I appreciate your editing in general though I sometimes disagree with you. I'd suggest you don't add any wikilinks to this disputed Wikipedia article at the moment. It wouldn't give any additional credibility whatsoever to the article and I think it would only mislead the readers. It would be more constructive, if you engaged with the issues at the relevant talk page (I notified User:Buidhe of the matter a while ago). Wikipedia should be about verifiability, not narratives and hypotheses.Potugin (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish Canadians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish Catholic.
Lack of reference isn't a problem. This is a clear example of puffery, "the once powerful and vast Lithuanian state" doesn't add anything substantial to the article. IMO the whole article is written in a very pro-Lithuanian manner just to prove that Vytis is absolute to the bone original Lithuanian Coat of Arms, and that any Belarusian claims to this heritage are baseless. I mean the whole part about Belarus is absolutely scandalous and it should be basically deleted. Another problem is that it's not possible to edit the article because all will be reverted by the main editors. edit: in general for an outside reader the article is basically incomprehensible Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Can you propose the changes you think are required? Perhaps one concern at the time? You tend to leave messages on users’ talk pages. Please address your concerns (everything) on the article's talk page, not user's talk pages. It’s vital for record-keeping. - GizzyCatBella🍁05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi GCB,
I'm really unsure about listing Israeli presidents as belligerent leaders. It is similar to listing Queen Elizabeth II as a belligerent leader for WWII, which we don't do. Ok, maybe not that quite odd, but still Zalman Shazar probably didn't even know about the Samu incident until afterwards. It would make more sense to list the Defence Minister or the Commander in Chief. Cheers. Zerotalk04:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
[45] very shortly after you removed a post by a long term puppeteer, a brand new account springs up to do exactly the same edit. WCMemail16:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Battle of the Roman coast What two boats sank in an unequal battle It is not worth all this unbridled hypocrisy, but the Egyptian Navy, which sunk 20 ships and a torpedo boat. This was not mentioned in the results. It was mentioned only a claim that several ships belonging to the Egyptian Navy sank, and this is also a claim that is not strange to you.
Battle of the Roman coast What two boats sank in an unequal battle It is not worth all this unbridled hypocrisy, but the Egyptian Navy, which sunk 20 ships and a torpedo boat. This was not mentioned in the results. It was mentioned only a claim that several ships belonging to the Egyptian Navy sank, and this is also a claim that is not strange to you. Armies of the World (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
On the Jewish Question
Hi, the it was not the puppet account that added the content. It had been there for years and removed by the other edit warring party. And it wasn’t really explained why the content is invalid. Please take a second look. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@OyMosby - An editor in good standing (currently blocked for 24h) made an edit[46], that was reverted by a sock puppet [47].
PS - Feel free to edit the article (taking full responsibility for your edit) if you think the removed content is necessary. I have no judgment on the matter, I was solely enforcing the rules. - GizzyCatBella🍁11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thing is I reverted that user because they failed to explain why they kept edit warring and removing content that has been there for a long time. Regardless of who was participating against them. If you could please revert your edit it would be much appreciated. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I once again restored the stable version before both the sock and other disruptive 3RR violator showed up. Please follow standard protocol next time which is to revert to the stable version of the article before the event. Otherwise please not that it will be YOU taking full responsibility for your edit when backing new changes to the article. But I am in-fact following the protocol. It is not my edit. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Look @OyMosby - User StrexcorpEmployee is not a sock puppet. You can't revert his edit claiming "pre sock puppet version" because it appears that you are accusing him of sock-puppetry. Okay? Please feel free to include removed information back in the article but give a precise reason for reverting User StrexcorpEmployee. So what is the reason for you reverting him, please? - GizzyCatBella🍁19:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I did not call that person a sock puppet. I was referring to before the sock puppet got into a tussel with him. You stated who the sock was so context is there. There is no mistake. I reverted you when I made that summary. BOTH violating the 3RR. StrexcorpEmployee responding with “lol” as their edit explanation. I’m surprised to see no question. Please reread both my replies and edit summary as I have stated multiple times the reason for my revert to the stable version of the article that has existed for years. I do not feel like explaining again. You should be asking them to explain why they removed content with explaining how it was not relevant content. And why they were edit warring. This is pretty straightforward. I am surprised by the confusion. You may take it up with admins if this is controversial on my part but past experience tells me this is not an issue. I asked your kindly to revert yourself but you didn’t rely until I reverted manually. Given you say you have no judgment on the matter, my revert shouldn’t have been an issue to begin with. Just saw, StrexcorpEmployee is temp banned for the edit warring. OyMosby (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean you asked and raised concerns. I got your message and understood but disagree. I hope you got my message as well as you requested. Sorry for the long response but a person laughing about removing content about antisemitism rubs me the wrong way. Stay well. OyMosby (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Then why can you not just put an extended confirmed restriction on every Polish Holocaust page? Would be much easier than some bureaucratic rules that nobody knows about Ezhelstan (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Marcelus I have to think about what is the best place to request input. Can you describe the problem in your own words and post it here? It is principally about the Lithuanization of person names, correct? - GizzyCatBella🍁23:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I am talking about people born and active in Lithuania that were using Polish names and language in their day to day life. As I said many times before for me massive lithuanisation of their names is incorrect for historical and encyclopedic reasons. I will try to describe it more extensively later, it's very late now. Marcelus (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The issue is Polonization. Marcelus is spilling WP:POLAND into WP:LITHUANIA, something that is totally inadmissable, just like it would be with WP:HUNGARY spilling over into WP:CROATIA, for example. By spilling over I mean taking Lithuanian articles/articles about Lithuanians, and then shifting them into Polish under the pretenses of "historical accuracy", regardless of the fact that names were relatively easily changed. To illustrate this, I was looking through this book "Poles decorated with the Legion of Honour by Emperor Napoleon: 1803-1814, and the names were not Polish, even if the individuals concerned, most of them were Polish - not all, as I noticed distorted Lithuanian surnames. Concrete cases from the book of undoubted Poles having their name changed is that practically all have the French rendition of their name: "Jean", "Paul" and "Antoine", but actually they would have been "Jan", "Pawel" and "Antoni". In such a clear example of the writing's language affecting the names, it is only logical to say the same of Polish, and, alas, Lithuanian writings, whatever the time period. However, as the individuals concerned, like Boleslovas Kolyška and Antanas Mackevičius "voted" with their actions as to what their identity was, it is fair to say that the Lithuanian name be favoured in cases of articles of WP:LITHUANIA, just like Polish ones would be in WP:POLAND and French in WP:FRANCE.
