Hello there! Regarding your edits on the Compiler and Runtime library articles, it's all about preventing issues later down the road no matter how much better things look at the moment with additional formatting – and I agree that additional vertical spacing is required there. For example, recent typography refresh changed a lot, and any non-standard explicit formatting is simply a call for troubles. Thus, you should see how to modify the troublesome templates, so additional vertical spacing becomes introduced that way. Hope you agree. — Dsimic ( talk | contribs) 01:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
|style=
parameter? Seems like that way sidebars should align perfectly with the lead section both when there is a hatnote and when there it isn't (tried it out in Firebug, and it worked as expected). Thoughts? —
Dsimic (
talk |
contribs) 02:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
option, but eventually you get the worse of all worlds: Where there's a header template the margin should be ~0.85, and where there isn't it should be ~0.25, and 0.5 (which, admittedly, is a reasonable average) just doesn't hit either. That being said, until this is solved in the parser level I see no better solution other than doing it manually in each article (which, while problematic from a technical perspective, produced the best overall results), given that they are all monitored over the long term. For the time being we can leave
it as is (give or take an additional 0.05em of padding) until a better solution comes along.
François Robere (
talk) 11:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Law of attraction (New Thought), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like you're marking all of your edits as minor. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Astrology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong ( talk) 22:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive removal of the {{ more plot}} template at Bad Biology. WP:FILMPLOT says that film plots should be between 400 and 700 words, and we need a complete description of the plot for this film. If you want to discuss it, take it to the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
after a careful study and being a Razdan, I discovered that Razdan originated from the Zoroastrian priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta (The holy text of the Zoroastrians). Razdan means "To know the secret or sacred words". Razdan's are Kashmiri and migrated from Persia, modern day Iran. The first iteration of Razdan comes from the god of the Zoroastrians Ahura Mazda which translated means Ahura - loving or light and Mazda - word. The priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta were refered to as the fharazdah. Later as the priest and religion migrated east and settled in Armenia, they grew Zoroastrianism and gained wealth and land. The Hrazdan river in Armenia, was given the name from the priest as the locals could not pronounce fharazda and instead pronounced only the "hah", this area was the second major known anthropological resting place for modern day Razdan's. Eventually as the priest migrated through the Indu Kush and established themselves in Kashmir they brought with them wealth, horses (aryans), and knowledge of ancient teachings of Indra (a zoroastrian god, not hindu) and fire ceremonies and were given the designation of Kashmiri Pandits or Priest of Kashmir. Because in India priest were brahman caste, these Kashmiri Pandits were also designated as brahmans. This history predates the census report of 1800s and dates back to the time of Zoroaster himself. Please correct the article. Razdan's are not Indian, and more correctly we are migrants of Persia and the geneological names and lineage clearly show that. I've seen multiple other places incorrectly refer to the census report and refer to Rajanak. Razdan still today means "to know the secret or sacred words".
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Rahul K. Razdan
Almost two months back you put a tag on this disambig page (Uncertain dates) and created a lot of red links. Please would you tell me what caused you to do this. I think there may be a misunderstanding. Thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion and this part of the film MOS. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, François Robere!
Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
fasinating!
To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Bfpage let's talk... 00:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
People editing in the I/P area are limited to 1 revert per 24 hours. At 2000 Ramallah lynching, you broke this iron rule, which is covered by sanctions:
You have only one option which is to restore the text as I edited it. Secondly, I added an important note from a new source, and you cancelled out the key details, and the RS source. Nishidani ( talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The 2000 Ramallah lynching was a violent incident that took place on October 12, 2000 at the el-Bireh police station, where a Palestinian mob killed and mutilated the bodies of two Israel Defense Forces reservists, Vadim Norzhich (Nurzhitz) and Yosef "Yossi" Avrahami who were taken into custody by Palestinian Authority policemen after entering Ramallah.
In conjunction with the notice just above, you should read this. In ARBPIA related topics (basically anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed) editors are restricted to one revert per 24 hour period (not 3 like everywhere else). People get blocked for this regularly, even on a first offence with no warning. A little over 24 hours also usually counts as a violation. You should keep this in mind when editing in this topic area. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. I don't edit much anymore so might miss your replies here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I took the trouble to make your citations readable. 09.08.2012 can be the 9 August, 2012, or the 8 of September 2012, depending on what convention dmy, or month day year. See Date format by country. I've had this problem with different newspapers, and that is why I changed it. Secondly, it is normal to provide a title of the piece, which your edit didn't. You are entitled to do that, but can hardly object to an attempt to clarify for readers what the topic of the article is. One doesn't have copyright on one's work in Wikipedia. Even editors one might take a dislike to can make useful corrections. We got off on the wrong foot? That's history, forget about it. Nishidani ( talk) 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani neglected to inform you that he mentioned you in this complaint at the administrators noticeboard. Up to you if to respond or not. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It's rude. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I've closed your case but have attempted reopening the original complaint you made at ANI as it is clear you wish to discuss the conduct displayed by the user in question. If that fails for some reason, please let me know. Nihlus 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not your "old chap" and I am not your "darling" or "dear". You are unwelcome on my talkpage. Please contribute to the discussion The appropriate talkpage. It's on my watchlist, so I'll notice. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I love your sense of humour and appreciate how very patient you must be to do this all day( Thedecentone at User talk:Kleuske)
What do you want? You pinged me and two other editors, but you didn't make a coherent request. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is what I see. The basic issue is indeed a content dispute. User:Kleuske has made substantial revisions to the article, removing a considerable amount. You initially posted a complaint at WP:ANI against Kleuske, but you didn't state that Kleuske had done anything that would warrant sanctions. You said that you wanted "the admins" to do something about a user, but you didn't make a case as to what if anything the user had done wrong. You did state that you wanted the "stable" version of the article restored so that it could be discussed, but you didn't give a reason why Kleuske's edits should be rolled back other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't made a well-reasoned content argument, other than that you disagree with her edits, and you haven't made any conduct argument. Please do not open a new conduct thread unless you can describe a conduct issue. If you want to discuss content, because you disagree with Kleuske's edits, you still can do that, as long as you focus on content. Now - What do you want? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to block you, because I think we have not arrived at that point. I am, however, going to caution you to be more attentive to the comments of those who disagree with your edits and proposed edits, and to make more use of Wikipedia's processes for achieving broader consensus, such as WP:3O, WP:RFM and WP:RFC. If you are confident you are right, then an RFC with a neutrally-stated premise, will give you the support you need. Please also be less aggressive in your comments to others. If you continue to be belligerent and personalise disputes, you will most likely be blocked or banned. Please consider this both warning and counsel. I have no dog in this fight, but if you have people like Robert McClenon criticising you, then you are definitely doing something wrong. Numerous venues exist for discussing edits and sources in a calm and collaborative way, please use them. Guy ( Help!) 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
[[WP:]]
s. I personally heard the lines "I tried editing there once" and "I used to edit there, but..." on more than one occasion, from people whose professional and academic proficiencies are indisputable. I'm not bothered by Robert McClenon, and at this point I'm not sure I would care even if did sanction me; but Wikipedia has a problem - a serious problem - and that problem manifested throughout this whole thing; you won't hear it from people like McClenon, content as they are in the forest of policies, guidelines and other cultural artifacts that Wikipedians begat for themselves, but you will hear it from everyone else; and when everyone else are criticizing you, then you're definitely doing something wrong.
