GizzyCatBella (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Semper honestus (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 542: | Line 542: | ||
Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! <!-- modified from Template:Nothanks-web --> [[User:Gbear605|Gbear605]] ([[User talk:Gbear605|talk]]) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! <!-- modified from Template:Nothanks-web --> [[User:Gbear605|Gbear605]] ([[User talk:Gbear605|talk]]) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks [[User:Gbear605|Gbear605]], I’ll look at it when I get some time. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 17:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
:Thanks [[User:Gbear605|Gbear605]], I’ll look at it when I get some time. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 17:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
==CCI Notice== |
|||
Hello, GizzyCatBella. This message is being sent to inform you that a '''request for a contributor copyright investigation''' has been filed at [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations|Contributor copyright investigations]] concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to [[WP:C|Wikipedia's copyrights policy]]. The listing can be found [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#GizzyCatBella|here]]. For some suggestions on responding, please see [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Responding_to_a_CCI_case|Responding to a CCI case]]. Thank you. <!--Template:CCI-notice--> [[User:Semper honestus|Semper honestus]] ([[User talk:Semper honestus|talk]]) 19:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:11, 2 September 2020
Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Hello, and thank you for your recent edits to Kielce pogrom and other articles. Please note that Wikipedia's style manual recommends the use of "straight quotes" (see MOS:STRAIGHT). Changing a reference name from "Intermarium" to “Intermarium", as you did in several places, produces reference errors because the computer doesn't recognize the two names as the same.
Also, please familiarize yourself with MOS:LINK, the rules on what should be linked, especially WP:OVERLINK, the section on what should not be linked. Generally, we link a term on its first mention in an article and not on subsequent mentions. Linking it three times in one paragraph is never appropriate.
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Stop changing image sizes
because the resulting layouts are very, very bad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I disagree with your evaluation. In my view, they look much better. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Repeated references
When you see a reference of the form "<ref name=examplename />" (note the final /), it means that somewhere else in the article is a reference of the form "<ref name=examplename>Exampleauthor, Firstname (date) ''Example title''. New York: Publisher</ref>" Using "<ref name=examplename />" allows the reference to be used anywhere in the article, before or after the defining reference. It's a way of repeating references without having to fill them out in entirety. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks Ken GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
ANI Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Swarm ♠ 10:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Straight apostrophes not curly or angled...
Here you changed three straight apostrophes to angled apostrophes, which broke the formatting. See MOS:BOLD and MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it for me.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
WWII Collaboration article
Hi GizzyCatBella, I'd like to just make a note regarding objective assessment of sources in the WWII Collaboration article. I'm very concerned that the push to remove many of the references is passionate, but after a review of Wikipedia guidelines on reliable source those arguments hold no merit. It seems that any reference to the fact that Poles saved Jews is being removed. Also, other questionable and one sided recommendations are being advocated, which will create un-due weight. I’m not sure a compromise is the objective here, because if it was all references and estimates they present would have been respectfully acknowledged and shown to the reader. --E-960 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I’ll contribute soon, I’m very busy now.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello again, just wanted to perhaps give an example of some of the questionable edits and the flawed reasoning behind them, such as this one posted by user François Robere: "Yehuda Bauer calls the claim that 60,000 Poles saved Jews a blunt lie". This statement has nothing to do with collaboration, also it is from an article clearly marked as "OPINION" in the newspaper. Also, I suspect that it was only added to discredit historian Gunnar S. Paulsson's statement that "During the Nazi occupation of Warsaw 70,000–90,000 Polish Gentiles aided Jews, while 3,000–4,000 were szmalcowniks." — a statement which discusses collaboration and compares the scale of it. Examples like this, and several others are really concerning because they come across as petty POV pushing. Again, thank you for you work on this topic. --E-960 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, I’m aware of this. As soon as I’m able (maybe today) I’ll direct my time to address this and other issues. Nevertheless, I find the new version considerably good, simple to read and articulate the collaboration itself rather than other related things. The creator certainly put a lot of effort into it. His POV is noticeable but I believe he is honest when he declared that he was attempting to be fair. I think you should reconsider his variant with alternations of course. I’ll explain why on the relevant talk page later. I’m so sorry that I’m replying to you with a delay but I’m coping with some issues in real life. I promise I’ll donate more time to the article soon. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- I must admit, I'm very skeptical and hesitant, because his new version of the Poland section simply takes out the things he does not agree with, but retains all of his questionable additions. So, for example references form Israeli websites stay in, but those form Polish news sources were taken out, or minimizing the text on the Jewish Ghetto Police, while in contrast adding even more stuff on Polish collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, last point, also we need to consider issues of un-due weight within the article, after all it has sections about other countries, yet user François Robere wants to expand the Poland section even more, and create sub-section to it, this is all a bit too much in my view. --E-960 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I must admit, I'm very skeptical and hesitant, because his new version of the Poland section simply takes out the things he does not agree with, but retains all of his questionable additions. So, for example references form Israeli websites stay in, but those form Polish news sources were taken out, or minimizing the text on the Jewish Ghetto Police, while in contrast adding even more stuff on Polish collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, I’m aware of this. As soon as I’m able (maybe today) I’ll direct my time to address this and other issues. Nevertheless, I find the new version considerably good, simple to read and articulate the collaboration itself rather than other related things. The creator certainly put a lot of effort into it. His POV is noticeable but I believe he is honest when he declared that he was attempting to be fair. I think you should reconsider his variant with alternations of course. I’ll explain why on the relevant talk page later. I’m so sorry that I’m replying to you with a delay but I’m coping with some issues in real life. I promise I’ll donate more time to the article soon. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello again, just wanted to perhaps give an example of some of the questionable edits and the flawed reasoning behind them, such as this one posted by user François Robere: "Yehuda Bauer calls the claim that 60,000 Poles saved Jews a blunt lie". This statement has nothing to do with collaboration, also it is from an article clearly marked as "OPINION" in the newspaper. Also, I suspect that it was only added to discredit historian Gunnar S. Paulsson's statement that "During the Nazi occupation of Warsaw 70,000–90,000 Polish Gentiles aided Jews, while 3,000–4,000 were szmalcowniks." — a statement which discusses collaboration and compares the scale of it. Examples like this, and several others are really concerning because they come across as petty POV pushing. Again, thank you for you work on this topic. --E-960 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Nazism are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
collaboartion
What happened? I have to say that the last line of edits just messed up the entire Poland section, what was the point of moving some of the stuff into a separate Jewish section? In the process, any mention of Żagiew disappeared, and more stuff about Polish attitudes to Jews appeared. --E-960 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- This entire part had been deleted by one of the editors, so I recovered it in the Jewish section. I know it shouldn't be there but with Fr. stance it is impossible to have anything stable. You have to either agree with his bizarre belief that each and every Pole was a collaborator and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews including criminal Home Army or else. The article is blocked now, Fr has been reported for edit warring, and it is a good thing because this article needs some "vacation." GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- After the article block is lifted, I'd like to restore the text to the restored to the March 3rd version, when the last steps from the ORIGINAL discussion were done (merged back the sub-sections and removed reference to 2018 law) [1], I hope I can get some backing on this. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'll back you up but consider the elimination of some obvious stuff such as Home Army part etc. Polish section is excessively long, full of irrelevant material. I may give myself some break later because I'm a little spent debunking this ridiculous historical revisionism we are witnessing over the last two decades. Do you remember how it all started? I do very well. First bizarre accusation began to surface mostly in the Jewish press that Polish people were indifferent and didn't help enough. Then with the arrival of Gross, some Poles became associates in the killings. The latest appearance of Grabowski pushed this nonsense to all Poles as perpetrators lever that killed 200 thousand Jews by themselves. At this rate, we'll get to 6 million within 5-10 years and later that Hitler was Polish by 2050. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- After the article block is lifted, I'd like to restore the text to the restored to the March 3rd version, when the last steps from the ORIGINAL discussion were done (merged back the sub-sections and removed reference to 2018 law) [1], I hope I can get some backing on this. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment
"1945 - 1979 victims -> 1980-1989 bystanders -> 1990-2009 partners -> 2010-2018 perpetrators"
I don't think this was a very helpful edit [2]. It seems to suggest that editors are trying to present the Polish nation as strictly "collaborators" (?). It seems off-topic for the discussion, really, and also could come across (perhaps unintentionally) as disapproval of fellow editors. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman These are my reflections, I've lived long enough to remember these developments, don't take it personally. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Article* Talk pages are designed to advance improvements to the article, not contain personal "reflections". The side conversations are best reserved for *User* Talk pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman Perhaps others will recognize this happening as well and can extract something meaningful from that comment? I'll migrate that to my talk page if you don't like it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I would appreciate it if you moved it. It seems off topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany
I'm bit struck by the timing of the Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, I think this is a case of Content forkingand perhaps this article should be submitted for AfD, is anyone familiar with the process? --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, never mind just figured out the process here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany --E-960 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think that would be a mistake. This article provides a ground for clarifying many matters in one place. Nihil novi (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Footnotes 3-8 show "cite errors". Do you know how these might be corrected? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I don't but I'll look into it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting 3 of the references. Nos. 7, 8, 9 still read "cite error", if you can find the time to work your magic on them. Nihil novi (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! That now leaves only no. 55 "cite error".