My solution would be to follow Wikipedia policy. First use the Anglicized name where proper (e.g. Casimir Pulaski) and where this is impossible, then the WP:UE - Lithuanian names for Lithuanians (Lithuanian-born individuals who dedicate their whole life to Lithuania and "vote with their actions" as to who they are closer to). Think of Vytautas the Great, Gediminas and Antanas Smetona.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Marcelus~
There is an issue concentrating a proper name for the persons born and/or active in Lithuania, has a mixed Polish-Lithuanian identity. Such persons considered themselves both Polish and Lithuanian or even just Lithuanian, but their first language was Polish so their family and personal names were Polish-sounding. In such a way they are noted in the historical sources. I would like to emphasize that the problem does not directly concern the national or ethnic self-identification of these figures, but the correct spelling of their names, in accordance with historical truth.
The root of the problem is the custom in Lithuanian literature to write all names in the Lithuanised form. This applies not only to figures from Lithuanian history but to all figures in general. Therefore, contemporary Lithuanian historiography uses Lithuanianized names. A good example is the figure of General Romuald Giedroyć, a Polish and Lithuanian military man, who in Lithuanian historiography is called Romualdas Giedraitis, although according to all available sources he used a Polish-sounding name. Here ou can see the summary of sources.
The problem mainly concerns minor characters whose names do not appear in English literature. It would be useful to develop some basic rules for writing their names and naming articles. Obviously, if a figure appears in English-language literature the form dominant in that literature should be used.
My proposal is to use a notation in line with historical sources and to use Polish forenames if the first language of these people was Polish. If we are dealing with activists of the Lithuanian national revival or people who wrote in Lithuanian or in both languages, the Lithuanian form should be used. Examples of such figures are: Wincenty Szlagier/Vincentas Šliogeris or Szymon Staniewicz/Simonas Stanevičius.
My proposal concerns, of course, figures who lived in the period when such data can be collected, that is, primarily in the 18th and 19th centuries, but I think it can be successfully applied to earlier periods, up to at least the 16th century.
I realise that the issue may seem controversial, but I think that by approaching it together we will be able to develop a common consensus that best meets encyclopedic requirements. Marcelus (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis and @Marcelus - I'll attempt to get as many editors involved into the discussion as possible. I'm sweating on the correct explanation of the issue since I believe most editors might struggle to grasp it at first glance. I'll post it here first so you two can adjust it if needed, okay? Give me a few days as I'm reading a lot on the subject presently. - GizzyCatBella🍁21:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems like it, although considering how much time has gone by, I feel like we are starting with a clean slate, because I don't remember well where we stopped at last year.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Language in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
As a result of the Unions in 1385 and 1569, Poland and Lithuania became one country called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish language was already a written language at the time. The Lithuanian language still had no writing system in 1385. Lithuanian writing appeared for the first time in 16th century, although it wasn't used in some documents in the 17th century but remained rather marginal. Books and documents were printed in Polish and Latin were two official languages of the Commonwealth. Between the 15th and 16th centuries, the Polish language was slowly adopted by the Lithuanian political and cultural segments of the society. The Polish language became the tongue of nobility, and it was the primary written/printed language well into the 19th century, therefore their names were written in Polish. The Lithuanian language began to be properly and widely codified in the second half of the 19th century. Nowadays, Polish historians are using Polish versions of the names of historical figures, as they were written throughout the centuries. However, contemporary Lithuanian historians use the Lithuanianized version of their names. An example is the figure of General Romualdas Giedraitis, a Polish and Lithuanian military man, who the Lithuanian historiography calls Romualdas Giedraitis, although according to available sources he used a Polish-sounding name Romuald Giedroyć. Other examples are Laurynas Gucevičius (Wawrzyniec Gucewicz), Mikalojus Tiškevičius (Mikołaj Tyszkiewicz) or Tomas Kušleika (Tomasz Egidiusz Kuszłejko). If a figure widely appears in English-language literature, there is no issue as we can use the version of the name dominant in that literature. But the problem emerges with the minor personalities whose names do not appear in English literature.
Questions:
What language should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people living in the former Commonwealthto reflect the fact that if they were of Lithuanian ancestry but used Polish versions of their names during their lives?who were more connected (how to define more connected?) to Lithuania than Poland, yet were significantly influenced by Polish culture?
Is there any achievable solution to use both versions of their names together?The Polish version used during their lives, and the Lithuanian version to reflect their ancestry?The Polish version to emphasize the contemporary Polish influence and the Lithuanian version to reflect to which country they were more connected?(how to define more connected?)
What language should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people whose names do not appear in English literature?
Marcelus suggestions -->
@GizzyCatBella books and documents in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were printed in many languages, not only in Polish or Latin. If we are talking about documents many of them were prepared in Ruthenian or German. Also Lithuanian writing appeared for the first time in 16th century, although it wasn't used in documents and remained rather marginal, as you said. I don't think the question should be worded that way, our goal isn't to "reflect their Lithuanian ancestry", but simply to describe reality. And we don't choose between one language or another, "Adam Mickiewicz" isn't a Polish name, it's a Polish sounding name. Or "Emilia Plater" - Emilia is a Latin name, Plater is German; so it's not even Polish-sounding at the first glance. Marcelus (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Would you like to add anything to the description? Please keep in mind that the explanation should be as compact as possible but define the issue sufficiently at the same time. - GizzyCatBella🍁14:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The new proporsal is much better. I don't know if Cukrakalnis will agree with me, but I think that our discussion always ended with him invoking the Wikipedia rule saying that "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)", I was replying that here situation is special and that it would be ahistorical to use Lithuanised name for people who clearly weren't using them themselves. Also you can invoke other Wikipedia rule were the wording is different: "follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian municipalities etc.)". We should also mention that it's only problematic if the naming isn't determined by ~the usage in English literature. Marcelus (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I still have to describe the uniqueness of the situation and add it to the illustration. I’m still thinking about what to say to be as brief as possible but to the point.. Do you have suggestions? - GizzyCatBella🍁15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella🍁 and Marcelus, thank you both for your patience, I was away from Wikipedia for the past few days because of various reasons and only saw this today. I read GizzyCatBella's text and will first correct some inaccuracies. The Lithuanian language was actually used in documents, at the latest in the 17th century (many Lithuanian words exist in the Lithuanian documents from before, but we are looking at entire documents from start to finish in the language). Exhibit A: this document [53] from A.D. 1639 by Władysław IV Vasa. As for whether Lithuanian writing was marginal, I cannot say whether it was marginal because I don't know your standards for marginal are - briefly, there is this 34-page text [54] about variants of the Lithuanian language in pre-modern era writings. On pages 14-16 is a neat table including the titles of numerous Lithuanian language texts. There are more of them than the fingers on your feet and your hands COMBINED. I think that's solid, right? ;) The books were mostly religious, but also others like grammar and etc. Knowing the importance of religion back in those days (which remains in some places even now), I would qualify such writing as rather important.
That said, it is clear that the Lithuanian language was used nowhere as much as Latin or even Polish in writing. (Not a surprise considering the larger population of Poland then and now). Even so, there is a difference between marginal quasi non-existence on the fringes (which is an impression one would get from reading what you wrote) and an official existence, even if limited.