François Robere (
talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
References
I appreciate your input on the editing issues described on the talk page of the Vagina article. I am only coming to your talk page because I didn't want this note to get lost in all the goings-on. I have to agree that things got rather complex and you seemed to sift through it all pretty skillfully. Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts here, but as I noted there, you do not appear to be familiar with WP:MEDRS and other guidelines and norms for editing about health, and as far as I can see you have not dealt much with alt med and pseudoscience, which are topics that have discretionary sanctions on them. While I appreciate your effort to help, offering opinions that are not based in an understanding of the policies and guidelines is not ultimately helpful. Please reconsider offering third opinions on those matters until you understand that underlying policies and guidelines better. Best regards Jytdog ( talk) 21:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, François,
At this discussion, regarding proper pronoun usage you said, "I try to use 'they' to avoid gender-related mistakes..." but there's a better way: intead of "they", use "{{ they}}":
If you wish to change your pronouns, you can do so by going to your Preferences. HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
François, thanks for working with me on the article, let’s pause the editing of this article for some period of time because it has been reverted too many times already. This may be viewed by some as a Edit War. Cheers GizzyCatBella ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I read the Polish press and I can tell you that the issue of Polish complicity in the Holocaust is not controversial in Poland at allIndeed, it is just widely denied, at least from what I'm seeing time and time again. Would you prefer we go to my original phrasing? François Robere ( talk) 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Francois, in response to your recent message to me on the other page, I’ll utter my thoughts here instead. You mentioned an antiSemitism in Poland. It's true, Poland had a very large chunk of antisemitic element among its populace always. It is somehow typical because that was where the most Jews lived for a 1000 years, you don’t have antisemites in Greenland, don't you, LOL? The conflicts between Jews and Poles were mostly based on the faith disputes and economic issues. Some Poles, for example, being Catholics unfairly blamed Jews for the death of Christs. Some Jews, on the other hand, favored other Jews in business and discriminated Polish traders. The list of this minor conflicts between the Jews and Poles is very long but in general Jews in Poles lived in Poland together in relative peace and harmony for centuries. This all changed on the outbreak of the war. Jews lost all rights because of the Nazi orders and that is when some of the antisemitic elements within the Polish society blossomed. Jewish life was worthless, criminal element further demoralized by the reality of the war took advantage of the situation and committed many crimes against the Jews, rapes and murders. But you need to understand that these people didn't represent Polish society as a whole. Majority of the Poles were rather sympathetic to the Jewish situation, and many actively helped despite the fact that any help was punished by death (imagine that!) Now think how painful it must be to those righteous Poles and their offsprings when they hear that “the Polish Nation is complicit in the Holocaust" this is unfair. Guilty is the criminal element of the society, not the Nation. The reason I’m writing all this to you is to strive some kind of understanding and sensitivity of how the Poles feel about all of this. PS I’m old Francois, some Jewish blood here also:) you can say that I’m telling you all this from my life experience GizzyCatBella ( talk) 21:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Interested in giving your third opinion a second time? The third party has organized a new soure which he believes to back up his change from 1879 and 1890 and naming Italian Eritrea as a successor state. In reality it's just a more detailled version of what we already observed: There was some armed resistance after the imprisonment of the last Bahr Negash. It even states that Ras Alula was the de facto ruler over the Eritean highlands, so it's a shot in his own foot really. If you would state the obvious we could reverse his changes without many problems. GG LeGabrie ( talk) 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Francois Sorry about not getting back to you earlier, too busy. Good work on the article C. with the Axis P. looks much better in many aspects especially that it has been abbreviated. Now, when I read it I do sense, however, an unintentional POV from your part. It all comes back to what we talked about previously, (remember?) your strong opinion. Expect an invasion of other people with Polish POV. You may contemplate working on some things a little to avoid that. For example, you stress Grabowski’s finding as an undisputable and eternal truth. However, his finding of 200.000 plus Jews killed by Poles is in fact unusual. He goes against the finding of everybody else, other than Gross but this guy has very little credibility. Secondary, you need to add that the police blue police (former polish police) had to report to duty for the Germans or face the death penalty. There I more but start with polishing that, otherwise, you will find your version changed, I’m certain of that. I don’t want that to happen because I like it, you did a good job. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Hey GizzyCatBella,
https://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Victims-During-English-Hebrew/dp/0896040550 This is not a bad work by Gutman and Krakowski (you know who they are right?) a landscape of conclusions from a Jewish viewpoint. You should read François one day if you haven’t already. I usually read historical work of both views and draw my own opinions. I can suggest some work of respected Polish or other scholars for comparison if you are genuinely intrigued by the topic. https://www.amazon.com/The-Holocaust-and-European-Societies-Social-Processes-and-Social-Dynamics-The-Holocaust-and-its-Contexts/dp/1137569832/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8 GizzyCatBella ( talk) 08:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
[9]: you should also restore the reference that backs it up. Currently this number is unsourced. I support the resotration of the sentence we had in the article, which cited several historians. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect that is not what you asked, you asked what she meant by Money being behind it, not what evidence she had for the bias of some sources, please drop this now. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
We have a compromise over at Polish collaboration, and your objection to it reads more like "I do not like it" then any valid objection. As the page is under DS this might not be a good stance to take. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not here to report "facts" we are here to report what RS say.Oh, and I haven't asked for RS maybe 20 times?
I found sources that back here claim, how come you have not?Because it's not my burden of proof. Bella made the claim, Bella needs to back it up, and you should be asking Bella why she didn't, not me. Have you? François Robere ( talk) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
she has accepted it why I am going to ask her why?You didn't answer the question. I asked you why you keep bothering me, and never warn others against edit warring, "cherry picking", refusal to discuss, insulting other editors, flooding the talk page to make a point etc. etc. François Robere ( talk) 19:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi FR, can I just ask you to use a more standard format for reference sources, we constantly get these 'Cite Errors' at the bottom of the article, that a reference source was citied but not referenced, I suspect it's related to formatting issue. -- E-960 ( talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The book about the GG is the only recent one about the GG in English I know. It's rather about the Holocaust in GG than about the GG, but still contains some informations. I have explained who were Communists in Poland and why I believe that the subject covered in the book deserves to be mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 08:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Context in TP comments
I see you left me a message on the need for context in TP comments. I think that...".
as you did here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing to inform you that an AfD debate has been initiated for the article Environmental inequality in Europe (formerly Environmental racism in Europe). Thanks, Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the second time in the last two days that you've made passive aggressive personal attacks (the other time is here). I guess you think that phrasing it with phony-concern with my well being is either funny or it excuses the actual nature of what you're doing. But it's not and it doesn't. So please refrain from these kind of comments in the future.
You might also want to explain why you blind-reverted an edit without bothering to read what was in it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it.
How about you "focus" your RfC (and format it properly) so that it doesn't propose one thing, and then tries to sneak in another?
And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian... Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem
As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum!... YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING.
Please, come up with better excuses for reverts.
