Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
This source is qouted even in the article. Original text doesn't contradict the source. Also Turska is talking about Polish language, not about Polish cultural identity. Marcelus (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michał Węsławski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polytechnic.
LT placenames now in modern PL and PL placenames in modern LT
Just so we're clear, I saw @GizzyCatBella's edits here [2], [3], etc., which are what prompted me to do the edits [4], [5]. My personal opinion is this:
For modern administrative units, I would generally only use the language(s) that are officially used. That said, I am somewhat amenable to GizzyCatBella's proposal of placing PL names in territories that were explicitly under rule of PL, i.e. Kingdom of Poland, Congress Poland or Second Polish Republic, provided that this is applied equally, so that LT names be placed in those lands that were part of LT in its various incarnations, e.g. Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the interwar Republic of Lithuania. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis Tbf for the modern administrative units I would use only officially used languages, so for example in Puńsk/Punskas. Sadly Lithuania limits minority rights, and Polish isn't recognised the same way Lithuanian in Poland is. If we would go with your approach. Then Polish names should be applied to all territories that were part of the states that used Polish as official language, so that includes also Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Of course town and villages are whole other story. Marcelus (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, it seems like we're on the same page regarding for the modern administrative units I would use only officially used languages. I will not address the rest of your message for the sake of brevity. If you wish, I could remove the lang-lt templates I added to the modern administrative units in Poland (where they are not officially used), while you could remove the lang-pl templates you added to the modern administrative units in Lithuania? Deal? Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, Marcelus? You remove the lang-pl templates from the modern adm. units in LT and then I, in return, remove the lang-lt from the modern adm. units in PL (well, the ones where it is not officially used)? Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello, I was looking at History of Poles in Lithuania; nice article. I saw the ref "Sanford 1999, p. 99" and noticed it doesn't have a corresponding biblio entry. I looked and wasn't able to easily find the source, so I figured I would post to you. Again nice article. Greetings from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk20:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A while back, you asked me for a working link or copy of the Baltic independence and Russian empire by Walter Clemens, the link you posted doesn't work on 30 March 2022 on my talk page here.
So, I inform you that I now have a working link for which you asked and it's here [9]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude to following Wikipedia rules is very problematic. Removing WP:SYNTH, making sure that articles follow WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia rules is no joke, but for you it obviously is, because your latest edit summary on the article Zigmas Zinkevičius is Please stop it, this is silly, in response to other users' concerns that what you are doing is clearly a breach of Wikipedia rules and policies. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've been working on this article and I just tagged an empty category for deletion that went empty because you removed it from this article. But I'm not here about that category, I just wondered why this individual was in Ukrainian categories because he doesn't seem to be Ukrainian, it looks like he was Polish or Lithuanian. Can you check the categories on this article and make sure they are appropriate? Every category has to be verified through the content of the article so if his nationality or heritage isn't mentioned in the article, that related category should be removed. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!21:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz honestly I'm pretty tired of arguing about nationalities in categories, he was born in Volhynia, so it looks like someone thinks he should have Ukrainian categories, I'm indiffrerent honestely. Marcelus (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
The article cites "Kowalski 2013" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•304:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholic Church in Lithuania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Władysław.
Hello Marcelus, I'm afraid this is not how it works [10]. Your bald edit [11] was reverted by me [12][13], which means that WP:BRD and WP:ONUS apply: you shouldn't revert my reverts and ask me to open a discussion on the talk page [14], but you should leave the contentious content out of the article and open a discussion on the talk page yourself to seek consensus. Note that when you reverted me today at "Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946" [15], I opened a discussion on the talk page. Please, self-revert. Best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can start discussion keeping the content that I added, it's nothing controversial really. And BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Marcelus (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666 Not true. First of all, you didn't revert my edit, you just deleted the part of the content you disagreed with instead of starting a discussion on the talk page. The WP:BRD you cited, does not apply here, besides being just a proposal for finding consensus. It was your edit that started the cycle (Bold edit).
I am asking you at this point to restore the content I added and start a discussion on the talk page if indeed you want to remove it. If you don't do so soon, I will restore the content I added and consider you to have no objection to it. Marcelus (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you didn't revert my edit, you just deleted the part of the content you disagreed with. This is exactly what a revert is. Please see WP:3RR:
The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.
...instead of starting a discussion on the talk page. I don't need to start a discussion on the talk page. As I told you, WP:BRD applies here.
If you don't do so soon, I will restore the content I added. Don't do this. If you are in doubt and don't trust me, seek advice from an admin of your choice.
5. Do not communicate with the moderator on his user talk page. This is seen by other editors as trying to run around them. If you have a question for the moderator, ask it at DRN.
I know that getting reverted is frustrating, but that doesn't justify being uncivil and WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS. I'm referring to your comments here and here. Behaviour should be discussed on the user talk page and in the appropriate fora for dispute resolution and arbitration enforcement, including WP:ANI and WP:AE. You should not take your complaints to the article talk pages. Therefore I'm replying to you here rather than on Talk:Naliboki_massacre.
My reply is simple: I gave you my reasons, and so far the other editors agree with me: Horse Eye's Back ("Your arguments are convincing"), Adoring nanny ("Like User:Gitz6666, I am uncomfortable with this much detail"), Piotrus ("we should avoid creating UNDUE impression that Jewish participation in Naliboki is a major issue"). No one agrees with you (perhaps GizzyCatBella does, but it is not clear because she has not yet expressed her views). So you should't mention WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - actually it's you who doesn't "get the point". You shouldn't mention the discussion on another talk page to suggest that I have petty intentions towards you and your "improvements". I simply don't think they are improvements, and I have given you my reasons abundantly. Please refrain from accusing me of disruptive editing, as you just did, and from reverting when you are reverted (as you did at 19:53, 28 February 2023, 10:27, 1 March 2023 and 20:11, 1 March 2023). Just wait and see if other editors join your side of the argument. Or take your complaints to the appropriate fora, as I can't and won't reply to you on the article talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the paternalistic tone. @Adoring nanny and @Piotrus were talking about my previous change, the whereabouts of Bielski and Zorian partisans. Don't conflact these two changes, I intentionally put them in separate sections of the talk page. @Horse Eye's Back commented on the quality of your argument really, nothing more.