The as they were written throughout the centuries is a misportrayal, because how names were written down then was not like today, let's put it that way (you'll see what I mean when you finish reading this paragraph). For example, in Lithuanian-language documents from the Kościuszko Uprising, e.g. this manifesto that I transcribed [55], Szymon Wiszniewski [pl] is written as Symons Wiſzniawſkis and Michał Kleofas Ogiński is Mykols Oginſkis. This was written during their lifetimes and they must have known about this. meaning all of this is not a posthumous Lithuanization that they were unaware about. In a Lithuanian-language setting (an indispensable part of existence in ethnographic Lithuania) people back then were called differently, just like how they would have been in a Polish-language context and etc. As written in the article Feliksas Kolyška, his surname was mentioned as such in a local folk song. The same goes for Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, who was named Katkus in this 17th-century song [56]. Based on what I have encountered so far, using a precise version of a name in all languages was probably not that big of a deal in the past (before maybe the 20th century?). I can't say for certain when such a shift happened, but it probably did, to make sense of this issue with names. Basically, different languages used different renditions of the same name. A Lithuanian man named Jonas became Jan in Poland while a Polish man named Jan became Jean in France, and so on. The problem with surnames is that those also were not stringently enforced. To prove what I am saying one just needs to look at the first line of the article on Jan Henryk Dąbrowski.
My suggestion is to follow precedents instead of inventing something new. Clearly, Jan Henryk Dąbrowski was primarily focused on Poland, ergo the Polish-language name suits better. This sets a precedent for Romualdas Giedraitis, who was primarily focused on Lithuania, ergo the Lithuanian-language name suits better. (Basically what I said all along). This should better reflect the fact of different contexts being relevant as to which name was used. I think this solution is most fair and, dare I say, even historically accurate.
Using this yard-stick, if a person is e.g. Lithuanian ancestry but is born in Poland (e.g. Crown of the Kingdom of Poland or anywhere in the Second Polish Republic that is outside ethnographic Lithuania), lives in Poland, and his life does not indicate that he was very Lithuanian in outlook, it would be only fair to use the Polish-language name.
A possibility concerning both names is using the Lithuanian-language name when the person is in Lithuania and the Polish-language name when the person is in Poland (in the sense I mentioned above), but I have doubts about whether using different names for a single individual in their article is according to Wikipedia's guidelines. If this does not contradict the guidelines, I would be open to calling Romualdas Giedraitis as Romualdas when in Lithuania, and Romuald when in Poland.
Summary:
Person with Lithuanian ancestry, whose life was dedicated to Lithuania, more or less -> Lithuanian-language name (e.g. Antanas Smetona, Romualdas Giedraitis).
Person with Lithuanian ancestry, whose life was unambiguously dedicated to Poland and NOT Lithuania in any way during their life -> Polish-language name (e.g. Józef Piłsudski).
Person with Polish ancestry, whose life was dedicated to Lithuania -> Polish-language name (e.g. Maciej Stryjkowski).
Person with Polish ancestry, whose life was dedicated to Poland -> Polish-language name (e.g. Roman Dmowski).
In the description - After the first sentence, I would write However, throughout the Commonwealth's existence, distinct and clear differences remained between the two; Then, I would change "Lithuanian writing appeared for the first time in 16th century, although it wasn't used in documents and remained rather marginal" -> Lithuanian writing first appeared in the 16th century and over time it was increasingly used in documents, although its written form was not as frequently used as those of Latin and Polish; Another suggestion to change would be "The Polish language became the tongue of nobility" -> Although the Polish language became the nobility's predominant language, the Lithuanian language was never forgotten by all segments of the nobility; after "...Lithuanianized version of their names", I would add the following sentence: Even so, the Lithuanian-language name is used for these historical figures in Lithuanian-language documents from the time.
I would make the first question into What language should we use in the English Wikipedia to name the people from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, who were more connected to Lithuania than Poland, yet were significantly influenced by Polish culture? and the second into Is there any achievable solution to use both versions of their names together? The Polish version to emphasise the contemporary Polish influence and the Lithuanian version to reflect to which country they were more connected?
@Cukrakalnis Lithuanian writing wasn't marginal in itself, it was marginal in comparison with other writings - Polish, Ruthenian, Latin, German in PLC. It wasn't marginal in comparison with Polish only because of demographic reasons, it was marginal because elites of the GDL adopted Polish as their language. The document of Władysław IV Vasa you linked wasn't originally prepared in the royal chancellery but were translated into the Lithuanian language in the Prussian chancellery and issued with observance of the official protocol, indicating the place of the seal – L. S. (locus sigilli), most likely much later. Oi Šermukšnio isn't a 17th century song, it's much, much younger (20th if not 21th century :)) We aren't inventing anything new, we are trying to develop a rule covering many similar cases Marcelus (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This part of Cukrakalnis suggestion: Lithuanian writing first appeared in the 16th century and over time it was increasingly used in documents is especially incorrect, because Lithuanian wasn't used in PLC documents at all before 1791 when it appeared in the Constitution translation and in the several documents from the Kościuszko uprising. Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That document was still issued in the Commonwealth's domain (Ducal Prussia was a vassal of Poland-Lithuania at the time). Your objections do not negate the veracity of my statement, as indeed, the official use of the Lithuanian language within where the PLC's power was present, increased over time, even if not in a geometric progression.
What language should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people living in the former Commonwealth to reflect the fact that if they were of Lithuanian ancestry but used Polish versions of their names during their lives? who were more connected to Lithuania than Poland, yet were significantly influenced by Polish culture?~
How do you define "more connected with Lithuania than Poland" - there was no ethnolinguistic Lithuanian separatism or nationalism before mid 19th century, and I am literally quoting Lithuanian historian Darius Staliūnas on that. And persons that started ethnolinguistic national Lithuanian movements are already named in Lithuanian form see: Edvardas Jokūbas Daukša as an example. Romuald Giedroyć wasn't connected with Lithuania more than with Poland, it's absolutely artificial category. I insist on using "but used Polish versions of their names during their lives?". Marcelus (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
"absolutely artificial category" It is absolutely NOT an artificial category, because these categories were used at the time. Otherwise, there would be no talk of Lithuanian regiments in the Grande Armee, the Royal Prussian Army or even the Army of the Congress Poland during the Uprising of 1830-1831.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there any achievable solution to use both versions of their names together? The Polish version used during their lives, and the Lithuanian version to reflect their ancestry? The Polish version to emphasize the contemporary Polish influence and the Lithuanian version to reflect to which country they were more connected?