Hi FB, could you just fix the 'cite errors' that came up after the NSZ changes. -- E-960 ( talk) 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This will be deleted in 36 hours, so take your own off-Wiki copy if you want it. Zero talk 09:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
If there are any Polish-Jewish articles discussion might have stalled but fixes are needed. I think most of the articles stabilized in the past few months, hopefully more because we reached consensus than because of the unfortunate topic bans, but I also haven't been that active. If there's anything you think we should work on, do say so. It would be great if we could reach consensus before said topic bans expire, so that when our colleagues come back there's less reason for any more disagreements. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
[23] I have the book "The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945" in front of me, there is nothing about Antyk on page 385.Can you explain this? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
While both solutions have pros and cons, I'll point out that the old school style of references ("five refs for Piotrowski, etc.") allows Google Page links to individual pages. Unifying references often removes those links, making verification a bit more problematic. Not that I intend to revert one change over another, just pointing out why I generally prefer and use separate refs for each page if possible (and links are available). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This is particularly true when content is under V/NPOV contentionWhy? You can add page numbers and quotes with {{ r}} as well. François Robere ( talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
<ref>
, to allow multiple footnotes with quotes that all use the same citation (eg. <ref>{{r|Source}}, p. 5: "quote"</ref>
), but it didn't really work.
François Robere (
talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)I see that you moved the reflist-talk that displayed the references in my comment at this AfD. Please don't change my comments. I wanted the references to be seen at that point, and I have moved it back. If more reflist-talk's are needed, they can be added at any time. There can be more than one in the discussion. Thank you. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear François Robere! You undid the government response in the article, while at the same time added two noname someones' opinion to the page. In the wikipedia if we are discussing a debate, than the principle is that the argumentation of both sides must be presented equally, and can not be disqualified as "not RS on academia" etc. Your contributions raises the issue of POV pushing. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Please reconsider what you delete or not. It is not only an academic question at stake, but a legal issue - and in this field, the government totally has the right to respond.-- 5.204.115.190 ( talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It IS POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 ( talk) 19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete the US Ambassador's opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 ( talk) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
You deleted sourced info. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 ( talk) 06:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
As discussed in more detail at AE, I am warning you not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence. The Arbitration Committee has decided in this respect that "an editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. ... If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums". If you continue to engage in such conduct in topic areas where discretionary sanctions are in force, you may be made subject to bans, blocks or other sanctions. Sandstein 22:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
[There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[24] François Robere ( talk) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:21, 26 February 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."
, I suspect that GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources; all in violation of any number of policies;
[There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[25] And third, that user just edited in clear violation of AE and got a slap on the wrist, [26] and you're blocking me from the entire encyclopedia for a week? You're out of line. François Robere ( talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to note, again, that our admins have been consistently negligent in protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism. The fact that Bella is still allowed to comment anywhere even vaguely related to Jews and Jewish history, after having committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has, is a sign of their failure. That you were implying a specific editor to be an ethnically-motivated vandal is clear. If someone is actually an ethnically motivated vandal, you provide proof with diffs and bring it to ANI and they will be blocked, but you don't get to use it as an attack and trump card in disputes, especially for requests that are apparently unrelated to the person in question. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
[Bella has] committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has- that is well supported by Sandstein's comments in that case and doesn't require further proof. I did not accuse Bella of vandalism - that is your inference, and you should've asked for a clarification before sanctioning me for it. As for prejudice - the anti-Semitic context of the discussion is well established, as evident by Sandstein's own comments (for which he wasn't blocked, or even admonished):
GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources.
the account's singleminded crusade towards adding racist pseudohistorical sources, nor another editor who accused a third for
[filing an] obvious "payback report" for the fact that [his] partner in edit wars... recently got indef blocked(an accusation he made many, many times before), suggests to me that you blocked me from the entire encyclopedia not for policy violation, but for criticizing admins. François Robere ( talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Summary of events
|
---|
Regarding
this AE discussion and
this diff, which resulted in a week-long complete block:
I criticised the admins for allowing ongoing antisemitic abuse on pages related to the Holocaust and Polish Jewry. I did not single any user "out of the blue", nor did I make specific accusations that weren't already on AE record. The admins' reading of my comment as if I had done so was wrong, and their reaction punitive and disproportional.
|
@ Sandstein and TonyBallioni: I have some questions to both of you regarding the above.
VM didn’t add diffs because he assumed I knew what he was talking about. The same applies here: I assumed Sandstein knew what I'm talking about, as he was the one who banned that editor, and earlier that day engaged (and absolved her). Why did you accept in that case but not in this one?
the points VM raised could have been the basis for an AE report against Icewhiz... I don’t think it’s appropriate to be sanctioning someone for commenting on one AE thread about issues that would be a valid report in another. This isn't something VM said - it's your statement, and it could apply here equally well. Why didn't you raise it here, only there?
François Robere ( talk) 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
there’s a difference between a content dispute and what at face value looks like a tit-for-tat AE report:
if you had made the same report at AE... I would have blocked you and closed it for the same reasons: You're just repeating what you said earlier, which is not helpful. Do read what I wrote and try to be helpful by telling me exactly which part you object, and why.
I’m not in the business of comparing sanctions: every situation is different and every editor and action is considered holisticallyWell, you're in the business of WP:ADMINACCT, and you haven't really explained how all of this sits well from a holistic perspective.
"WWII is a major area of scholarship, and virtually all reputable sourced end up being published in English" - This is an extremely parochial, Anglo-Saxon-centric, ignorant claim which borders on racism. It's also completely false. Hate to break it to you, but English speakers, their bloody conquest of the world and all, do not actually have a monopoly on truth. Indeed, the more interlinked the world becomes and the more freely information flows across borders, the more we discover and the more obvious it becomes just how limited and, well, fucked up, this kind of Western-centric exclusivity actually is and how much damage it has done to human knowledge. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
And in this particular topic area the glaring fact is that most authors writing in English, with some notable exceptions, either don't have access to, or simply don't bother to consult, primary sources because these are not in English (or possibly French or German). And to be frank, most Western historians can't be arsed to learn a language that is not one of those three. Which makes them actually WORSE secondary sources, not better. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you read The Fox Effect? It's not an accident that Fox is a propaganda outfit, it was the entire reason it was founded. Ailes believed that the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post and New York Times. And incidentally, Network Propaganda is a very compelling argument against pretty much all right-wing media sources. 152.62.109.216 ( talk) 16:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that you are or were interested in creating an RfC on Fox News. I found a report from Media Matters for America on how Fox News mixes disinformation with the hard news every day in its hard news division at https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/05/13/fox-news-lie/223683 that was released on May 13, 2019. However, this report focuses on the actual video channel and not on the content on the Fox News website, so it could be somewhat irrelevant. I just do not have the time to start an RfC or read the whole report at the moment. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 04:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Fox News' news (e.g. not pundits) division on climate change:
Please be a little more careful in your future editing than adding mention of an obvious joke to a WP:BLP as if it was a serious statement made by said living person. I know you're on a crusade against Fox but that doesn't allow you to ignore some of our more serious rules. 199.247.46.106 ( talk) 06:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Please restore the comments that you deleted on the RS noticeboard Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
In the BLPNB discussion you wrote "...that Poled killed between..." Did you mean to use the word "Poled"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
diff - Just Do It. Well, OK, I don't want to sell shoes. I did find the program somewhere, and some of it is described in accounts in the article. Most of program details are in French (at least the sources I've found - I suspect there's Polish too somewhere, but I've been working of EHESS and French sources more than Polish). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Joseph Berlin, does not have enough sources and citations 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.