It doesn't matter much, because it's not a vote. You need to give a convincing argument why the changes I have advocated are unacceptable. "I simply don't think they are improvements" is not a sufficient reason. You may think so, you have the right to do so, but the article is not your property. Marcelus (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged, I'd encourage both of you to take a WP:CUPOFTEA and leave this article alone for few days. See what others say. Maybe start an RfC. Don't revert anyone. We all want to improve the content, make it more comprehensive and neutral. Sometimes it takes time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mind you of: WP:BRD; you are also ignoring @Gitz6666 changes, he must be inactive at the moment since he did not revert you. But he keeps a very close eye on such matters. Avoid edit warring and seek a consensus on the article talk page. Marcelus (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating this page on a notable Polish WWII officer. I think it'd benefit from subsections to help the reader unfamiliar with the content better navigate the page. A slightly longer lead would also be helpful, especially given the level of detail in the body. Also, I have two suggestions in terms of sources: https://www.polskieradio.pl/39/156/Artykul/1210996,Lesny-oddzial-Antoniego-Burzynskiego. to support notability with another reliable sources and this article from the Polish Review that talks about Ponomarenko's role in killing members of the Kmicic unit that seems like an interesting and important addition given he would later become a Soviet ambassador to Poland (unless I missed it in the article?). I hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ppt91}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@Ppt91: thank you, I will definitely use the jstor link. I will add some info later with a proper lead, so far it's in 80% translation of the pl.wiki article. Marcelus (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus Got it. I've found that a good bit pl-wiki articles on Polish biographies are light on reliable sources, which is odd and I guess a reason as to why I always search for more to ensure notability is not questioned for en-wiki. On that note, and to add to my original selection, I thought a piece from Kurier Wilenski was a possible candidate to either replace the Polskie Radio article I sent earlier or to add to it https://kurierwilenski.lt/2021/08/26/30-lat-temu-polska-uznala-niepodleglosc-litwy/ Again, just a suggestion. I've also added a short edit about the Kmicic unit standard being given to Muzeum Wojska Polskiego in 2018. And thanks for all your work on Polish history pages! Ppt91talk22:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking. I have not looked at your sources yet. Don't let Gitz get to you. This is an opportunity for all three of us to show we can focus on comment.Elinruby (talk)
I appreciate your filling out some valuable details at Collaboration with the Axis powers#Estonia . But there seems to be some duplication in the last two paragraphs (about the Estonian Police and SD). Would you mind editing those paragraphs to reduce repetition? Since I'm no expert and you apparently are, I'd prefer that you clarify the phrasing than for me to attempt some ignorant general editing.
[As someone who's been working on the whole article for a couple of months, I should let you know that I and the other editors have long been seeking to limit the article's ever-growing length within reasonable limits — see Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers — while keeping valuable, coherent and well-documented material.]
I'm still working on it, I was planning to write more yesterday, but get tired pretty quickly :) I'll do more in a next couple of days. Marcelus (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is to inform you that I've closed the AE request you opened about TrangaBellam. TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella will both shortly receive formal warnings, but your own conduct was also examined. As an uninvolved administrator, I am imposing the following restriction on you:
You are subject to a WP:0RR restriction. To clarify, this means prohibited from undoing any edits, or from making edits which are functionally the same (for example, removing text that was just added by another editor or reverting by editing an old version of a page). This applies in the mainspace and relates to all articles related to Eastern Europe.
To avoid possible issues, I will allow you to add text that has not been recently removed or remove text that was not recently added, but you cannot reinstate your edits if they are reverted. Since ArbCom don't seem to have defined Eastern Europe anywhere, I will give you a broad definition to avoid any possible disputes about scope: anything westeast of the Adriatic, south of the Arctic Ocean, north of the Mediterranean or Black Sea, and west of Moscow. This restriction is indefinite, but I will be willing to reconsider after three months with no violations and no edit warring in other topic areas. You can claim an exemption to revert obvious copyright violations, BLP violations, and vandalism. You can appeal by following the appeals and amendments procedure. If you have any question about this restriction, I will do my best to clarify. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell Thanks for the information, harsh but fair. I'm happy that I can continue to edit Wikipedia. If possible I would like it to be noted that this restriction is because of editwarring, not because my edits were incorrect, intentionally misleading, etc. (I was accused of promoting fringe theories during the AE discussion). Marcelus (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still inclined to think that if this was a thing -- and you seem to be persuading me that it was -- that it merits a standalone article and a summary, not just a section. Maybe I was questioning this because although France did have roundups it never did have officially-defined ghettos and thus no Judenrät (or whatever the plural is of that word). When the roundups started, people were sent to Drancy. As far as I know at least. I like what you have so far. I made a couple of edits for a typo and punctuation respectively. Some of the other sentences I sort of want to rework but that can wait until it's in a slightly more final form, since I want to avoid any appearance that we are arguing. One general comment: it wasn't always clear when I read through whether given statements applied to all of Europe. This might have been utterly clear to somebody with a profound grasp of the historiography but that is not me, particularly with respect to eastern Europe. Oh and one other thing, speaking of historiography: all these authors are well-cited and will be acceptable to everyone, yes? It also occurs to me that the following statement could well be challenged, and in general "only", "all" and "none" are dangerous. Just saying.