- Great job with this article. Can we remove that silly banner in the Jewish-collaboration section?
- Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting 3 of the references. Nos. 7, 8, 9 still read "cite error", if you can find the time to work your magic on them. Nihil novi (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I don't but I'll look into it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I ask you to revert, Tags should not be removed until there is consensus for removal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are mistaken, what "Germany" you are talking about? GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- The Germany that Berlin sits in, the Berlin the text explicitly says "without Jewish help in administration and police work-the final rounding up of the Jews in Berlin..."...that Germany. The section bieng used it talking about Berlin, not Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also please read WP:WTRMT.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are mistaken, what "Germany" you are talking about? GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Witos
Polska Wikipedia nie podaje źródła. Nawet jeżeli ktoś chciał zrobić rząd, to Hitler był przeciwko, usunął też słowo "polskie" z nazwy GG.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018
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. NeilN talk to me 14:44, 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."
"Leszek Pietrzak" deleted.
The article was deleted on 4 May 2018. It might be resuscitated if more evidence can be secured and cited for his notability and that of his publications. Nihil novi (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll look for more today.GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Żebrowski
Thanks for the links. I've wondered, myself, why Polish historians don't work up the history—and publish decent English-language editions.(Nihil)
- They are starting to publish in English. I spoke just recently to the IPN people in Warsaw and visited Polonia House, they are all well aware of the need to publish English-language editions. I also had a long conversation with a British historian living in Poland who was just shaking his head while talking about the things that are happening now... It just takes time but it's coming.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
What is "lg. page"? Nihil novi (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I meant language by "lg".GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
More crazy tags
I'm not sure the latest tags just added by users Icewhiz and François Robere here [3], [4] are correct and perhaps should be removed, again these two guys just keep going at it, spamming the entire article with tags. --E-960 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Historians
Re: [5], "controversial" and "controversial in Poland" are different things. And what's with "Jewish historians"? Did you mean Israeli historians? Or the historians of Jewish descent? If the latter, it sounded a bit off. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I meant Israeli and of the Jewish descent, mostly from the US. It is obvious that these are the most involved groups of historians that are concerned. Same applies to the Polish historians, what is controversial in Poland is not controversial in Israel and vice versa. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to suggest that historians of a particular ethnic background cannot be objective when it comes to this topic. I think it's the wrong way to look at it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some historians are biased, even when they are honestly attempting to be neutral. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- True; but suggesting that their bias is based on ethnicity sounds a bit racist. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh I see. No, sounding racist was not my intention for sure. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- True; but suggesting that their bias is based on ethnicity sounds a bit racist. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some historians are biased, even when they are honestly attempting to be neutral. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to suggest that historians of a particular ethnic background cannot be objective when it comes to this topic. I think it's the wrong way to look at it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You may want to enable the option of other editors being able to send you email. Public discussions are of course the best, but there may be circumstances when people want to send you an 'eyes only' communique. Just a thought. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I’ll set up this tomorrow.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"Mark-Paul is one of the greatest Polish-Canadian historian dedicated to this particular topic"
Re: [6] - Then how come we know so little about him? Where was he educated? Does he have a PhD? Where does he teach? Are there scholarly reviews of his works, published in peer-reviewed publications? --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some think he is a monk. IDK but his work is really detailed and cited by many historians. Respected institutions reference him as well (see references in the actual talk page) so we, a bunch of amateurs can’t just wipe him out. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not sufficient. "His work is really detailed" and "cited" is not how WP:IRS works. What matters is whether he was professionally published (he was not) and whether his works were well received in peer-reviewed publications (it was not). --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- No... not cited by "many historians". Saul Friedlander's The Years of Extermination is cited by many historians (294 times for that work alone on Google Scholar). Rossino's work Hitler Strikes Poland is cited 137 times in Google Scholar. Gross' Neighbors is cited 724 times on google scholar.