Hitro
talk 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
To this. Oh no, I am not really involved in editing this page and the subject area. You are involved a lot, and most tellingly even after the end of the official arbitration, with ridiculous comments like that, litigious complaints and block shopping. Frankly, this is not helpful. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I know that Molobo is a highly opinionated contributorHe's not "highly opinionated", he's biased and careless, and I'm not the only one who noticed.
How come? It does support the statement.No, it doesn't, as I repeatedly explained throughout the discussion. [48] [49] [50] I encourage you to re-read the sources, or in the very least the quotes, and see how they line up along these distinctions (and others introduced later in the discussion).
I would never frame this phrase as Molobo didHow would you "frame" this phrase?
More important, you are fueling a long-term conflictI repeatedly offered an alternative phrasing, as well as asking Molobo for his own. I suggested following the advice from NPOVN twice. He made zero effort to compromise, or even to review his sources - he never admits a mistake, so trimming his additions isn't an option. The only thing that got him to change his behavior, if only temporarily, was messaging Sandstein and taking it to NPOVN. How would you have handled it? François Robere ( talk) 20:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how you could possibly read those diffs like that. There's a fine line that needs to be treaded here, so as not to make an already disgusting discussion unbearably so. I didn't enter this discussion lightly; I only did so because I think it's important both within and without Wikipedia ( note, explanation). There are certain narratives that are being pushed here: the same editor who pushed this change also brought faulty sources to argue against property restitution; censored various bits on antisemitism in Poland; and even inserted a poorly-sourced statement to an article on a long-dead Israeli PM, about his father being " Judenrat". We ought to be ever more precise and careful if we don't want to present our readers with a skewed image of reality. François Robere ( talk) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
All of that does look to me as a POV editingOr a conservative approach to sourcing on a volatile issue?
Strangely, but it is actually you who complained about these contributors on arbitration pagesIt's "contributor", singular, and Ealdgyth and Icewhiz mentioned him as well. François Robere ( talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
With regards to telling other editors to "get a fucking life
" (
[56]).
Personal attacks are not permitted on our project, and that applies to arbitration space as well.
SQL
Query me! 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on LGBT-free zone. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 ( talk) 09:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories, then it's pretty clear from LGBT-free zone#Demonstrations. cf. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which has the categories Ethnic cleansing in the Americas ( Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest#Impact on indigenous people) and Environmental disasters in South America (despite the word "disaster" not being used anywhere in the article) attached. François Robere ( talk) 10:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It can also describe politically-motivated violence by non-state actors... against other non-state actors. Non-action on the part of a government can also be characterized as a form of political violence, such as refusing to alleviate famine or otherwise denying resources to politically identifiable groups within their territory.(from that article). That seems to describe both some of the support of the "zones" (eg. by Clergy), and their very nature - denial of rights (not to say of existence) of certain "politically identifiable groups". François Robere ( talk) 10:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
You wrote on Talk:LGBT-free zone: AFAIK no one else here is affiliated with any organization that's engaged in related activities. So, upon what do you base this knowledge? It is a fact that I have voluntarily declared (some of) my affiliations on my user page. It is also a fact that neither I, nor anyone else here, is required to disclose affiliations except when they are being paid to edit about them. The vast majority of editors here act pseudonymously and reveal as little as possible about ourselves! So I am intrigued by your insinuations (along with @ Jackgrimm1504: that really nobody else but me could possibly have a bias regarding such a topic -- just because nobody else has volunteered to say so. Actions speak louder than words: I have been a Wikipedian in good standing for 11 years, with zero blocks, and I edit all sorts of topics and articles. I am not here to promote my bias, I am here to improve and build an encyclopedia. Once again -- if you believe I have a genuine conflict of interest then report it through the proper channels and don't attempt to air dirty laundry on an article talk page, where we discuss improvements to articles, not one another. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your thoughts over this thread. ∯WBG converse 19:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you, sir! François Robere ( talk) 20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It’s obvious, but I thought I'll ask you to confirm. Who are you referring to as that “one particular editor” here [61]? GizzyCatBella ( talk) 17:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User:François Robere/sandbox/Dealing with racism on Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bovlb ( talk) 04:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I accidentally blocked you, my sincere apologies. Guy ( help!) 21:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
You need to remember that Marek is also interested in the Icewhiz situation, and he is as convinced that he is right as you are. Your best course is to make it really obvious which of you is trying hard to assume good faith. See what I mean? Guy ( help!) 22:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information on Wikipedia.[note 1] Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.
I suggest you ask admins to remove edits where you posted links to article doxing one of Wikipedia users. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit here as the discussion is now closed. If you have further comments about an arbitration decision, please consider following the appropriate channels as listed in the note which closed the discussion. – bradv 🍁 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi François, you said there was no way to invite people like Dreifuss or Grabowski to review our articles. Actually, there is. Any editor can invite them to review an article—or even just a particularly contentious section—and post their findings on a talk subpage or send them privately to the editor. Another way for them to get involved is through the Wikipedia education programme. They could use Wikipedia as a teaching tool and have their students make corrections. That would be extremely helpful, so long as the students used English-language sources by Holocaust historians. A lot of the problems in these articles could be fixed with the involvement of mainstream Holocaust historians. SarahSV (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
You are reported on WP:AE [64]. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Joshua Steinbock, does not have enough sources and citations 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.
Onel5969
TT me 23:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
To this. I do not think this is a problem for WP because almost all contributors are anonymous in this environment. You do not know the gender, ethnicity, age, etc. of other contributors, unless someone was outed or wanted to disclose something about herself/himself. One can judge others only based on the pattern of editing, but this is people's personality, rather than anything else. In fact, I did not see any ethnicity-based or gender-based discrimination around here. If anything, I think admins were generally more supportive of editors who could be viewed as "pro-Jewish", but I see this along the lines of an "affirmative action". Speaking about other biases, I think there is a significant liberal/leftist/socialist bias on the site, but everyone has a bias, and having a bias is not a discrimination, and not really a big problem - as long as people agree to follow all editing and behavior rules. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent articles, including Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study, 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 at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent articles, including Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study, 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 01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I do want to draw your attention to this, in light of the fact that the WCC article, among others, falls into the scope, and it is quite possible controversial newspapers fails this remedy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, and only reflects my personal notes about what I think others said. The closer may or may not look at it. FYI, I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast clarification. I'm still a bit confused.... where you wrote "hatting" to me (and I think most editors) that means using the archiving templates like {{ Hidden archive top}}. I think you mean changing the way we now use the various WP:Hatnotes. If so, others may more easily follow your comment if you make an appropriate tweak. If you just change the original, I doubt anyone will complain. No one has commented on that aspect of your remark, and we're all working hard to keep organized. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
We go through three main phases of evolution of terminology here.