This shouldn't be even a question - there is no reason to use two versions of name in the same article. That's nonsensical Marcelus (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC) And I repeat once again "country they were more connected" is absolutely artificial category Marcelus (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
There are many factors that could influence the level of connection. Clear indications: ancestry, birthplace, and actions that demonstrate how committed they were to Lithuania in contrast to Poland. The last one is vague, I'll admit, but still understandable, I think. Examples (not limited to these only, of course) of questions for the last one would be: To which army did they belong? The Grand Ducal Lithuanian Army or the Royal Polish Army? Did they fight more on the land of Lithuania or of Poland? Is the content of their writing more evocative of Lithuania or Poland? Do they try to further clearly Lithuanian interests (by e.g. contributing to publication of Lithuanian-language books)? A significant factor, where applicable, would be their view/actions related to the Lithuanian National Revival. This a bit all over the place, but I think it nonetheless gives a needed clearer definition.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
What language (Polish, Lithuanian or both if possible) should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people living in the former Commonwealth?GizzyCatBella🍁21:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Cukrakalnis Lithuanian and Crown army were part of the same armed force under one command, they weren't fighting each other, but were fighting together in the same wars with the same goals. So it doesn't matter if they were fighting more in Lithuania than in Poland or other way around. Sierakowski was called Sierakowski in Volhynia, Lithuania and Mazovia - the same guy all the time. It's really getting ridiculous. Are you planning to measure how long they spend here and there? "Clearly Lithuanian interests"? What's that? It was one country. Of course the GizzyCatBella second question should be dropped. And guys we are forgetting about one important thing. And we should include it into the draft - "Lithuanian" doesn't mean the same today as at that time; many people who were calling themselves that way had nothing to do with ethnolingustic Lithuanian group. Grand Duchy of Lithuania wasn't an ethnolinguistic Lithuanian state, so the fact that someone served in its army doesn't mean he should be called today in a Lithuanian manner. IMO we should use form that prevails in the historical sources and use Polish names if Polish-sounding name is the most common in them, we should include that in the question Marcelus (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The question of What language (Polish, Lithuanian or both if possible) should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people living in the former Commonwealth? misses the mark because the issue arose concerning specifically the Lithuanian part of the Commonwealth.
Lithuanian and Crown armies had separate chains of command. They had clear differences, in organisation, uniform, and everything that makes an army be considered separate. It does matter that where they were fighting, because geography matters. Why would Sierakowski, born in Volhynia, go to Lithuania, if he did not have a special connection precisely with IT and not Poland. It was not "one country", just like Germany and France are not "one country" because they are both in the European Union and NATO. The statement of "Lithuanian" doesn't mean the same today as at that time is verifiably false. The people who spoke the Lithuanian language but lived outside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for centuries were still called and viewed Lithuanian - I am talking about the Prussian Lithuanians. If ethnolinguistics was totally divorced from the Lithuanian identity of the GDL, such a thing would not be. However, it is fact, ergo ethnolinguistics was always to some degree connected to the Lithuanian identity, no matter the intensity, which necessarily varied from time to time.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
No, they didn't had separate chains of command. Sierakowski wanted to transfer uprising to Courland and Russia. He was citizens of the Commonwealth - that's the thing you aren't able to comprehend trying to artificially separate Lithuania from Poland. "If ethnolinguistics was totally divorced from the Lithuanian identity of the GDL" I didn't say it was totally divorced, I said it wasn't the same. Just because someone lived in GDL and considered himself a Lithuanian, doesn't mean he had anything in common with Lithuania language, he could have, but didn't have to. That's why your attempt to Lithuanise every citizen of the GDL is artificial and ahistorical. Marcelus (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
They did have separate chains of command, which is why the hetmans and the generals were separate. When the Commonwealth existed, there were Lithuanian generals that commanded the Lithuanian army, and Polish generals that commanded the Polish army. As for the Uprisings of 1830-31 and 1863-64, then the Lithuanian rebels were kind of "under the wing" of the Polish ones. Even so, Lithuania was never considered exactly the same as a region of Poland like Mazovia. For Sierakowski, it would be very relevant to read his writings and see his own view. Being a citizen of the Commonwealth did not negate the distinctness of its component parts, which sometimes verged on separatism. A person can be a citizen of Canada and still want an independent Quebec or be a Belgian and want an independent Flanders. Except in the case of Lithuania, it had a separate army and practically everything a sovereign country has. "I didn't say it was totally divorced, I said it wasn't the same." You said "no ethnolinguistic Lithuanian separatism or nationalism", which gives the wrong impression as if the Lithuanian identity was only based on the state and nothing more. I agree that "Just because someone lived in GDL and considered himself a Lithuanian, doesn't mean he had anything in common with Lithuania language, he could have, but didn't have to.", but the people discussed here were from Lithuania proper. You portraying me as making all citizens of GDL into ethnic Lithuanians is not at all reflective of what I have been saying and doing. The focus is on Lithuanians from Lithuania proper.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
What language should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people whose names do not appear in English literature, and who were living in the former Commonwealth and were culturally Polish?Marcelus (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
"Culturally Polish" is an inaccurate description for someone whose whole life, including their culture, revolves around Lithuania. There is a difference between "influenced by English culture" and being "culturally English". So too, there is a difference between "influenced by Polish culture" and being "culturally Polish". A more precise question is What language should we use in English Wikipedia to name those unmentioned in English literature, that were from the Lithuanian part of the former Commonwealth yet were influenced by Polish culture?--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The question shouldn't be limited to the Lithuanian part of the PLC. Another proposal: What language should we use in English Wikipedia to name people unmentioned in English literature, that were living in the former Commonwealth and were culturally Polish or were influenced by Polish culture?Marcelus (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
How about just simply this?
What language should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people whose names do not appear in English literature?
@Cukrakalnis and @Marcelus. Just to make it simple. There will be a lot to discuss following the question and we all can bring our arguments to the table. Okay, let me go with a simple question as written above. - GizzyCatBella🍁22:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis and @Marcelus Okay, let below sit for a few days in case new ideas come to light. During discussions we will bring all points again and see what happens. This is not going to be easy, that’s for sure. - GizzyCatBella🍁22:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
To be posted
Language in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
As a result of the Unions in 1385 and 1569, Poland and Lithuania became one country called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish language was already a written language at the time. The Lithuanian language still had no writing system in 1385. Lithuanian writing appeared for the first time in 16th century, although it was used in some documents in the 17th century but remained rather marginal. Polish and Latin were two official languages of the Commonwealth. Between the 15th and 16th centuries, the Polish language was slowly adopted by the Lithuanian political and cultural segments of the society. The Polish language became the tongue of nobility, and it was the primary written/printed language well into the 19th century, therefore their names were written in Polish. The Lithuanian language began to be properly and widely codified in the second half of the 19th century. Nowadays, Polish historians are using Polish versions of the names of historical figures. However, contemporary Lithuanian historians use the Lithuanianized version of their names. An example is the figure of General Romualdas Giedraitis, a Polish and Lithuanian military man, who the Lithuanian historiography calls Romualdas Giedraitis, although according to available sources he used a Polish-sounding name Romuald Giedroyć. Other examples are Laurynas Gucevičius (Wawrzyniec Gucewicz), Mikalojus Tiškevičius (Mikołaj Tyszkiewicz) or Tomas Kušleika (Tomasz Egidiusz Kuszłejko). If a figure widely appears in English-language literature, there is no issue as we can use the version of the name dominant in that literature. But the problem emerges with the minor personalities whose names do not appear in English literature.