- In contrast Mark Paul's Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Clergy is cited once on Google Scholar. Paul's Traditional Jewish Attitudes Towards Poles is cited once in Google Scholar.
- Or we can look at World Cat and the holdings in libraries. Friedlander's book is held in 1452 libraries in World Cat. Rossino's Hitler Strikes Poland is held by 717 libraries in World Cat. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners is held by 2733 libraries in World Cat.
- However Paul's Wartime Rescue is held by 7 libraries, and his Neighbors on the Eve is held by two libraries in World Cat. Paul's work is not having much impact on the scholarly community, which is a strong argument for it being fringe. And coupled with it being basically self-published... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not sufficient. "His work is really detailed" and "cited" is not how WP:IRS works. What matters is whether he was professionally published (he was not) and whether his works were well received in peer-reviewed publications (it was not). --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Paul's thesis
Since I did not get an explanation on the Talk page, I'd like to repost here. Here's what Paul wrote:
- There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting (...) in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag.
- Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10).
This is from pg 10 of Paul's Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust [7]. I interpret this as follows:
- In the Soviet zone of occupation, "Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting [ethnic Poles]", thus participating in the destruction of the Polish state.
- "Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany..."
- Ergo, Jews in the Soviet zone of occupation engaged in "de facto collaboration" with Nazi Germany in 1939-1941.
Is that a conclusion that seems reasonable given Paul's statements? Please help me understand the thinkng here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Jan Karski, decorated by Yad Vashem and an honorary citizen of Israel “The Situation of the Jews on Territories Occupied by the USSR”
The Jews here feel at home, not just because they are not humiliated or persecuted, but because their smartness and adaptability has won them a certain measure of political and economic advantage. The Jews are entering the political cells. They have taken over the majority of political and administrative positions, and are playing an important role in the labor unions, in the schools, and above all in commerce, both legal and illegal [loansharking and profiteering, illegal trade, contraband, foreign currency exchange, liquor, immoral pursuits, pimping and procurement] … Polish opinion considers that Jewish attitudes to the Bolsheviks are favourable. It is universally believed that the Jews betrayed Poland and the Poles, that they are all communists at heart, and that they went over to the Bolsheviks with flags waving. Indeed, in most towns, the Jews did welcome the Bolsheviks with bouquets, with speeches and with declarations of allegiance and so on. One should make certain distinctions, however. Obviously the Jewish communists have reacted enthusiastically to the Bolsheviks. … The Jewish proletariat, petty traders and artisans, whose position has seen a structural improvement, and who formerly had to bear the indifference or the excesses of the Polish element, have reacted positively, too. That is hardly surprising. But what is worse, Jews are denouncing Poles [especially students and politicians] (to the secret police), are directing the work of the (communist) militia from behind the scenes, are unjustly denigrating conditions in Poland before the war. Unfortunately, one must say that these incidents are very frequent, [and more common than incidents which demonstrate loyalty toward Poles or sentiment toward Poland].