That's how it seems to me, anyway. Guy ( help!) 14:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
After watching a documentary on Netflix I was looking through the article on John Demjanjuk. It appears to have been completely taken over by people claiming that Demjanjuk is innocent or should not have been tried, despite his conviction for being a guard at Sobibor in 2011. That's leaving aside whether he was "Ivan the Terrible" at Treblenka. I wonder if you might have a look at the sources employed. Can you think of anyone else knowledgeable about such things who'd be willing to cleanup that article?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Speaking about your edit summary here, I do not think this is covered by the sourcing restriction for Poland in WW II. However, just to be sure, I filed a clarification request at ARCA. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
My family was killed by AK fascists, despite this my grandad served in the Red Army and liberated Poland from fascism. Is what going on the Home Army article OK on Wikipedia? Polish blogs and right-wing media? Aren't there rules against this? Is there management I can complain to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that the D part of this is used before AE. Those letters, not mentioned in that link, are not conductive to creating a good editing environment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI. In this edit [65] you gave this diff [66] as an edit by Molobo, when I think you meant this edit by Molobo that you linked to in the other thread above [67].-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no intention of reporting you anywhere, but I just wonder if in light of the recent source remedy, you think that [68] is an acceptable source or not? It seems to be a self-published lecture, no better than the lecture notes you criticize at Talk:Home Army, and in fact even worse, as unlike AC's notes, it has no bibliographic citations or such. In other related news, I invite you to comment about source issues I raised at Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. PS. I strongly suggest that no report should be made to AE about any source without a prior talk discussion about it, preferably at RSN. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Due to your constant snipe remarks about my person, posting, addressing me by my wrong name, and repeated calls to sanction me to editors based on closed Arbcom case I suggest you read WP:HA Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing As per above I request that you cease making comments about me unrelated to discussed topic of Wikipedia article, address me by my full account name and stop trying to reopen Arbcom case which was closed long time. I am fully prepared to discuss subjects of articles, sources and other issues, but your constant addressing of my person instead of the subject at hand needs to stop.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, pls stop with selective editing, you removed a quote by a reliable historian Marek Kornat, who is coming out with a biography of Lipski, and gave several interview on the matter since Putin's remarks inlcuing here on PolishRadio [74]. Since, this false claim about Lipski was made just a few days ago, news website will be the only sources that will have a direct reference to the issue. Also, the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland put out a statement in which they criticized Putin's remarks about Lipski, citing an example of when Germany started to expel foreign Jews living in the country, Lipski and the Polish diplomatic service rendered them assistance, so statements opposing the anti-semitic narrative about Lipski are justified. So again, pls refrain form selective editing of the text. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that AE ruling is pretty clear: [75]: "Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy. Using it as a source does not violate the remedy.. " The clarification requests to Arbcom did not seem to have produced any conclusive rulings and the remedy in question has not been clarified or adjusted since said clear AE ruling was made. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC) PS. Rather than try to reinterpret the Arbcom ruling, I'd suggest tagging those parts with {{ better source needed}}, and we can discuss that particular article at WP:RSN if needed. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm. [80]. What do you think about this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Clashing with [81]...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
In an off wiki discussion someone pointed this article is non-neutral, and I tried to remedy it a bit. I don't know who else may be interested in this topic that is, well, not topic banned or worse, and the more eyes the merrier, etc. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 "hounding" accusations
|
---|
WP:HOUNDINGPlease halt WP:HOUNDING, following me around and reverting my edits as you did here: [83] and here: [84] and here [85] and here [86] and here [87] and here [88] PS Also. Do you have a source that Adam Mickiewicz was an Lithuanian? I advise you self revert. Thank you. GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
FR, can you pretty please consider that we are all here to build the encyclopedia, and working together is preferable to fighting? We should assume good faith and work together to improve the articles. Reporting others instead of trying to discuss things with them, mentor them even if you feel you know better, is not very constructive. I would be happy to act as a mediator, if you have concerns over editing of Bella, how about asking me to review it first? I would also be happy to advise Bella on whether an edit is fine or breach the T-ban. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:HOUNDINGPer WP:HOUNDING please stop following me around like you did on Mragowo article and others you have never edited before I did [102].You have engaged in following me around before [103] and I ask you to stop this now. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC) April 2020In this edit at 20:45, 31 March 2020 you removed properly sourced content and the source without explanation. That is the first edit you made to that article. Your edit summary was ping|MyMoloboaccount. In this edit at 20:46, 31 March 2020 you removed properly sourced content and the source without explanation. That is the first edit you made to that article. Your edit summary was ping|MyMoloboaccount. If you can't come up with a convincing explanation of those edits made within a minute of each other, or a full apology and assurance that this sort of thing won't happen again, I'm going to block you indefinitely for WP:HOUNDING. -- RexxS ( talk) 09:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Look, you need to understand how this looks to an outsider. Two editors are in conflict. One looks through the other's contributions and then edits articles they had never before edited to change the other's edits. Let me explain, in case it's not already obvious, if you're in conflict with another editor and they have already complained three months ago about you following their edits, it's an incredibly bad idea to then take it on yourself to follow them again and edit their contributions. No matter what you think your intentions are, that behaviour is indistinguishable from wiki-hounding: "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing ... for no overridingly constructive reason." I don't accept that it has to be you who corrects MyMoloboaccount's grammatical errors. So, last chance, what assurances will you give that I won't find you creating the same pattern of contribution-following an editor you're in conflict with in the future? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
|
I've written a thorough explanation of the above, which I'll make available on request. As of May 2020, VM remains T-banned and GCB's T-ban lift request has been denied. [130] Several discussions have taken place within the TA since this affair was concluded, including the following: [131] [132] [133] [134]. François Robere ( talk) 09:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
As of April 2021:
François Robere ( talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I don’t know what this is about, but it’s probably a bad idea to disparage people based on their looks on an administrators notice board. Kleuske ( talk) 14:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
FH undoubtedly represents one side of the debate. I just created an article on a book representing the other (and more recent) view, Such a Beautiful Sunny Day: Jews Seeking Refuge in the Polish Countryside, 1942–1945. Feel free to help expand it (and maybe you can help locate more reviews, I linked one on talk I couldn't access). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Francois, I really hope our discourse does not degenerate into personal attacks. If I ever say something you find offensive, you are welcome to ask me to refactor it. Which is why I'd also ask you to refactor the comments at You're coming awfuly close to claiming racist perceptions are based on objective reality. and antisemitism is the result of Jews being "collaborationist communists", which is what you're promoting here. I find your recent comments way over the top and I'd appreciate an apology. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what makes you think that anyone here is trying to deny that antisemitism played a role in it. I'd have thought that by now you had done enough reading in this topic area to understand that antisemitism and like don't appear out of the thin air. It is only reasonable that a background section should explain why antisemitism lingered, grew in strength and eventually resulted in this calamity, and per numerous sources cited, such an explanation clearly involves issues related to the Żydokomuna stereotype.
I wrote "the stereotype was an effect of antisemitism, not a cause". I wasn't claiming you had said it. I don't understand what's meant by this:
While there maybe some fringe feedback (a very tiny number of young Jews might have assumed that since Poland is antisemitic, the 'brave new world' of the Soviets is not - and note this is just a speculation, I'd need to revisit the sources to see if this is supported), it is a very minor element of the story, and likely not relevant to the Jedwabne, and it certainly not what I said, nor intended to.
SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴 Talk🌲 Help out at CCI! 20:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, while the image may be used under a CC-NC-ND (non commercial , non-derivative) license, which appears free, WMF has required use to treat free images as defined at Free license via [139] (see m:Resolution:Licensing policy and the first section "Free Content License").
That means a free image must be reusable by all - including commercial users (meaning an NC image can't be free) and must be able to be modified (meaning a ND image can't be free). As such that graph exerpt is not a free image per our policies, and thus is non-free. And because that's a non-mainspace page, it cannot be used there. -- Masem ( t) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trying to do some technical work and I'm being interrupted by getting notifications from you every few minutes. Stop that now, please. I've stated my position quite clearly and I don't expect to have to repeat myself. If you're dissatisfied with the reply I've given you, you have the option of taking your complaint to ANI, because you're wasting both our time by further arguing the toss at my talk. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, please read WP:PROD as an article that has previously been deleted at AFD cannot be prodded if it is recreated. Also it is not permitted to replace a prod that has been removed, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting a typo here [142], however I am flabbergasted that you consider it a source misrepresentation, and would ask kindly to retract this bad faith accusation. Btw how did you find yourself to the article, I don't believe you edited it before? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
his father looked the other way when anti-Jewish violence spilled on to the streets.
his father would "look the other way" when faced with Jewish violence on the streets.
I pinged you at your AN thread, but it wasn't a new line so you might not get it. No need to reply to me here, just letting you know in case you aren't watching AN. Primefac ( talk) 21:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
François Robere, pls drop the WP:DROPTHESTICK. You keep forking this issue every time the discussion is coming to an end. The discussion was about the use of the word "never", and I agreed with you that that is not the best wording. Now the issue of the Polish Constitution came up. Again your approach is not neutral, because your wording ties the definition to just one issue, what about polygamy (it is legal in some countries), so just to say what the law defines as marriage in Poland is sufficient, and the reader can make their own value judgment based on this. -- E-960 ( talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
your wording ties the definition to just one issueIt's not "my" wording, it's yours - you explicitly added the statement at that time to resolve this disagreement. [147] You made the connection, not me. And BTW, I can't find any discussion of that article with respect to polygamy; if you have any, do share. Cheers. François Robere ( talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
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)
Well done, as usual Francois. nableezy - 12:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Your latest edits have breached the 1RR rule on both Haavara Agreement and Rezső Kasztner. Please self-revert. RolandR ( talk) 15:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
At the Hamas article, as explained there, your editing in respect of the addition of an image without consensus for that can be construed as tendentious and a slow edit war. Kindly self revert. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
In particular, anybody who gets into a revert war to add or remove language relating to abortion from an article would be covered by these sanctions. You would be on safe ground if you wait for agreement on the talk page before changing such language. If it turns out that you can't edit neutrally, there is the possibility of a topic ban from abortion. You recently opened a complaint at WP:AN3 about another editor where the issue in dispute was how to describe the abortion law in Poland. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
François Robere, in order to allow for a productive discussion to take place on the talk page, it might be a good choice if you just took yourself out from further editing — this based on your comments, such as this one "I don't know, nor care." As I mentioned before, someone reverts your edit ( Wikipedia:Tendentious editing), and you throw a tantrum and start re-inserting the text or make even more changes across the entire article (instead of sticking to the discussion until a consensus is truly reached). Also, someone challenges your point with source(s), and you make dismissive and belittling remarks, such as the one above. I was taken aback by such a crude comment. I mean, if you are not interested in the article subject matter, why get involved in the discussion? Please be respectful of other editors and their efforts, as I'm trying to approach the discussion in a constructive manner. -- E-960 ( talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi François Robere,
Just to inform you: I put a request on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Just that the talk might come to a solution soon...-- Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 14:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I made a request at REFUND, where I said you suggested I review the Paul Joseph Watson article. The deleted revisions were restored. I did look at them. I saw nothing obvious, so I was going to go to where you made this suggestion, and ask you why you suggested it.
I apologize.
The suggestion was made at Angeli's AFD, not BLPN, and you didn't make it.
If my comment mystified you, and you wondered whether I was playing games, or just overtired/going senile, it was the latter.
Cheers Geo Swan ( talk) 04:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you help me? The text I added days ago was deleted because it was too similar to the one in The Times of Israel source, so I tried to rewrite it all over again:
Polish historian Tomasz Greniuch, who wrote a book called "The Way of the Nationalist" in which the Nazi collaborator
Léon Degrelle is glorified, headed the IPN office in the city of
Opole for three years. In 2021, when he was appointed head of the office of the Institute of National Memory, images of Greniuch giving the
Nazi salute during the demonstrations of the fascist and anti-Semitic movement
National Radical Camp were released, causing a scandal that led to to protests also by the Embassy of Israel. In 2018, Greniuch was awarded by the President
Andrzej Duda with the Bronze Cross of Merit, a state award awarded for his study of "cursed soldiers", the Polish resistance fighters who opposed the
Soviet Union during World War II and after the war. Following the scandal, Greniuch resigned from his role.--
Mhorg (
talk) 17:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Polish historian Tomasz Greniuch, author of the book The Way of the Nationalist, was appointed in 2021 as head of the Institute of National Memory office in the city of Wroclaw. [1] Greniuch had previously headed the institute's office in Opole, and in was awarded the Bronze Cross of Merit by Polish President Andrzej Duda, for his work on the " cursed soldiers". [1] When images of Greniuch giving the Nazi salute during the demonstrations of the ultranationalist [2] far-right movement National Radical Camp were released a scandal broke, with the Israeli embassy in Warsaw rebuking Greniuch and several politicians calling for his dismissal. [2] Greniuch eventually resigned from his post. [1]
References
Please see - [157] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this is just an info that there has been a thread opened about Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 21:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Continuation of the same story: I have prepared a (rather long) text about behaviour of some editors on the article. I intend it to file to either BLP noticeboard or ANI, but first please review the text and suggest any possible changes to it (preferably by trimming the text's length). Thanks. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
By obligation to notify users concerned in the ANI case, I hereby notify you that There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 17:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
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 don't get ownership of an article because you once were active on it. You haven't edited Jan Grabowski in over a year and today you jumped in and edited the same exact section that GCB was editing with the very next edit. Because of that, I blocked you for 48 hours -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
As of March 2023:
The text no longer exists in the article. It was amended two weeks after this discussion took place, and was eventually removed. [174] Sources available at the time that would shown that WP:BANEX applies include:
François Robere ( talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Please reads wp:outing, it does not matter how obvious it is, if it has not been publicly declared here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
As I said in my reply to his piece, published in the same venue ( [175]), etc. [176] Cheers. François Robere ( talk) 10:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The referendum did not happen because most Conservatives MPs wanted it on its own merits: most did not. The reason was that UKIP was taking 10 - 15% of their vote which, in the UK's FPTP electoral system, would mean that many would lose their safe seats. Cameron thought a referendum would be an easy win and would lock the issue away for a other 50 years. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Give a date, don't give a date. 2016? 2020? Still dragging on?. I played with all of those and was not really satisfied. Maybe I'm too close to it. I'll be interested to see how others respond to your version, but at least we agree that Brexit is an extended process, not a moment it time. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