the only Jewish collaborationist group in occupied Europe was the "Group 13" that existed in the Warsaw Ghetto
23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The "inevitability of German victory" was a rationale common to other collaborators btw, not necessarily Jewish. Another that might apply is the belief that nothing could be worse than their current circumstances, and therefore nationalists often saw the Nazis as liberators and the Germans let them believe it. See Burma, Lebanon, Brittany and various elements in the Balkans and Ukraine. Also Belgium and Denmark where like the Judenrät, the collaborating government was criticized for making the Holocaust easier. It is however conceivable that in Denmark the relationship between the Jewish, Danish and German authorities saved lives. I mention these points not to say that *you* shouldn't, but in hope that the commonalities provide some insight. I am still working on trying to work on which volunteer units were actually volunteers btw Elinruby (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We might have a meeting of the minds on the archive format question. Feel to weigh in that thread btw, and I think it should be fine to start a new thread to discuss your rewrite at this point. Elinruby (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Parties of Arbitration Committee cases are those whose behavior is primarily evaluated. As a result of a case, parties may be warned or sanctioned (topic-banned, for example). Non-parties are never sanctioned as a principle. That's the main difference.
I don't really understand that, but accept it as something I don't really have control over. I wasn't really involved in the topic before the G&K article (maybe I edited something in the past, but nothing major), which alarmed me that this topic needs to be examined. And well the first experience wasn't pleasant, it definitely is a tense place. But my behavior was recently examined during AE that I started, so it feels like I'm being examined a second time for not more than a couple of weeks of engagement in this topic area.
I certainly didn't mean to scare you. The notification is meant to prevent a surprise in case you are actually added as a party. This might not actually happen in the end.
Ah well, all these conduct evaluations can be pretty stressful. The topic area can be pretty stressful as well. I'm happy to see that you're fine, but if you ever get stressed out by this, it can help to keep in mind that you are a volunteer.
I quickly looked through your Evidence section, and have a few comments.
You seem to bring evidence against someone who is not a party. Do you suggest to include that participant as a party? If so, this should be clearly stated and explained why.
Someone simply removing large portions of text could be just fine (this is not a proof of misbehavior by anyone). Was this contributor engaged in an edit war? If so, then you should say just that, i.e. he edit war [diff],[diff]... I am not saying he was engaged in edit war; I have no idea after just quickly looking at your evidence. But even if this user was engaged in edit war, then was not you too? Did not you see the result of your AE request?
Or maybe he acted against WP:Consensus? That could be a problem, but can you claim there was a certain consensus on such page? This is close to impossible to say unless there was an RfC on the subject, and it was not. Or maybe he violated WP:BRD? I did not see it, although I did not really check.
Speaking on the "Battleground attitude", this is very problematic because it was you who brought that previous request to AE. Hence, someone (not me) might reasonably argue that it was you who is engaged in such behavior.
Saying that, your submission is entirely up to you. But remember that you will not be able to change anything as soon as your evidence will be summarized. This is a kind of trap. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes. Ad 1, I wasn't aware of that. Ad 2, WP:TNT entire sourced section, without any reason, most of it in my case is revert baiting (I'm on 0RR), especially in case of Józef Mackiewicz. There are things that are impossible to desribe with diffs. That's the problem with the whole thing. Ad. 3, if we consider a stable, well-sourced version consensus, than she is actively acting against it. Ad. 4, Hence, someone (not me) might reasonably argue that it was you who is engaged in such behavior in what way? Can you elaborate so I'll have a grasp of what you mean. Marcelus (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on other comments on your talk page above, you may be included as a party to this case. If that happens, you may be sanctioned by Arbcom. Your submission to Arbcom (as is) may be used as an evidence of your battleground behavior. The story at AE would replay. I would recommend you to remove your evidence ASAP given that it is of poor quality and you are not yet a party. But this is up to you of course. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are probably right. It's just every interaction with TB triggers me; but I don't really need it. Thanks for the advice Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You had content disputes with X. You submit a complaint about X. If your complaint is without merit, this can be interpreted as you trying get an upper hand in a content dispute by complaining about X (this is a textbook example of battleground behavior). Fortunately for me, I was not really involved in main space editing in this subject area. Still, I am extra careful with submitting any kind of evidence; it well could be that I will not submit any. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really about content dispute, but I can see how it can be interpreted as such; but thank you I let myself to be baited once, won't go there again Marcelus (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking on the improvement of pages, this is not a lost cause. Take a step back, check sources, suggest specific changes on article talk page, discuss, and if no consensus found, start an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just every interaction with TB triggers me I am sorry to hear of that. I will try to come across as less terse in our interactions. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to 0RR, I was not baiting you. I am frankly willing to waive off abiding by such restrictions (to the usual 3rr limit) while reverting me. I personally find 0RR unmanageable in that it creates more drama than it solves and probably, had argued at the AE against such sanctions. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but for the time being 0RR is a refreshing experience for me, it forces me to look for alternative ways to propagate my changes and I think in the long run it will change my editing practice for good; and sometimes just prompts me to just avoid certain discussions which is equally good Marcelus (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On an aside, while I might not agree with Mvbw about the content of articles and/or G&K paper, I agree with his thoughtstream. Like them, I do not plan to submit any evidence either. To take a representative example, Piotrus sought to include all reviews from all sorts of journal in an article on a controversial book can be a legitimate reason for editors (say, me) to feel agitated about but it is a reasonable interpretation of policy and non-requiring of any sanctions much less by ArbCom. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91 has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protector forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
Thanks for the ping. I indeed did not see your previous notice. You can see the Evidence which has involved you here. This question from the FAQ may also be helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 sorry, but I still don't get how all of this works; where are the evidences against me? All I can see is that I took part in two discussions that's all; the summary of evidences is basically a summary of the discussion without any actual allegations against me, I don't even know how to respond to that Marcelus (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the evidence at the moment. As you can see there are some parties who have no evidence at the moment listed for them. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for nominating categories in WP:CFD to help improve the encyclopedia. For this recent nomination you need to add a notice to all of the categories you nominated, otherwise it will be procedurally closed even if other editors agreed with you. (If you need help with how to do that, just tag me and I'm happy to assist!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the links so they go right to the specific nomination. (They default to the CFD section being named after the nominated category but, with group nominations, you need to specify the section name.) Thanks! - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re