Tatzref (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies from August 1939 to June 1941. They acted in concert to destroy the Polish state and its leadership, and to persecute Poles. Collaborating with one of these states in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other.Tatzref (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Archives
Don’t edit archives, as they are a record of what was said before it was archived. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- ok
Your reference isn't conclusive.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
DRN on AK
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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Home Army. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
AE
You've been reported.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
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 have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
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)
Potential ArbCom request
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)
Edit war
Please what is happening in the article History of the Jews in Poland and the Lwow pogrom (1918). There is an concerted attack going on.Tatzref (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I’m sorry, I can’t comment on the issue, I’m currently topic banned from all Poland/WW2 related articles. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Unless I'm mistaken, I believe your edits to the article violate the topic ban mentioned above, i.e. here: [8]. If this is the case, please self-revert your latest edit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was evaluating the page before editing, I believe there is nothing that breaks a topic ban imposed, but thanks for your note. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
...as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland
. Chodakiewicz is known for his writings about WWII history of Poland. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)- - meaning people involved, affected by WW2 such as Karski, Pilecki, etc. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've asked for a clarification: User_talk:Sandstein#Query_on_topic_ban. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've asked for a clarification: User_talk:Sandstein#Query_on_topic_ban. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- - meaning people involved, affected by WW2 such as Karski, Pilecki, etc. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella, you should not edit this article because it contains substantial text about the WWII history of Poland, as well as the sentence "His special area of interest is World War II and its aftermath". Sandstein 08:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Alfonse Pogrom) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Alfonse Pogrom.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Great article, very interesting. Had to use google translate for the references which possibly lose meaning on translation. Keep up the good work!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hughesdarren (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Re|Hughesdarren}}
. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Alfonse Pogrom
On 31 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfonse Pogrom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1905, three days of violence in Warsaw were possibly sparked by a Bund activist trying to save his sister from sexual slavery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfonse Pogrom. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alfonse Pogrom), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
copyedits
Hi, first thank you for taking the time to go through articles making such fixes. However, there are a couple problems in a few of them. In this you changed spelled out numbers to digits. Per MOS:NUMERAL, 0-9 are spelled out in words, and "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". We rarely should have single digits instead of words, and I'd say the same for ten personally but that can go either way. Generally if the number can be expressed briefly in a word rather than a numeral you will find it written out in prose. nableezy - 20:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I fixed it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. nableezy - 02:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
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."
Arbitration proposed decision listed
The proposed decision in the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case has been released, and it contains one or more findings of fact or remedies which relate to you. Please review this proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
twits
I know about that, and I'm 95% sure I know which scumbag is responsible. Never post links that include personal information! I have an email link: here is another copy. Zerotalk 09:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Thank you for the link. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
That was a kind word you had for Sir Joseph. I'm impressed. Thank you, GizzyCatBella.
starship.paint (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! That’s a gorgeous kitty GizzyCatBella🍁 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Why the revert?
This: [9].
On this article, Polish editors have been reverting all sorts of referenced information, including from sources such as Yale University Press: [10]. Why no objections to that?Faustian (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Faustian, because they ("Polish" editors) were removing another information, it doesn't give you the freedom to retaliate by eliminating well-referenced data. That is a very improper way of resolving disagreements. Please discuss the issues on the related talk page. Hopefully, you can compromise on the desired version. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FTSE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thank you. I hope this button is a correct way to thank you for your message GhettoInvestigator (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
You twice added an unsourced category to Adolf Warski, please stop
You were reverted and then reinstated the category without adding a source. That's against policy. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- And three others. You may be right, but WP:VERIFY means you need reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- How to add a source[11] to category?GizzyCatBella🍁 10:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- You don't source the category, you source a statement in the text that justifies the category. But let's start with categories. You should read Wikipedia:Categorization particularly the bit about "defining characteristics" at WP:CATV (which also speaks to my point about sourcing). Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality are also useful. And if you are going to add categories to living people, you must read WP:BLPCAT. And there's a faq: Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization.