FR, for this [177] flash of genius, I hereby award you the EEng Burma-shave Platinum Medal of Achievement, with Tiny Sapphire Chips and Diamond Sprinkles. Well done! E Eng 03:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi François Robere. I want to offer my sincere apologies to you, here rather than somewhat in passing at RfAR. I failed you on more than one occasion, which has been a source of deep regret for me for some time now. El_C 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi François Robere, I know you are very experienced with academic sources. In your opinion, is the motivation used to remove this content acceptable? [178] [179] [180] Academic sources are not always accepted? Or is it a problem with the site they are uploaded to? Thank you for your possible help.-- Mhorg ( talk) 21:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi François Robere, perhaps you saw that Mathsci has been banned from Wikipedia. He’s been edit-warring not only in musical topics… In his farewell-statement, Mathsci identified his friends/network, like Smerus. This made me understand things much better, see things clearer: Mathsci and Smerus, together with Nihil novi, as you might remember, started dominating a RfC about Frédéric Chopin, filibustering without end and like that omitting sources and quotes they didn‘t like. More than once obviously acting as a group. [193] [194]. Now knowing about Mathsci’s friends and their conduct, shouldn’t there be a reassessment of the results of the RfC? Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 07:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I edited this talk page to remove lint errors, including missing end tag and obsolete HTML lint errors. This is specifically authorized in Wikipedia:Linter#How you can help. The edits left the display unchanged. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 07:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
{{
they}}
, had merge warning boxes that were generating
div-span-flip or other high priority lint errors. When I edit a page to fix lint errors, I fix all that I can. I fixed everything except the errors generated by the template warning boxes, and others edited the templates and fixed the warning boxes, so this talk page is now lint-free. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 17:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)As you did at Political editing on Wikipedia. Keep it up and don’t be surprised if you get blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
VM never corresponded with Lovkal nor edited "COI editing on Wikipedia", which means he must've followed me to both. I have no idea about any of that, and atm I know next to nothing about... whatever this is — but that should probably be addressed (though, probably not here, at a venue in which VM can't respond). El_C 09:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller, yes, you assumed correctly. For the record, the following is a timeline of that dispute as seen through the article's revision history (Oct 17-21):
+1,425bytes stub ( diff).
+22,075bytes worth of content ( diff).
The question that François Robere originally posed on my talk page, and which I then brought to your attention here, remains, however. And that is: how did VM even know about this page, that François Robere had created a day earlier, in the first place? El_C 11:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
watching Robere's contributions— that would be WP:HOUNDING. El_C 14:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political editing on Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Wareon ( talk) 16:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, with regard to this [197], I might have made a mistake, but I don't know where.
Were you referring to this discussion at NPOVN? In fact, the two discussions concern the same article, but have different topics: the removal of the section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces (NPOVN) and the inclusion of references to mass rape and rape as a weapon of war in the lead (ORN). Since the topics are different, I thought a unified discussion on the same noticeboard was not desirable.
Or were you referring to this discussion at RSN? In this case the topics were identical, but I was convinced by MVBW's argument that the right forum for discussing it was not RSN, so I closed that discussion and linked it in the new discussion I opened at ORN.
As I said, I may have made a mistake (opening two threads for the same article; opening a thread at RSN and then withdrawing from it) but I don't understand what I should have done differently.
Thanks, Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 11:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
You are mentioned extensively in the recently published academic paper Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust [198], for all the right reasons of course. Thank you for the good work. Happy reading. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 03:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
These guys are not my colleagues, I do not know them, and I never edited their BLP pages. But they put themselves in an extremely precarious position. The privacy issue alone is a huge problem. Consider a medical researcher who does a study with patients. Mentioning them anonymously in a paper is fine. But consider him writing their real names and mentioning: "and BTW, their stolen email correspondence is here". That guy would be out of his job tomorrow, and it does not matter if Arbcom decides he was right and bans the patients. Yes, I know that privacy in medical research is covered by special regulations, and of course these " human subjects" are different . But still... Of course I may be wrong because I have never been a member of ethics committees who debate such cases, and I do not want to be. Actually, I am amazed how reviewers of their paper missed it, so this is now may be also a responsibility of the editorial board/journal. But I am not surprised by the poor quality of review, I have seen worse. They could easily fix it in the paper by removing a couple of phrases and links. But they did not, which together with other highly personal and charged accusations, suddenly transforms a potentially legitimate scientific publication into an attack page. In other words, there is a big difference between studying "human subjects" in their social environment, such as WP (that is what they suppose to do) and going after these subjects by outing them and submitting a complaint about them to WMF. That is what I would say if I were a reviewer of their paper. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that libel lawyers vetted the paper before publication? That would be a very unusual situation. Usually universities don't even know about papers until they are published. Zero talk 01:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ François Robere, in terms of etiquette, we should, presumably, now stop discussing this subject at The new section "Ancillary changes" doesn't belong in this article.
Do we need to put something on the Talk page of Thirty-seventh government of Israel about the additions we intend to make?
Do you have a plan for how to proceed with the additions? Misha Wolf ( talk) 22:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ François Robere, I don't want to distract you from your work on the Controversies section of article Thirty-seventh government of Israel, but I've just finished reading an interview in Haaretz with a man called Assaf Sagiv, which strikes me as very important. Do you have access to Haaretz? There is no Wikipedia article about Assaf Sagiv but I feel that there really ought to be one. The only mention of him that I can find is in the article about Azure (magazine), of which he was editor-in-chief for 5 years. I would be very interested in your thoughts about the interview and about the creation of a Wikipedia article about Sagiv. Thanks Misha Wolf ( talk) 21:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Assaf Sagiv, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from
reliable,
independent sources in order to show it meets
WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(
?) 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.
Onel5969
TT me 14:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
FYC: Special:Diff/1146771313 Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. I believe you have exceeded the extension granted to you based on number of diffs. Personally (and truthfully the other drafters might feel different and if they did I wouldn't argue otherwise) I was willing to let this slide. However, that becomes less true if you start duplicating evidence you have already submitted as you did around the events on Guerillero user talk page which I had already summarised. If you have duplicated other evidence (whether summarised or unsummarised) please consolidate or remove them as appropriate. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Missed one! Both GCB and Piotrus !vote keep here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, François Robere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Assaf Sagiv, 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 15:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the article about Assaf Sagiv was moved to draftspace. Can you add references from reliable source about him and then submit the article for evaluation so that it could be moved back to mainspace? As well, if you find reliable references about him, please add them to the corresponding article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
When you see an article about a Chinese topic that you feel does not demonstrate the topic's notability, please check the corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia before you start the AFD process. (That applies to other country-specific or language-specific topics as well.) Often another language's Wikipedia will have a better article on a given topic than the English Wikipedia, and you can expand the English article by adding text and references from the other language's article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
In 2022, you added the "needs update" tag for the hierarchy-of-evidence pyramid [1] at the pages Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Hierarchy of evidence. Could you clarify why the pyramid needs an update? Thatsme314 ( talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Thatsme314 ( talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
pretty sure thats more than 1 revert at 2023 Israel-Hamas War, just this and this violate the restriction, and thats not going in to analyzing the other edits to see if they were reverts as well. nableezy - 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editwarring at page under Israel-Paelstine arb sanctions. Thank you. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello François Robere, in the interests of not escalating things to AE before asking for an explanation, can you please explain
this edit, in which you write According to another New York Times report, "Hamas has used civilians as human shields and positioned underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals".
citing Cooper, Helene; Schmitt, Eric; Goldman, Adam (9 November 2023).