Question:
What language should we use in English Wikipedia to document the names of the people whose names do not appear in English literature?GizzyCatBella🍁22:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This is how I would draft it:
Following the Unions in 1385 and 1569, Poland and Lithuania were unified into the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's official languages were the Polish and Latin languages. While Polish was already a written language in 1385, writings in the Lithuanian language appeared for the first time only later, in the 16th century, and its role in official matters was way lesser. Large parts of the Lithuanian political and cultural elite, although maintaining their separate identity into the 20th century, slowly adopted the Polish language and culture (Polonization) during the 16th and 17th centuries and this was their primary written/printed language well into the 19th century. So, their names were written in Polish. However, in Lithuanian-language documents and folk songs from the time, their names are in the Lithuanian-language version. Moreover, the proper and wide codification of the Lithuanian language began in the 19th century's 2nd half. Nowadays, Polish historians use Polish versions to name the historical figures and Lithuanian historians use the Lithuanian versions of their names. An example is General Romualdas Giedraitis, who the Lithuanian historiography calls Romualdas Giedraitis, although according to available sources he used a Polish-sounding name Romuald Giedroyć. Other examples are Laurynas Gucevičius (Wawrzyniec Gucewicz), Mikalojus Tiškevičius (Mikołaj Tyszkiewicz) or Tomas Kušleika (Tomasz Egidiusz Kuszłejko). If a figure widely appears in English-language literature, there is no issue as the name dominant in that literature can be used, but disputes arise with little-known personalities whose names do not appear in English literature.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I posted my reply twice on mobile, but it didn't show, and I wasn't aware of that. So sorry for replying so late. In general I like your proposition better. Cukrakalnis version is wrong for following reasons: folks songs he mentions aren't historical, the song about Kaktus is not from 17th century for example, the part about "maintaining their separate identity into the 20th century" is too general, it's much complex than that. Also we aren't talking here about the identity of this figures, but about proper spellings of their names. Someone can have Lithuanian identity and Polish spelling of his name, there is no conflict there. To sum up your version is ok. Again, sorry for responding so late. Marcelus (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
One of Marcelus' objections is factually incorrect. The song about Katkus IS from the 17th century. Numerous historians affirm that the phrase from the song: Mūsų Katkus labai drūts,/ Tikras buvu karaliuks is about J.K.Chodkevičius (Katkus). Sources: p.106, Žymiausi Lietuvos mūšiai ir karinės operacijos, ISBN 9789986827054; p34, Didysis Chotyno Karvedys - Jonas Karolis Chodkevičius, Doc. dr. Genutė Kirkienė [57] (Neužmirštas didysis karvedys ir liaudies kūryboje: J. K. Chodkevičius buvo apdainuojamas senosiose istorinėse-karinėse dainose „O tas Katkus, tas Katkavič, su žuvedu labai mušas“ arba: „Mūsų Katkus labai drūts, tikras buvo karaliuks“.); [58], Historian Tomas Baranauskas (Lietuvos didysis etmonas Jonas Karolis Chodkevičius, Salaspilio mūšio (1605 m.) nugalėtojas, kaip „mūsų Katkus“ apdainuotas lietuvių liaudies dainose). In addition, Ce nom de famille est connu dans la littérature polonaise sous le nom denaturé Chodkiewicz. Mais son propre nom lithuanien est Katkus plutôt que Chodkevičius. Le recueil de chansons populaires lithuaniennes publié par le folkloriste renommé A. Juška, contient une chanson (t. III, p.127) qui mentionne un des Chodkevičius comme Katkus: p117, [59].
The mention of "maintaining their separate identity into the 20th century" is necessary because otherwise, the false impression is that there was one indistinguishable mass with no distinction between each other.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not saying that the song isn't about Chodkiewicz, I am saying that it isn't from 17th century, it was first written down by Juškevičius in late 19th century. It doesn't even matter because "Chodkiewicz" isn't Lithuanian, but a Polish-Ruthenian name. As for the second point I cannot agree with you, the sentence "Between the 15th and 16th centuries, the Polish language was slowly adopted by the Lithuanian political and cultural segments of the society" doesn't give such impression as you imply Marcelus (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Folk songs don't just appear out of nowhere and they have far deeper roots than the first time they were written down. The most reasonable explanation for that song which mentions fighting against the Swedes under the leadership of a certain Katkus (J.K.Chodkiewicz), is that it is from the 17th century. Moreover, the origins and ancestry of Chodko Jurewicz, the original Chodkiewicz, are uncertain, so stating that it is undoubtedly "a Polish-Ruthenian name" is imprecise. At the very least, the description by GizzyCatBella did not emphasise important aspects of the issue. Following the sentence of "the Polish language was slowly adopted by the Lithuanian political and cultural segments of the society", nothing indicates that after this adoption, there was a continuous self-identification separate from the Poles.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
"nothing indicates that after this adoption, there was a continuous self-identification separate from the Poles" and nothing suggests it was otherwise, that's why it's a good wording. "Folk songs don't just appear out of nowhere and they have far deeper roots than the first time they were written down", maybe they have, maybe they don't. All we know is that the song was recorded in late 19th century. It's equally possible it was created roughly at that time. Marcelus (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
"nothing suggests it was otherwise" factually incorrect - there was a distinction, right until the 20th century, between the Lithuanians and the koroniarze. Such a distinction was obviously made by Tadeusz Kościuszko, Adam Mickiewicz, and Józef Piłsudski. Marcelus keeps propagating factually incorrect statements. It is nonsense to claim that songs about 17th-century individuals and battles would be invented two centuries later (which said "our" general, clearly indicating a closeness that only soldiers could feel towards their commanders, and not the populace at large) when that is the last thing on people's minds. Moreover, songs about fighting against the Swedish, which were not a threat for a long time by the 19th century. The Muscovites and other things were the problems then. Practically speaking, it seems as though Marcelus has an axe to grind against the mere existence of Lithuanian-language names in the historical context.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It all doesn't matter, that's your own assumptions -> WP:OR. The song was recorded in the late 19th century, and that's all we know. You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus Marcelus (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It all does matter and the mere existence of a response shows that. This whole never-ending talking began with Marcelus' WP:OR of "they actually used this other name" and his recent actions are devolving into just going against most of my recent edits on Wikipedia (e.g. removing Lithuanian language names from 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment when talking about locations in Lithuania Minor concerning a Lithuanian unit in the Royal Prussian Army, disregarding the importance of Lithuanian culture in those areas [60] and going through my most recent articles/edits - something I would qualify as stalking). The song was written down in the late 19th century, but the refusal to admit that it has deeper roots possibly points to Marcelus possibly harbouring prejudices against the Lithuanian language or maybe Lithuanians at large. Instead of answering objections, Marcelus goes to kindergarten insult level of "You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus". One consistent pattern that seems to emerge after all this talk with Marcelus is that he will practically never admit that he was wrong or incorrect, even if he is clearly so.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. I don't disregard anything, I just changed the name of German Prussian towns to their original, historical form. It's WP:OR to use Lithuanian names on English Wikipedia in this context. "refusal to admit that it has deeper roots" - of course I refuse, because you didn't cite any source that would prove such roots existed, that's all. Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor.Marcelus is engaged in a personal vendetta against me because of differing opinions. I don't disregard anything Yes, you did. You disregarded the context of the article in which the Lithuanian place names were used. The 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment was raised in Lithuania Minor, which was majority Lithuanian. It is fully justified to use them in that context and totally unjustified to remove them all. you didn't cite any source I did cite multiple sources for these deeper roots. It's not "that's all", you are trying to excuse your very clear misjudgment. You called a historical song, centuries-old, instantly upon seeing it, as something created in the 20th or even 21st century. Probably because you cannot fathom Lithuanian names for Lithuanians before the 19th century. Shame on your prejudices.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have any personal vendetta against you, I just don't think you are a reliable editor, that's all. I know it may sound harsh, but don't take it too personally. It was a Prussian-German regiment, it was called Lithuanian because it stationed and originated in Lithuania Mino, there were Silesian, Pomeranian, East Prussian, Brandenburgian and other regiments, it was just a naming convention. It wasn't ethnic Lithuanian regiment. Stop spreading this non-sense. "I did cite multiple sources for these deeper roots" - which one? You didn't cite any source that would prove the song is older than the 19th century. Marcelus (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have any personal vendetta against you well, that's reassuring, I hope we can come to a mutual understanding.
The thing about the 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment, is that it was an ethnically Lithuanian unit, at least a significant part of it and for at least a part of its existence. That is what the available sources say. It is not non-sense that a unit recruited from a region containing many Lithuanians would somehow be ethnically Lithuanian.
The sources cited about how the song has deeper roots than the 19th century are:
p106, Žymiausi Lietuvos mūšiai ir karinės operacijos, ISBN 9789986827054;
Knowing how folk songs arise, songs about an early 17th-century military leader necessarily must have been passed down from the 17th century, when the experiences were still fresh and in the public conscious.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)~
Exactly, Lithuanians served in it, probably in big numbers, but it wasn't ethnically Lithuanian unit. It was a German-Prussian unit, with German command language and officers. How can you not see a difference?
Kirkienė says that "Neužmirštas didysis karvedys ir liaudies kuryboje: J. K. Chodkevicius buvo apdainuojamas senosiose istorinse-karinse dainose <O tas Katkus, tas Katkavic, su žuvedu labai mušas> arba: <Musu Katkus labai druts, tikras buvo karaliuks>" - "The great warlord was not forgotten in folklore either: his name was used in old historical war songs, such as <O ta Katkus, ta Katkavic, su zivvedu bardzo mušas> or <Musu Katkus labai druts, tikras buvo karaliuks>" - nothing about 17th century. Marcelus (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Jonas Karolis Chodkevičius is from the early 17th century and a song about him, embedded in local culture, must have stemmed from those times, so "nothing about 17th century" is incorrect. The sources unanimously consider the song to have deep roots ("ancient historic-war songs" as said by Kirkienė). Multiple sources agree that the song concerns the Battle of Kircholm.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
That's only your assumption. Kirkienė isn't saying anything like that. It's possible to write a song about past events, I can name you Polish songs from 19th century about Vienna for example. It doesn't mean there wasn't 17th century Lithuanian songs about Kircholm, we simply don't know them. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Folks, I'll be engaged elsewhere for a while since I'm examining a lot of editing records currently. I'll get back to our issue as soon as I'm done there. Please feel free to continue posting your disagreement on my talk page. I'll study everything shortly. - GizzyCatBella🍁02:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I do have something substantial to add to the description: However, in Lithuanian-language documents and folk songs from the time, their names are in the Lithuanian-language version. It's a key statement that is very relevant to the discussion.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The sentence I mentioned is factually correct and easily verifiable. See the names at the bottom of a Lithuanian-language manifesto from the Uprising of 1794 [63]. See you soon and I wish you both to enjoy yourselves.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
MarcelusGizzyCatBella Unfortunately, my schedule is so busy that editing and talking on Wikipedia seems seriously unwise for the time being... this is also the explanation for my continued lack of edits in the past few weeks. When I am over and done with certain things, I will make up for this lack.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi GizzyCatBella, per my previous message I've removed your latest contribution to the case request as I mentioned before the case request is not a place to engage in discussions with other participants. This removal was done as a clerk action and as such I am now required by our procedures to warn you that arbitration clerks are authorized by the arbitration policy and ArbCom precedent to sanction users for conduct on arbitration pages, including by blocks and topic bans from Arbitration Committee pages. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.--Cameron11598(Talk)04:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Icewhiz emailed me after I filed my request. Due to space constraints I am not wasting words to talk much about him. I told Icewhiz to stop being involved with Wikipedia, its editors, and their associates. Hopefully he will listen. I don't give any credence to anything he says. JehochmanTalk22:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I can try to guess what you're thinking. No, Icewhiz never contacted me before my request. I stumbled upon this while looking at Wikipedia:Closure requests, a backwater page that get's very little attention. I would have tried to close it, but I prefer to recuse from EEML-related topics and editors. JehochmanTalk22:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jehochman --> Quote from your statement --> Haaretz is preparing a new article, and an expert is writing a book, documenting systemic problems with Wikipedia's Holocaust articles.[64] Where did you obtain this information? - GizzyCatBella🍁04:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jehochman - That doesn’t answer my question. Could you respond to my inquiry please. Where did you obtain information that --> Haaretz is preparing a new article, and an expert is writing a book, documenting systemic problems with Wikipedia's Holocaust articles [65]GizzyCatBella🍁04:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Since this is as good a place as anywhere, do you, Jehochman, really think it was appropriate to uncritically quote a user first banned by the ArbCom then globally banned by WMF for violations of the TOS, when the things that he was banned for actually contributed to legitimate fears of physical safety by people you are currently targeting at ArbCom? Do you think uncritically relaying the feelings of a banned editor qualifies as WP:PROXYING? Do you think that users who had previously been subjected to real world threats of physical harm might feel that this constitutes further harassment? Do you feel that you should apologize to any of them? Do you feel that they would be justified in contacting Trust and Safety over a user claiming to be in contact with a globally banned user and then relaying uncritically his thoughts on an active arbitration request against them? nableezy - 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
−
Statement by Jehochman
Issue: Ifanewspaperpublishesanarticlecriticalofaneditor'sediting,cantheeditorremovethatnewspaperarticle,andcontentsourcedtoit,fromWikipedia?On Oct. 4, 2019, Omer Benjakob of Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, published a story about Wikipedia's coverage of Poland and the Holocaust, including what Benjakob called Wikipedia's longest-running hoax, related to content at the article "Warsaw concentration camp": [2]. In this article, Benjakob interviewed User:Icewhiz and User:Piotrus, among others, and wrote, in the newspaper's voice, content that was critical of Icewhiz, Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and others, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. As Benjakob predicted, back in 2019, and again in 2021, Piotrus and Volunteer Marek have removed content about the hoax, and the Haaretz article, from multiple Wikipedia pages. (allabovestatementscopiedfromWP:COIN)ThisisyetanotherhydraheadfromEEML,a2009arbitrationcase. Thismatterhasbeenunresolvableduetosevere,persistentbehavioralproblems. The disputeiscausingextremedamagetotheencyclopedia,byenablingdisinformation and ahistory.