My apology, I forgot about your editing restriction. But whatever. There are many other contributors around. Honestly, I do not understand why this needs to be included to the page. Yes, maybe I am overdoing this, but given the accusations by G&K, I think it is better be safe than sorry. This is one of only two cases where I would agree with arguments by G&K (another was Naliboku massacre). Yes, I maybe wrong even about these two pages. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After all, this whole section was completely rebuilt after the G&K article and has nothing to do with what it was actually. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at the page, what can I immediately see, just by looking at the titles of subsections? Who were all these Nazi collaborators? Countries A, B, C, D (each typically with multi-ethnic population) and ... Jews! Is not that a little problematic? My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think it is, or even if it is, it's only at first glance, and first glance is not something we should be overly concerned about. Whether you want to or not the problem of Jewish collaboration is an important issue addressed by many researchers. It is strange if it would not be mentioned at all in such an article. Marcelus (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your arguments are not unreasonable. For example, one could argue that the section about Jews should be included because they did not have their own state at the time of the events. But I still feel this is undue on such very large page because they were not so important as Nazi collaborators. This page needs to focus on those who provided a significant economic and military support to Nazi. Local ghetto administrations and a few informants are much less significant. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see you two are talking about this. I think that Marcelus did a fine bit of writing and that that section should become a spinoff article. I think the problem might be that it is a little too short for an article and a little too long for a section of the Collaboration. So one idea would be to make one expanded version of the writing and one hyper-condensed version for the summary sections. Because I do agree with MVBW that there is an apparent category mismatch. I thought you did a good job of explaining why there should be an entry, though, Marcelus. If it helps at all there is a case to be made imho -- (Peacemaker67 might have an opinion about this -- for grouping Serb massacres into their own section.
For your information, I have closed the AE request Pofka filed against you with no action against you. Pofka is now banned from interacting with you. This restriction does not apply to you but I would ask that you have the courtesy to work as though it did. If Pofka does not abide by the restriction, you can report any violations to AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?10:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood. But I ended up reading the RfC anyway and it seemed like there was a consensus for C. I noticed that Piotrus said the same thing as me in the RfC discussion page as well. -- Shadowof theStarlit Sky13:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Casimir IV Jagiellon was both Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland until his death? I came in here to run that by you. LMK when you get a chance. Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks; I restructured a sentence in his article a bit and it wasn't quite clear in the original if he held both titles after he became king. Just trying to make sure I don't introduce errors. Thanks for your time. Elinruby (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your post at the Allies talk page.
You claim that I am propagating a false version of history, and you warned me that I will be reported. I checked your talk page, and I see that you yourself have been sanctioned recently per EE. That means, if I report you, possible sanctions may be severe.
I still believe you just misunderstand the point I am trying to make, and you misunderstand what I am saying during that discussion. Please, re-read my posts and try to summarize my position, and try to understand what is my words is supported by RS and what is not. After that, I'll check your summary, and if it is correct, then it may become a starting point for development of consensus. If I'll see that you understand me incorrectly, I'll fix your mistake. Finally, we will come to consensus.
Another option is to report you immediately at AE. In contrast to me, your behaviour is exactly what AE is intended for. However, I would prefer to avoid this scenario, and I propose you to try to come to consensus first. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert. First of all, you are promoting a false version of history by proposing a text: "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941". This version unequivocally claims that the Soviet Union did not attack Poland, Finland, did not carry out aggression against the Baltic States, Romania etc. There will be no consent to pretend that the Soviet Union in the first years of World War 2 did nothing. This is a historical distortion.
I don't see the point of further discussion with you if you don't cross out this proposal and openly withdraw from it.
I checked your talk page, and I see that you yourself have been sanctioned recently per EE. That means, if I report you, possible sanctions may be severe; do not threat me. Marcelus (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But of course every kind of mediation is good to deescalate editing conflict. So of course if you are willing to invest your own time I gladly accept it. Marcelus (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, Paul said he will disengage with this conversation with you. In either case, in the future, if any of you has trouble interacting with the other one, feel free to ping me and I'll try to mediate. Everyone should remember about WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and that arriving at consensus can take some time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marcelus. You've added references for "Zuziak 2003" to Allies of World War II, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Bibliography section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.
Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
A partial or complete revert should not be a removal of anything. You repeatedly restore para starting from "The exact moment when the greeting was created is controversial.". But whatever. This is just to let you know. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are refering to this; the source is using the name "fascist salute", not "roman salute", so I restored the text that was closer to the source, as I explained in my edit description. Marcelus (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what was your justification for edit. It only matters that it was a partial revert - for the purpose of 0RR, 3RR and such. I would advise you to self-revert and do this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason for that, it wasn't edit warring just clarification what the text is actually saying. I'm tired of this constant revert baiting I face. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. You refuse to follow your editing restriction. Yes, a single revert (as you did) is not an edit warring, but it was a violation of your editing restriction (0RR). But OK, I explained everything, no more comments about it from me on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, I don't see it being problematic in any way. I feel like out of two of us I was the more constructive one: actually working on the article, explaining my edits, fidning new sources, trying to make something that is valuable. You in turn were just reverting all my edits without giving any reason and stonewalling discussions. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with you that you worked more on this subject, that you know it better, and that you are probably a better contributor than me. I commented above only about 0RR. But your point is taken. Let's do this. I will stop editing this page and commenting for a while, and we will see what happens. My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[19] - I already responded. Besides, you are steering this discussion too close to the area covered by my topic ban, hence I would rather stop my participation in this particular discussion. Good luck with including this content about Ukrainian fascists. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration with the Axis powers
We've been discussing a spinoff of your excellent work in the Baltics. Maybe, and this just occurred to me, we could title it simply collaboration rather than Collaboration with the Axis powers, and also discuss collaboration with the Soviets. This is just a thought, and not mandatory. The main thing that has held us up is whether it should be one article on the Baltics as a whole, or individual articles on each country. But I think we may be ready to proceed, so could you let me know? I also left some thoughts on the talk page of the Jewish collaboration. Tl;DR if it keeps that title it should be expanded. However, I also pointed out the similarity to Vichy and the Belgian and Dutch governments, which may be of interest. 09:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby, thank you for your kind words. I think that we should not describe all three Baltic States together because there were significant differences between them. I also think that we should not combine collaboration with the Soviets with collaboration with the Nazis. Moreover, I think that in general the article should be limited to collaboration with Nazi Germany only. Marcelus (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already spun off collaboration with Japan. The problem with limiting it to Germany is the ethno-nationalist groups in the Balkans that seem to have collaborated with both the Italians and the German in order to get weapons, but that's another problem.