- Now to how to add a source - read Help:Referencing for beginners. Note you need page numbers for books. I'll leave you to it now, please fix your latest edits, ok? There's quite a bit to learn if you want to seriously edit Wikipedia, and to be honest, categories are something I still need to read up on at times. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ok GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- How to add a source[11] to category?GizzyCatBella🍁 10:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Ways to improve Lew Szwarcman
Hello, GizzyCatBella,
Thank you for creating Lew Szwarcman.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thanks for creating this article
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 prepend it with {{Re|Abishe}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Abishe (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
re: Call for supervision and question
I replied on my talk page in more depths. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Avoiding TP
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
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_C 17:12, 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
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_C 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi El_C, no, I don’t think it will discourage me, I’ll do my best. Thank you. :) GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's good to hear, GizzyCatBella. I wish you success and happy editing. El_C 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
That really made me laugh :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Found it only now, via Icewhiz Protean efforts at cloaking via semi-SPIs:
- Certainly Kasia, (can I call you just Kasia?)GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- You may, it is my name. I excited to work together.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:48, 14 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)
- You may, it is my name. I excited to work together.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Troll level: master! And it worked.
Bows also to Boing! said Zebedee Zezen (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
Hello, I'm Soumya-8974. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_27#Censorship_in_Poland that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please don’t alter my comments, that has been left for the record. The user might have to be reported if the WP: HOUNDING continues. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I did not realize that I was wikihounding around. However, please strike your personal attacks. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- NOT you wikihounding. Just let it go ok? Thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
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.
MarnetteD|Talk 23:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- No problem! Thank you for the kitten. :) GizzyCatBella🍁 00:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Could use some help
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)
- What kind of help do you require specifically?GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
DYK for The Undivine Comedy
On 17 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Undivine Comedy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the drama The Undivine Comedy has been recognized as one of the most significant works of literature of the Polish Romantic period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Undivine Comedy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Undivine Comedy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and edit warring
I have declined the RFPP request. If I was to protect the article it would be full protection to force the discussion to the talk page rather than take sides in a content dispute. The IP has opened up a talk page discussion. Please discuss rather than edit warring. Woody (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Arb Enforcement
A discussion regarding your topic ban and your recent edits will appear on WP:AE. Notrium (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Notrium, maybe you can add a diff or two here before going ahead with that...? El_C 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it's already been filed at AE. Never mind. El_C 16:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @*Notrium - Seeking to get your opponents sanctioned for disagreeing with you as you just did here [12] 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 [13] 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)
- Ok Notrium, I removed that part from my comment. Now please move on and if you could stop posting on my talk page I would appreciate it. Thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:53, 28 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 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)
AE decision
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_C 23:44, 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)
- 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)
grammar in quotes
Regarding this edit, we dont correct the grammar of quotes, and if you look at the source here youll see that it says
"We are trying to be strong here in the Land of Israel, the people of Israel. Rina believed in that," he was quoted as saying. "Our response to the murderers is that we are here and we are strong and we will prevail."
Can you re-align our article with the source for the quoted portion please?nableezy - 13:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- nableezy - looks like RexxS has corrected that already [14]. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
On Tadeusz Kosciuszko
Hello, I thank you for your concern about the article, however, it is misplaced. Having provided two sourced statements and using a source (book by Korzon) already used in the article, they should not elicit such a strong reaction. Could you please explain where my changes were wrong (apart from might makes right). If we are to improve Wikipedia collectively, we should engage in dialogue.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
On Tadeusz Kosciuszko (...)