Alittleflavorofthediscussion:
Jesus fucking Christ, reading COIN today was a mistake, because this thread makes me want to shove a pickaxe through my skull.[3]
I cameacross this messat Wikipedia:Closure requests where theclosurerequesthas sat, unactioned, for 16 days. DuetothefactthatIwasoneofthepeoplespecifically targeted for harassment by EEML, I will not touchit. Nootheradministratorappearswilling,orable,totakeonthismonster,despitetherehavingbeenatleastfourlong(andheated)discussions. Therefore,Ihavewrappeditwithabow,andplaceditunderyourChristmastree(ornexttoyourFestivuspole,etc.). WelcometotheArbitrationCommittee!
+
Statement by Jehochman
On Oct. 4, 2019, Omer Benjakob of Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, published a story about Wikipedia's coverage of Poland and the Holocaust, including what Benjakob called Wikipedia's longest-running hoax, related to content at the article "Warsaw concentration camp": [1]. In this article, Benjakob interviewed User:Icewhiz and User:Piotrus, among others, and wrote, in the newspaper's voice, content that was critical of Icewhiz, Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and others, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. As Benjakob predicted, back in 2019, and again in 2021, Piotrus and Volunteer Marek have removed content about the hoax, and the Haaretz article, from multiple Wikipedia pages. (WP:COIN.)
The subsequent WP:COIN discussion ran 20,000 words, becoming heated and impenetrable. One uninvolved editor reacted:
Jesus fucking Christ, reading COIN today was a mistake, because this thread makes me want to shove a pickaxe through my skull.[2]
I found this COIN thread via Wikipedia:Closure requests where it sat, unactioned, for 16 days. It involves many of the same editors as WP:EEML, a 2009 arbitration case. Because I was targeted for harassment by EEML, I chose not to close the discussion.
Upon review, I found credible evidence of a "Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists." (words of Benjakob) Benjakob's view was confirmed by Ealdgyth, who identified persistent editing abuse that is driving off neutral editors. Haaretz is preparing a new article, and an expert is writing a book, documenting systemic problems with Wikipedia's Holocaust articles. Wikipedia should investigate and self-correct any improper manipulation of our Holocaust articles.
I have reviewed User:Ermenrich's edits and with AGF in mind, I think they are just trying to help, and I don't think they had significant prior interactiosn with Molobo. If there are any issues with a particular rewrite, may I suggest discussing stuff on article's talk first, before bringing stuff at Arbitration venues? It's a bit cliche, but... can't we all be friends here? :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here00:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Heya, GCB. I am in the mist of my yearly WikiCup writing blitz. Would you be interested in collaborating on a GA or big DHYK hook in a very low-drama part of the 'pedia? I have three catholic priests that I have sourcing for as well as a statue in Washington, DC, a MD that graduated from my college, and some artist discographies. Any of these sound interesting to you? -- GuerilleroParlez Moi23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I'm gonna be less gentle. I noticed the following in passing (diff):
So what I'm seeing here are 3 users clearly in favour of the restoration of the removed criticism, and 2 users are against it. The consensus appears to be to restore the text eliminated by K.e.Coffman. I'm going to act based on that. Thank you for participating in this consensus-building process. - GizzyCatBella 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Is that really how you understand the consensus-building process? A head count? I'm speechless, truly. El_C17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
As much as you try to soften it, Volunteer Marek, that's an exceptionally poor way to handle or express consensus. Also, I didn't know which version was longstanding at the time of writing that (I guess I do now), but this sidesteps the point. Which isn't about which version gets to be displayed while the consensus-building process takes place, but how consensus itself is determined and expressed. El_C22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?
I'm sorry? Am I to take that to mean you believe the BIRN to be a reliable source? Or unreliable? And perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain how that is relevant to the Azov regiment? Hmm.... Holocaust denial... neo-Nazis... Holodomor... umm... no, sorry, you're gonna have to spell it out for me! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
That link was left for me, not you. PS - Please use the associated talk pages to debate the content. Not my talk page. - GizzyCatBella🍁15:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
You're more than welcome, please do. If only you would engage with the sources on the talk page, then we wouldn't be in this spot of bother! - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I remember this was a statement from Scott Ritter, while Botsman simply deleted the Twitter account after hinting that Azov's Kraken group had kidnapped him.[68]--Mhorg (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for this [69], fair point. What I wrote was my honest impression after reading what the individual publishes (several even less flattering epithets come to mind), but your comment is absolutely correct and I've struck it. Jeppiz (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
(Since your cat is sleeping.) Hey, about your comment at WP:AE. Did you really mean to say "the data they are trying to erase appears to contradict historical facts"? Or the opposite, that their erasure contradicts historical facts? Bishonen | tålk07:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
You made a mistake when you unilaterally banned an editor
Your stated reason (here [70]) for unilaterally banning the editor from commenting on the AFD you brought against them is flawed.
The editor has made a total of 19,291 edits in (not less than 500 as you mistakenly allege.) Apparently, on the link you provided, (here [71]), you didn't scroll down on the link, but if you do, you'll see the editor has "19,291 = Global edit counts" which far exceeds the 500 edits for "extended confirmed requirements" here [72].