I think you are saying that in the Baltic we should not cover collaboration with the Soviets? If so: somebody asked whether we should address collaboration with the Soviets also, but I dont think they have a strong opinion on the matter and bottom line I personally just want the article(s) to be accurate, myself. Vollaboration with the Soviets might be interesting but would need to be written by someone who isn't me, is all I know.
A lot of people still seem to be afraid to touch the article, so my hands are kind of full and I definitely have many other more urgent fish to fry. Since there are a couple of other spinoffs happening, one at a time is definitely good though. Which one do you want to start with? And will you do it yourself or do you want me to do it? LMK.
Better yet, post at the talk page, but I don't anticipate any problems with the move as this has been discussed several times here and there. I made the Business collaboration section a draft and left the section intact. In that particular case I thought the text was rather list-like, though. if you do the spin-off, do it as you think best, but leave a summary in the main collaboration article, right? Elinruby (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that collaboration with Soviets should be described, maybe even deserves its own article, but shouldn't be described in the artcile about collaboration with Nazis. The problem with limiting it to Germany is the ethno-nationalist groups in the Balkans that seem to have collaborated with both the Italians and the German in order to get weapons, I don't think that's a problem really, it can be described here; I'm not advocating removing any mention of collboration with other Axis powers, it's just shouldn't be a focus. It's possible to creater article Collaboration with Fascist Italy etc.
I'm very much willing to help with the article, but not right now, because I'm focused on other topics, in particular UPA massacres of Poles, because I want to improve the article significantly before the 80th anniversary. Marcelus (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing my best to untangle Yugoslavia but that and Italy are two areas where nobody is stepping up but me, so I will I guess continue to stumble around there until someone else turns up who can do it better.
I see your point about the anniversary and agree that especially given recent publicity that those articles should be improved as much as possible before their inevitable spike in readership.
I may stop by and swipe some sources or even text, since I just removed the entire Ukraine section of the Collaboration article because it was entire devoted to those massacres yet all of the sources were self-published. Ok, all but one, plus a Library of Congress 404 page. Anyway. At the very simplified level of the survey article all I need is some sources, but I've just noticed that Holocaust in Poland uses some of the same sources. Pretty sure I can resolve at least the Collaboration section without help but I may have questions. Meanwhile I will tell the editor who is chafing about length/depth disparities that there is a plan and suggest he focus on France for a while, which has similar problems. I think we should focus more on expanding spinoffs than trimming existing sections, except maybe France, which duplicates a lot of Vichy France...etc etc
Without deleting a single word from the Baltic section of Collab with Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy — and not knowing of the above June 2023 discussion — I have just spun off an exact duplicate copy of that section as Wartime collaboration in the Baltic states.
Knowing how much time, effort, research and writing you did, at the request of @Elinruby: and myself, on previously rather-incomplete Baltic sections, I certainly didn't want to throw any of it away.
I had a twofold purpose, apart from preserving your work:
To allow the trimming of the long Baltic subsection of the parent article, so that it is more proportionate to other geographical subsections of the article, and doesn't slow readers down or dissuade them from continuing down the page. I was thinking (considering the relative lengths of other country sections) of 2-3 long paragraphs or 4-6 short paragraphs for each of the three countries. ¶ Since you did all that research and know the subject far better than Elinruby, myself, or most other regular editors of this article, you (if you had the time and patience) would obviously (and justly) be the first person to ask for any such abridgement.
To allow discussion of collaboration with the U.S.S.R., which seems to me to have a close, dialectical relationship with collaboration with the Germans. A Soviet collaborator would be a traitor to a pro-German collaborator, and vict-versa. It probably also makes the subject more comprehensible to those unfamiliar with the sequence of successive Soviet and Nazi occupations. That's why I chose to use the general term Wartime collaboration in the Baltic states (when & where; rather than with whom).
Other people are working on the problem, mostly at The Holocaust. I suggest you let that one play out a bit. Not that I am the boss of you or anything, but it would be a bad time for you to get into a squabble with a designated "good editor". I'm already in it because of the Collaboration article, which this wholesale rewrite of history does affect.Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in this edit, you introduced a number of undefined sfn references - Snyder 2010, Hilberg 2003, Kliymuk 2018. They are useless as references as nobody can look them up. If you could fix them then that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent articles, including Michael Chomiak, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You can also use a friendly script for that. You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus at your AN appeal, your WP:ARBEE 0RR has not been lifted, but has been reduced to a 1RR. WP:AELOG/2023 § Eastern Europe has been amended accordingly. Please remember that no one is ever entitled to a specific number of reverts; it is always best to discuss when in doubt. From your comment at AN I gather you know that, but I'm saying it anyways. On that note, if you don't run into any revert-related trouble after a few months of the 1RR, a second appeal would be reasonable. Happy editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)07:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcelus, regrettably, this nomination was made over a month after you created the article; for DYK, articles are supposed to be nominated within seven days of initial creation or appearance in article space, 5x expansion, or listing as a Good Article. Should the article ever be nominated to be a GA and then passed, you can renominate it for DYK within seven days of it passing. Thank you for your interest in DYK, and I hope your next nomination is made in a timely fashion so it is eligible for further review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz. Remember that although @Mzajac sees things differently from you, he is ultimately trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I'm concerned that your accusations of bad faith in the following comments were disruptive, distracting from the collaborative process of establishing consensus.