Poland is not Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Grand Duchy of Lithuania.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages
Thank you for your recent articles, including Chabad Lubavitch of Poland, 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 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 here 05:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Arb Enforcement again
A discussion regarding your topic ban and some of your edits will appear on WP:AE. Notrium (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
interaction ban with François Robere and Notrium
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
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 Moi 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Madonna of Częstochowa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Nazi edits
Many of the small grammatical changes you've made to cvarious Nazi-related articles have been incorrect and I've reverted them. I suggest you reconsider making these kinds of edits, as your grammatical sense does';t seem quite up to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously Ken? [15] Come on. :) GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. Please don't make changes which are grammatically improper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- How about you be careful not to restore crap into articles, hua? [16], [17] :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding that, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS
GizzyCatBella, thanks for your edit at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS. I thought that was a good suggestion in your edit summary in that one, so I've started the new article in Draft. Please come help out at Draft:Catholic Church and the condoms. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved your comment down
I am sure this was an accident but when you don't use indenting and place your comments above others, it makes it appear that people are replying to you when they are not. I moved it down to below the comments that went before, however if you meant to reply to someone feel free to move it again with the proper indenting.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not alter other people's comments or move them into different places, this is also wrong, but I appreciate you informing me about it. I’ll link the polices if you want me to. Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁 15:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sure here is the guidline. You should use indentation following examples from here. Per the example you should have indented once and added your update to the bottom of the section. By doing it your way you made it appear that one of my comments was a reply to your comment. I did not alter your comment.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
POINTy comment at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS
@GizzyCatBella:, I'm generally sympathetic to some of your views on this article, but not always to the way your choose to promote them. This edit of yours, written in the form of an article-move proposal at Talk:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS is very WP:POINT-y, and is obviously not meant to be taken seriously by anybody. This is an abuse of process. I would ask you to reconsider, and either close it, collapse, it or just announce that it was a joke, and was not meant to be taken seriously.
POINT says, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point," and that's exactly what this is, as is clear from quoting your frustrated comment in the section above it, about "'The condoms and condoms including condoms plus the Catholic Church and condoms have been involved in the HIV/AIDS pandemic condoms since its earliest days of condoms.....'" Please close your "Second alternative proposal", and make your point about why condoms are overrepresented in the lead and/or in the article in a way that complies with talk page guidelines and behavioral guidelines. I think this was just a momentary misstep on your part, but do understand that a pattern of doing this could get you blocked. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot, but I was serious about renaming the article part, I responded to you on the talk page there. I was going to drop arguing about it after my latest comment there, but I think I'll continue until some kind of consensus is achieved.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gizzy, I admire your passion, but sometimes you are your own worst enemy. If you had just stopped after the first sentence above (about being serious), perhaps you might have succeeded in dispensing with the POINTy accusation. By adding the second sentence, you simply confirmed it; sigh. Now, enjoy this song. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot I mentioned at the article that "I’m out of here” right here[18] then I crossed it out because I decided to continue participating after our conversation[19] This is really unfair that you keep accusing me of some kind of game playing and fooling around.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, but thank you for the song, nice :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- If I read you wrong, then I apologize, but please understand how you come across sometimes. Glad you liked the song! I was about to change it for this better version, which at least has visuals. Enjoy! Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, I kind of understand that it could sound comical that new title, but I didn't mean to sound it this way. I swear. Hey Mathglot, but what is your opinion on that article? This article is now about the Church, and it's opposition to the use of the condom, no? Or I'm just plain wrong? I'm so sure I'm right about, but maybe you tell me as an uninvolved what you think? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good question, that deserves a good response. I need to have another read-through to adequately respond to your question, but the impression is that it's way too front-loaded with stuff about condoms. As with any article, the article title defines the topic, and says what it's about, and the WP:LEADSENTENCE should very much align with that. Beyond that, I hope I can get back to you with some more well thought out feedback, but I'm a bit overextended just now. Feel free to ping me, if you feel like it, in a week or so if I've forgotten. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, I kind of understand that it could sound comical that new title, but I didn't mean to sound it this way. I swear. Hey Mathglot, but what is your opinion on that article? This article is now about the Church, and it's opposition to the use of the condom, no? Or I'm just plain wrong? I'm so sure I'm right about, but maybe you tell me as an uninvolved what you think? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- If I read you wrong, then I apologize, but please understand how you come across sometimes. Glad you liked the song! I was about to change it for this better version, which at least has visuals. Enjoy! Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, but thank you for the song, nice :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot I mentioned at the article that "I’m out of here” right here[18] then I crossed it out because I decided to continue participating after our conversation[19] This is really unfair that you keep accusing me of some kind of game playing and fooling around.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gizzy, I admire your passion, but sometimes you are your own worst enemy. If you had just stopped after the first sentence above (about being serious), perhaps you might have succeeded in dispensing with the POINTy accusation. By adding the second sentence, you simply confirmed it; sigh. Now, enjoy this song. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you are serious about changing the name of the article you might want to follow the direction here. That will get more people involved and let everyone know you are serious. I am sure mathglot won't mind you closing the earlier section and starting over.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly would not mind. Gizzy, if you do decide to go down that path, are you familiar with it? WP:RM#CM has some similarities with Rfc's, but there are some important differences. If you open a WP:RM, then closing the existing discussion would be a good idea; see Template:Archive top. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not familiar but I’ll read about it. Okay so I’ll close that using Template:Archive top, if I make a boo-boo closing it could someone correct me please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot It worked! I closed it-->[20] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice! (For a second there, I though you were rickrolling me; but you'd never do something that puerile.) Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- :) :) I'm still learning these editing codes, sometimes I make a change, and my text looks bold or is messed up terribly some other way. That's why I thought I would make a boo-boo, as I usually do with those codes. But I'm getting better, no issues this time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ya did great. Feel free to tap me any time you need help with something like that. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Mathglot! :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ya did great. Feel free to tap me any time you need help with something like that. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- :) :) I'm still learning these editing codes, sometimes I make a change, and my text looks bold or is messed up terribly some other way. That's why I thought I would make a boo-boo, as I usually do with those codes. But I'm getting better, no issues this time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice! (For a second there, I though you were rickrolling me; but you'd never do something that puerile.) Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot It worked! I closed it-->[20] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not familiar but I’ll read about it. Okay so I’ll close that using Template:Archive top, if I make a boo-boo closing it could someone correct me please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly would not mind. Gizzy, if you do decide to go down that path, are you familiar with it? WP:RM#CM has some similarities with Rfc's, but there are some important differences. If you open a WP:RM, then closing the existing discussion would be a good idea; see Template:Archive top. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stanisław Michalkiewicz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United People's Party.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
(My best friends and fan’s stocking records) While tedious WP:DENY is only for blocked socks
While it may be tedious to get users you believe to be socks blocked, it is necessary if you want to revert them per DENY. Otherwise it is just a standard revert that counts toward 3rr and edit warring.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of new and/or dormant accounts coming out of the woodwork, that's for sure. El_C 16:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sadly, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Hoepfully, they will move on to another topic shortly.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @AlmostFrancis, sure, :) but that will be another topic where I go :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sadly, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Hoepfully, they will move on to another topic shortly.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
My my funny fan’ stocking records (from Aug.23 for now) :) - [21],[22],[23],[[24], [25]
In relation to this, I wondered, who do you suspect of sockpuppetry? WP:SPI would be the way to test it. As for the edits they appear ok to me, it's known that abstinence-only teaching fails. —PaleoNeonate – 06:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is no point of reporting them, they are all behind proxy's, hard to prove. I know who they are. It's a long story, not even worth talking about, really. I’m used to this stocking now and don’t really care that much. (but they think I do, lol, so they keep doing it :) ) - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Anticommunism
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)
- What the hell is anti-Communist about stating that something was (per sources) Communist[26]? Come on here fellow.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: You can't even call a nation with its name. Your edits intend bad faith. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:22, 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)
- @GizzyCatBella: You can't even call a nation with its name. Your edits intend bad faith. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- What the hell is anti-Communist about stating that something was (per sources) Communist[26]? Come on here fellow.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 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)
Copyedits
Thanks for your edits to BDS movement. I noticed that you also spelling-corrected text in quotes. Was that intentional? ImTheIP (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Might be mistake, let me check - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Copyright problem: Stanisław Michalkiewicz
Hi! In [27], you added what appears to be a direct translation of a source ([28]) 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:
- Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Stanisław Michalkiewicz, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
- 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.
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . 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.
Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Gbear605 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Gbear605, I’ll look at it when I get some time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
CCI Notice
Hello, GizzyCatBella. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Semper honestus (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)