Since it's clear you made a mistake, and the editor has made 19,291 edits (not less than 500) I feel you should undo your edit where you strike-out their comment and prohibited them from commenting on the AFD you brought against them. Thank you, BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
You may not meet the requirements for "Extended confirmed protection"
@GizzyCatBella: Which 'edit data' did you use when you claimed the editor here [73] didn't meet the 500 edit threshold? You see, if you used the "Basic Information" edits; then you do not meet the requirements. You only have "14 edits" under "basic information" (here [74]). That editor has made 473 edits under "basic information" totalling 19,313 global edits. So if "basic information" is the data you used to: restrict, ban, and strike through every comment that editor made; then you're not even close to meeting the requirements because you only have "14 edits." This situation needs to resolved promptly because it seems you've made a mistake and that mistake needs to be corrected as soon as possible. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison is it all clear to you by now? I briefly glanced at your talk page and noticed some users explaining how EC works. Sorry, I have no time to talk about it further because I’m engaged elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁01:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: My talk page? You're mistaken again, no one has mention EC on my talk page. So while you're following me around while I went to another person's talk page, you misread what was said. In fact, as kind as they all are to help, no one I've spoke with on that other talk page seems to be certain of which data you'd have used or which rule you used when you: unilaterally restricted, banned, and put a strike through every comment the editor wrote. For example, @El C: said "my limited understanding is ... would not convert across different language." Keywords: "Limited understanding."
As of May 2020, the actual rule itself does not mention "English edits" or any language. [75], it says "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...". Notice, it doesn't say "English edits" or any particular language, it says "All IP" editors.."
And here [76] the rule says, "Articles under extended confirmed protection (ECP) can be edited only by extended-confirmed accounts – accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." Again, doesn't mention language.
And here, [77] the rule says "A registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically when the account has both existed for at least 30 days and made over 500 edits."
So would please answer the questions I've been asking you: 1) What edit data did you use? and 2) Can you show the rule that says "English edits" only? Thanks.
@GizzyCatBella: Yes, that's my page. And it confirms: you're mistaken again, no one has mention EC on my talk page - and that should be clear even to you. Now please just answer the questions I asked you here [79]. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison Didn't multiple editors demonstrate to you that the user has less than 500 edits? --> [80] I also did, multiple times. Why don't you then manually count their edits and see if they have 500 or not [81]. (I feel you keep asking the same questions over and over, everywhere, please stop posting on my talk page for a while, I’m really busy now, thanks) GizzyCatBella🍁03:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: You're repeating the same false stuff you repeated earlier and you're being disingenuous:
1) No one mentioned EC on my talk page, which confirms you've been following me to other people's talk page - which is fine - but just admit it.
2) No one I spoke with on that other talk page seems to be certain of which data you'd have used or which rule you used when you: unilaterally restricted, banned, and put a strike through every comment the editor wrote. For example, @El C: said "my limited understanding is ... would not convert across different language." Keywords: "Limited understanding."
So please answer:
1) What edit data did you use? and
2) Can you show the rule that says "English edits" only?
Please stop dodging and just answer the questions and if you don't know the answer just say so. It's ok if you don't know, no one I've talked to seems to be certain either. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
1 - No, I don’t follow you. You keep posting the same questions on my talk page and you keep pinging me elsewhere[82]
2 - IDK what are you talking about, seems to me that the other users demonstrated to you that you are mistaken with your interpretation [83].
3 - I used this to establish 500/30 requirement -->[84] The user holds 383 edits on en. Wikipedia.
4 - I don’t understand. We edit in English here.
I answered your questions. Now again. Please pause posting on my talk for a little while, I’m really busy and quite frankly a little irritated with you constant pinging. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁04:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: Sure ya' don't -- that's why you falsely claimed you read "EC topic" on my Talk page when, in fact, that's no where on my Talk page.
Anyway, here [85] the rule says "A registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically when the account has both existed for at least 30 days and made over 500 edits.". Notice, no mention of "English edit" only.
And here [86] the rule says, "Articles under extended confirmed protection (ECP) can be edited only by extended-confirmed accounts – accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits.". Notice, no mention of "English edit" only. You forgot to answer my 2nd question,
2nd question: Can you show me the rule that says "English edits" only? Keep in mind, in this comment here, I've shown you twice where the rule does not say "English edit" only, so you show me the rule you're reading that you think does. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison - You can ask Arbitration Committee for clarification [87] (I would), or if you are convinced they made a mistake by omitting "English edit" you can reinstate non extended confirmed comments based on your own interpretation. I lost interest in that article (thank you but no more) . Now for the third time please stay away from my talk page for a while, I can’t keep answering you constantly, I have some real life issues now. Thanks. GizzyCatBella🍁05:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: I showed you that the rule does not say "English edits" only. And you've just confirmed that you've never seen any rule that says "English edits" only. Ok, that's what I thought. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, it is time for you you to drop the stick. This is English Wikipedia and not Ukrainian Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons nor any of the other Wikimedia Foundation projects. English Wikipedia is autonomous in almost everything and English Wikipedia has the right to set its own participation requirements for things like autoconfirmed or extended confirmed status. We do not accept edits on Ukrainian Wikipedia or French Wikipedia or Simple English Wikipedia, or any other of the hundreds of other Wikimedia websites. Global rights are clearly defined as such and all other rights are under the control of individual projects. We are looking for a solid track record of indisputably productive edits here on English Wikipedia. The editor you are lobbying for has has translated an article that has proven to be highly controversial, both on the basis of its content and on the accuracy of its translation. You were confused yourself about the distinction between Ukrainian Wikipedia (uk.wikipedia.org) and English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org). These are separate projects. I advise you to refrain from commenting until you thoroughly understand the issues. It seems to me that you need to read and study our policies and guidelines a bit more before commenting on controversial matters. So, please drop this matter or you are at increased risk of sanctions the longer you pursue this as your comments are growing increasingly tendentious. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
OUN and pogrom in 1941
If we are talking about the pogroms the swept through western Ukraine after Nazi invasion of SU, then the direct involvement of OUN is uncertain. Individual members of the organization certainly took part in pogroms, also the militia, but we cannot say that OUN was organising pogroms on its own Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi sorry and thanks for the explanation, I already did comment (it's really hard to find my comment especially on a mobile when comments aren't in chronological order and discussions are really long) that part of the description had actually been removed for like a day by someone else with nobody commenting on it, before it was added back in so I thought that it was ok to remove it again. Fourdots2 (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. You recently reverted a series of edits by a sock puppet on this article. I had almost done that myself for the same reason, but reviewing the actual edits they appeared to be largely improvements to the article, with sourced current data (albeit in need of some grammar cleanup). Would you mind if I restored the sock puppet's edits? I'm not sure if there is policy/guidance on potentially constructive sock puppets.... CAVincent (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi GizzyCatBella, I saw that you also consider Katchanovski valid to be in the encyclopaedia. Do you think this removal is justified?[88] I have seen in the articles of other academics that the most important publications can be put that way. Am I wrong?--Mhorg (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Are you talking about the whole article or the "publications" section? If you are talking about the section, how could those publications be cited correctly? Mhorg (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I’ll look at it later, but first his notability needs to be established. I personally believe he in notable but other editors think he is not. Everything else can be fixed later. - GizzyCatBella🍁20:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