I already explained there why I stopped assuming good faith on his part. I also recommend you to set up account, because it's hard to follow your edits and comments. Marcelus (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please either take it to the administrators or abandon these claims of bad faith. There are proper channels for reporting misconduct, and WP:THREATEN is not one of them. Also, please see WP:GOODSOCK. (Also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just in relation to Security Service (Poland), remember to provide a suitable edit summary to ensure that attribution of text is clearly noted, as a large chunk of it was copied from another article (your edit summary of "separating SB from MBP" doesn't offer enough clarity). I have sorted this now. Thanks. Bungle(talk • contribs)07:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with decisions taken at WP:Categories for discussion, consider whether you have a fresh argument or fresh evidence to present, and if so then make a nomination.
There was a consensus to move 18th-century Polish people to 19th-century people of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – not just to create a parent category over Polish and Lithuninan categories. You already challenged that consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 March, unsuccessfully.
If there are blanks in a sequence for C18 within {{navseasoncats}}, the way to fill them is by creating redirects, e.g. [20]. Instead of that you removed some redirects, e.g. [21].
You objected to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian painters having a navseasoncats template as part of the Polish series, and you just removed it, [22] without giving any disclosure or rationale in the edit summary. Look, if it should be in both, then here is another way to do navigation links.
There is no consensus it was literally decision made by four people, most of them don't even edit in that area, the request was created by user who was later blocked for sockpuppetry. . No Wikiproject was ever informed about this discussion. I don't remove PLC categories, I'm trying just to fix the tree this decision made by four people damaged.
This move caused a big hole, as there is no categories for Polish people of 18th century. And the move was wrong because Polish state existed in 18th century, despite what the author of the request was claiming, so there was a Polish nationality in the sense of belonging to the Polish state, at that time. But overall the definition of nationality is much broader it covers both: belonging to the state, and belonging to the nation as a group of people connected by tradtion, history etc. Marcelus (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least you have stopped denying that you reversed anything, which you literally did – e.g. see the two edit summaries at the top here.
Therefore your complaint about lack of notification in Feb 2022 does not provide sufficient reason to discount the original consensus; I think it still do kind of, it was a huge change that was done very hastly, none of the participants was really active in this content area. Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023–24 Legia Warsaw season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cracovia.
Heyo!
I have never experienced a revision of a talk page. If you disagree or think it does not fit, why don't you just comment and ask about it? I am not that much into the Wikipedia-slang so unfortunately I am not aware what t/p means. However concerning the relevance of what I linked:
It's an article about fires that have an unknown cause in Russia that have been going on since the Russian invasion of Ukraine started. I implicitly asked for a fire in St. Petersburg that was reported by CNN to also be put on said list. The article by CNN even mentions that there have been multiple fires of this sort:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/03/europe/st-petersburg-fire-intl/index.html
Sorry I am just a bit confused. Any help is appreciated :)
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit-warring in violation of your one-revert restriction (with two previous blocks for edit-warring) on the page Povilas Plechavičius, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 months. 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.
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."
You are blocked for 2 months. This is because you made 2 reverts to the same page in a 24-hour period, and your response at AE acknowledges that you did so willfully (This seemed to me to be wrong and against the rules, so I restored the Polish name again with three sources, emphasis added). The block length is due to your history of edit-warring (and on the shorter side, at that). The discussion is still open because other admins might think a lengthening of the block or further sanctions are appropriate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, let me clarify: I did not do the revert willfully, I thought that since it added a new source (and C was undermining the previous source), and I did not remove any content, it was a new edit. Otherwise I would not have done it. However, on reading P's submission I realized that it was a revert and I accept that and apologize for exceeding the restrictions placed on me. This is simply an example of what I wrote in my appeal: "It's just very uncomfortable if you have to wonder if every edit can be interpreted as a revert or not". I generally accept any punishment. Please remove this entry if by writing it I am exceeding the block imposed. Marcelus (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what happens with the proposal below, I strongly suggest you need to take more responsibility yourself for your editing. What I mean by this is, for an editor still very new to Wikipedia, we can perhaps understand when they don't realise what they are doing is a revert. But when you've been hit with a specific revert sanction due to historic edit warring a sanction which you've had for long enough that it's been reduced from 0RR to 1RR, this is not something that should ever happen. You need to properly understand what a revert is and always be conscious of whether you're reverting. Do remember when it comes to reverting it doesn't really matter how "right" you may be, or how "wrong" whatever it is your reverting is, you still need to obey your restriction. Normally I'd mention WP:3RRNO, but in a case like yours, I'd actually suggest you mostly forget about that and instead treat your restriction as applying even it's technically not edit warring. (The exception you should remember is that reverting your own actions doesn't count.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I feel ashamed that I got carried away and did not think through my actions, although as you rightly point out I should have been aware of what I was doing. Avoiding completely reverting is good advice and I'll try that. Marcelus (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin I wonder if I could offer mentorship to Marcelus, and with this we could reduce the lenght of his block? I did find his edits in the articles I looked at generally constructive and helpful. His comment above seems to recognize the problem and show willingness to address it, IMHO.
In either case, Marcelus, I hope you don't mind my input. As Tamzin pointed out, your edits were very clearly a revert (restoration of something removed). Adding references to such an edit doesn't change the underlying classification of the edit as a revert/restoration.
Other than claryfing this, whether you accept any mentorship or not, and regardless of your appeal(?) outcome, my primary advice for you would be to take a break from the Polish-Lithuanian topics for few months, as this topic area is one you seem to get too wiki-emotional, and clearly, some other editors in it are more than happy to take you to admin boards (and perhaps vice versa). Finding a different area to edit peacefully will demonstrate to the community that you are productive editor who does not need any restrictions on their account, but this will take time. Think of it as a voluntary topic ban or like, and you can always take me up on my mentorship offer and ask whether your planned edit or engagement in a particular discussion in this topic area would be fine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here00:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Piotrus for the offer, I would certainly welcome such support if you don't have a problem with me bothering you. This would certainly help me avoid similar situations in the future, and avoid conflicts.
@Piotrus, @Tamzin, @HJ Mitchell: Let me answer here, because I can't in AE. Thank you for reconsidering my case. I gladly accept the Piotrus offer of mentorship. But I also have to agree with him that editing under 0RR is like walking through a minefield, so stressful that it actually equates to a ban in my opinion. And to answer HJ Mitchell: it seems to me, that I made and continue making progress. I admit that I screwed up, but look at it this way that I managed to edit successively under 0RR, and for some time under 1RR. It's not easy, believe me.
The other thing is that I feel cornered and I know that any stumble on my part will end in an automatic report. So, from my point of view there is not much difference between 0RR and a ban, it will mean suspension of my activity on en.wiki. At the time of the previous 0RR, I made the decision that I would try to edit regularly to show that I was capable of doing so without EW. Now I don't think I will be able to do it.
As for my email: I wrote it mainly to show you the context of my edits, and also to ask you to pay attention to this little section of Wikipedia. I made the decision some time ago that I would not write reports on other users, I don't fully understand how they work, and things that I feel are wrongdoings often turn out to be in accordance with Wikipedia rules.
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.
As discussed in the AE thread and above, Piotrus will also support you with mentoring. I encourage you to appeal the 0RR afte a few months of active problem-free editing. It's also worth noting that if there is further problematic from you, including breaching this revert restriction, it is likely that you will be topic banned or blocked for an extended period of time. I'll unblock you shortly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick mentor idea, Marcelus: best way to avoid revertion is to... create new articles :) There are still zillion of articles to be created or translated from pl wiki. Even in the Polish-Lithuanian history topic. Try to ignore "what is there" and just enrich Wikipedia with new content for the next few months. Creating content is FUN! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc and @Piotrus: Thank you for information and the advice, I will try to be careful and to engage in feuds and problematic editing. But just to be clear, am I now on 0RR in EE topic area, and on 1RR everywhere else; or is it 0RR everywhere? Marcelus (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
0RR is just in the EE topic area. Normal edit warring & revert rules everywhere else. Given you have this restriction and previous blocks its likely that any sanctions for edit warring in other topic areas will be quite heavy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc Just to be clear in case I am misunderstanding something - but I believe WP:3RR applies to everyone, everywhere (on wiki).
What Callanecc was saying, I believe, is that while outside of the EE topic area your editing priviligies are not restricted, it would be a bad idea to edit war anywhere in the near future (or more distant one too, but stress is on near, also considering you'll probably want to appeal your restriction). Try to limit yourself to one revert everywhere (this is a good rule I try to respect myself) and ask me for WP:3O as often as you'd like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Legia Warsaw in European football. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
I normally ignore this but you currently have used up all the patience I have available for your behaviour. They. I am a they. Thankyouverymuch. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding whether the Free City of Danzig is a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Invasion of Poland".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class, is awarded on behalf of WikiProject Poland and myself for your Poland-related contributions. Thank you!
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Union of Kėdainiai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish Livonia.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I substantially improved the text and the sources. I tripled the size of the article. They used my QPQ so that you are WP:DYK is complete. Credit for DYKs can be shared; Wikipedia is not a Zero sum game.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 95.160.159.96. Place any further information here. Marcelus (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 95.160.159.105. Place any further information here. Marcelus (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@331dot I'm edited from mobile phone, which have different IP because it uses different internet connection. My PC is still affected by the block. Also as you can see the problem is much broader, it's the second time this week this happened. This comment is also written on my mobile phone.Marcelus (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
Hi, you recently added footnotes for something by Walczak, but there is no source for the reference. If you could add one, you'll get the page off the error list. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Mykhailo Tkach. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Thank you for your recent articles, including Sigismund Augustus Gymnasium in Vilnius, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list by clicking the big blue button at WP:DYKNOM. Alternatively you can use the following user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Which can be activated with one click after turning automatic script intallation in your Preferences->Gadgets (check the "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files" option and save page; then visit the DYK-helper page and click install; then go to your new article and you'll find the new DYK menu). Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages
Thank you for your recent articles, including Sigismund Augustus Gymnasium in Vilnius, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You can also use a friendly script for that. Which can be activated with one click after turning automatic script intallation in your Preferences->Gadgets (check the "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files" option and save page; then visit the script page and click install; then go to your new article and you'll find the new Rater menu).
You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor mentor advice
It seems clear to me that you and Elinruby are not getting along well. I would recommend avoiding interacting with them, and where this is not possible, ping me for mediation and I'll try to make sure things are smoothed out and don't escalate. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my approach for some time; I don't initiate any discussion with them, and respond only when directly asked or I see some accusation made about me by them. Thank you for your advice. Marcelus (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Hey, just checking in, as it's been almost a week since I opened this review. Is this something you still want to work on? I think the article could still pass with some of the changes I suggested, I don't want to close the review after you've waited all this time for one. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Could you give me an indication of when in the near future you plan on getting around to this? I notice you seem preoccupied with other articles, and per GA guidelines, I'm not supposed to keep unaddressed reviews open much longer than a week. But it's now been more than two weeks since I opened it. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst Once again thank you for reviewing my article. I adressed most of the issues you pointed out, but I'm not entirely on board with every change you suggested, I expressed my point of view on the article t/p, looking forward to hear your opinion. Marcelus (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cześć. Użytkownik +JMJ+ z którym toczę spór, wynaradawia rdzennie litewską szlachtę odbierając jej polskość. Ten użytkownik jest znany ze swoich radykalnych poglądów na Wikipedii. W poprzedniej edycji, którą usunąłem, wyrwał z kontekstu źródła część, w której szlachta litewska opisywała szlachtę polską jako małpy. Wielokrotnie stosował zakłamania historyczne i manipulacje, aby dowieść swojej prawdy. Zmieniał nazwy kategorii na Wikimedia Commons na "litewsko brzmiące", a które dotyczyły spraw polskich lub białoruskich. Będę wdzięczny jeśli trochę się temu wszystkiemu przyjrzysz. Guccee (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, but let's talk in English. I noticed the text about "monkeys", it looked out of place and seemed like agenda pushing, and I was going to check the source. I will certainly look closer on that. But first of all let's avoid edit war; my advice is to restore stable name of the article and start WP:RM, hopefully it will gather uninvolved editors. Marcelus (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most reasonable solution for naming the article and leaving the name neutral will be "Nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", because "Nobility of Lithuania" may suggest to readers that all the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania belong to the current Republic of Lithuania.
It is worth mentioning that the vast majority (I suspect about 98%) of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were Polonized. Calling them Lithuanians, especially since they were associated with Poland for the most time of history and came from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which is not the same as today's Lithuania), would be unnatural.
I believe that we should not describe them as Polish or Lithuanian (or, according to some - Belarusian) nobility, but use a common name that would be most historically correct. Guccee (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guccee But the scope of the article is clear: the Lithuanian nobility, that is, the nobility of the Lithuanian state or living on Lithuanian territory, without distinction whether it is a Grand Duchy or a Lithuanian republic or yet another form of Lithuanian state. The fact that some of them polonized or even considered themselves Poles changes little, besides that it is included in the article. Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus Following your way of thinking, we could also create articles about the nobility of Masovia, Świętokrzyskie, Lesser Poland, etc., but still, after creating them, the nobility from these regions would be defined as, for example, Polish nobility from Mazovia or something like that.
Since almost 98% of the Lithuanian nobility was Polonized, shouldn't we call them Polish nobility from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? Guccee (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the subject is that the Polonized Lithuanian nobility is no longer Lithuanian, but Polish. This causes many problems that could be solved by calling the article "nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania". I propose the most reasonable and neutral solution.
@Guccee First of all: I don't see why there couldn't be an article about the Mazovian nobility, or even about only the petty Mazovian nobility. Secondly, I don't know where you got such a specific percentage (98%). Certainly, a large part, maybe even a majority of the Lithuanian nobility adopted Polish (either as the first language or as the language of public life) at some point in time, and this should be included in the article. However, this does not mean that an article on “Lithuanian nobility” cannot exist. The name “nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” is not a good one, if only because the article also covers the period after the fall of the GDL.Marcelus (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against making an article about the Masovian nobility. Many publications have been written about this subject in the past. However, by what I wrote I meant some broader content. According to Professor Błaszczyk, 98% of the currently living nobility of Grand Duchy of Lithuania have been Polonized, and according to Czesław Malewski, the president of the Genealogical and Heraldic Society of Lithuania., 100% of great Lithuanian families have nothing to do with Lithuania. It would be a bit of a paradox to call the Lithuanian nobility mostly Polish, which could be prevented by the nomenclature "Nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania". Guccee (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, 2024–25 Legia Warsaw season, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:2024–25 Legia Warsaw season a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible SPA
Hi, I had a question about a new user, Birczenin. He might be an WP:SPA, possibly a sock, created an account 3 days ago and engaging in advanced editing. He reverted your removal of an infobox and is mingling in discussions that started before he created his account. Do you have an idea what might be going on? Or is this nothing to be suspicious about? NLeeuw (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Izaak of Spain, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I moved it to draft because it only had a single source, which is not generally sufficient to demonstrate notability. If you’re telling me that the single source we have is authoritative and similar to a dictionary of national biography, that may be sufficient. Mccapra (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024–25 Legia Warsaw season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Książenice.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024–25 Legia Warsaw season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangor.
Hello, Marcelus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mykhailo Tkach, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
@Sir Sputnik: Firstly, it is important to clarify that this is not a rule but rather a recommendation from the WikiProject, and it is not mandatory. If you believe that the source is unreliable, I would suggest finding an alternative source and correcting the data if necessary. Removing an entire section simply because you have concerns about the source is not the most constructive approach.
In conclusion, I believe your entire edit should be reverted, because it wasn't justified. If you think there is an issue with the number of clean sheets for Kobylak and Tobiasz, please provide more reliable sources and make the necessary corrections, or start a discussion on the talk page. Marcelus (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In this context, that's you. If there are reliable sources verifying this content, by all means cite them, but don't expect me to do it for you. The unreliability of Transfermarkt is well documented, and well supported by consensus, hence it's inclusion in WP:WPFLINKSNO, to the point where editors who consistently cited it anyway have been blocked. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik This discussion goes nowhere, just FYI: you cannot present guidance as a rule.
Just restore the section your removed, you can delete references, I will provide other source. I try to avoid reverting other editors edits. Marcelus (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jan Kryst, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in revenge for the torture of Polish prisoners, the terminally-ill Jan Kryst walked into the Café Adria and shot members of the Gestapo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Kryst. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jan Kryst), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Sir Sputnik sorry I must have mixed up editions, I added a clean sheets section but this time with soccerway as a source. I don't know how this happened, I probably was editing it in two separate tabs, and confused them. Marcelus (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Sulkowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antoni Sułkowski.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