"Israeli Forces Have Limited Time in Gaza, U.S. Officials Say".
The New York Times.
ISSN
0362-4331. Retrieved 9 November 2023.. The cited article however says Hamas has long been accused of using civilians as human shields and positioning underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals.
You removed the long been accused, changed using to used, to claim that the NYT supports as fact what they report as accusation, and you did it within quotation marks. Can you please explain to me how this happened?
nableezy - 13:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Francois,
I would be glad to assist you with reference template formatting if ever you are in need. I noticed that it is a common theme on your talk page. I also sense that you have a preferred style of referencing... and that it is WP:MOS compliant even if atypical. (And also that you are technically fluent given allusions to Linux kernels or such somewhere!) Whatever the case may be, don't hesitate to hail me on my talk page if I can be of use with citation formatting, or anything else... particularly anything that is a source of sturm und drang to Wikipedians.--
FeralOink (
talk) 14:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello there! Regarding your edits on the Compiler and Runtime library articles, it's all about preventing issues later down the road no matter how much better things look at the moment with additional formatting – and I agree that additional vertical spacing is required there. For example, recent typography refresh changed a lot, and any non-standard explicit formatting is simply a call for troubles. Thus, you should see how to modify the troublesome templates, so additional vertical spacing becomes introduced that way. Hope you agree. — Dsimic ( talk | contribs) 01:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
|style=
parameter? Seems like that way sidebars should align perfectly with the lead section both when there is a hatnote and when there it isn't (tried it out in Firebug, and it worked as expected). Thoughts? —
Dsimic (
talk |
contribs) 02:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
option, but eventually you get the worse of all worlds: Where there's a header template the margin should be ~0.85, and where there isn't it should be ~0.25, and 0.5 (which, admittedly, is a reasonable average) just doesn't hit either. That being said, until this is solved in the parser level I see no better solution other than doing it manually in each article (which, while problematic from a technical perspective, produced the best overall results), given that they are all monitored over the long term. For the time being we can leave
it as is (give or take an additional 0.05em of padding) until a better solution comes along.
François Robere (
talk) 11:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Law of attraction (New Thought), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like you're marking all of your edits as minor. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Astrology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong ( talk) 22:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive removal of the {{ more plot}} template at Bad Biology. WP:FILMPLOT says that film plots should be between 400 and 700 words, and we need a complete description of the plot for this film. If you want to discuss it, take it to the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
after a careful study and being a Razdan, I discovered that Razdan originated from the Zoroastrian priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta (The holy text of the Zoroastrians). Razdan means "To know the secret or sacred words". Razdan's are Kashmiri and migrated from Persia, modern day Iran. The first iteration of Razdan comes from the god of the Zoroastrians Ahura Mazda which translated means Ahura - loving or light and Mazda - word. The priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta were refered to as the fharazdah. Later as the priest and religion migrated east and settled in Armenia, they grew Zoroastrianism and gained wealth and land. The Hrazdan river in Armenia, was given the name from the priest as the locals could not pronounce fharazda and instead pronounced only the "hah", this area was the second major known anthropological resting place for modern day Razdan's. Eventually as the priest migrated through the Indu Kush and established themselves in Kashmir they brought with them wealth, horses (aryans), and knowledge of ancient teachings of Indra (a zoroastrian god, not hindu) and fire ceremonies and were given the designation of Kashmiri Pandits or Priest of Kashmir. Because in India priest were brahman caste, these Kashmiri Pandits were also designated as brahmans. This history predates the census report of 1800s and dates back to the time of Zoroaster himself. Please correct the article. Razdan's are not Indian, and more correctly we are migrants of Persia and the geneological names and lineage clearly show that. I've seen multiple other places incorrectly refer to the census report and refer to Rajanak. Razdan still today means "to know the secret or sacred words".
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Rahul K. Razdan
Almost two months back you put a tag on this disambig page (Uncertain dates) and created a lot of red links. Please would you tell me what caused you to do this. I think there may be a misunderstanding. Thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion and this part of the film MOS. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, François Robere!
Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
fasinating!
To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Bfpage let's talk... 00:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
People editing in the I/P area are limited to 1 revert per 24 hours. At 2000 Ramallah lynching, you broke this iron rule, which is covered by sanctions:
You have only one option which is to restore the text as I edited it. Secondly, I added an important note from a new source, and you cancelled out the key details, and the RS source. Nishidani ( talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The 2000 Ramallah lynching was a violent incident that took place on October 12, 2000 at the el-Bireh police station, where a Palestinian mob killed and mutilated the bodies of two Israel Defense Forces reservists, Vadim Norzhich (Nurzhitz) and Yosef "Yossi" Avrahami who were taken into custody by Palestinian Authority policemen after entering Ramallah.
In conjunction with the notice just above, you should read this. In ARBPIA related topics (basically anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed) editors are restricted to one revert per 24 hour period (not 3 like everywhere else). People get blocked for this regularly, even on a first offence with no warning. A little over 24 hours also usually counts as a violation. You should keep this in mind when editing in this topic area. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. I don't edit much anymore so might miss your replies here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I took the trouble to make your citations readable. 09.08.2012 can be the 9 August, 2012, or the 8 of September 2012, depending on what convention dmy, or month day year. See Date format by country. I've had this problem with different newspapers, and that is why I changed it. Secondly, it is normal to provide a title of the piece, which your edit didn't. You are entitled to do that, but can hardly object to an attempt to clarify for readers what the topic of the article is. One doesn't have copyright on one's work in Wikipedia. Even editors one might take a dislike to can make useful corrections. We got off on the wrong foot? That's history, forget about it. Nishidani ( talk) 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani neglected to inform you that he mentioned you in this complaint at the administrators noticeboard. Up to you if to respond or not. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It's rude. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I've closed your case but have attempted reopening the original complaint you made at ANI as it is clear you wish to discuss the conduct displayed by the user in question. If that fails for some reason, please let me know. Nihlus 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not your "old chap" and I am not your "darling" or "dear". You are unwelcome on my talkpage. Please contribute to the discussion The appropriate talkpage. It's on my watchlist, so I'll notice. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I love your sense of humour and appreciate how very patient you must be to do this all day( Thedecentone at User talk:Kleuske)
What do you want? You pinged me and two other editors, but you didn't make a coherent request. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is what I see. The basic issue is indeed a content dispute. User:Kleuske has made substantial revisions to the article, removing a considerable amount. You initially posted a complaint at WP:ANI against Kleuske, but you didn't state that Kleuske had done anything that would warrant sanctions. You said that you wanted "the admins" to do something about a user, but you didn't make a case as to what if anything the user had done wrong. You did state that you wanted the "stable" version of the article restored so that it could be discussed, but you didn't give a reason why Kleuske's edits should be rolled back other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't made a well-reasoned content argument, other than that you disagree with her edits, and you haven't made any conduct argument. Please do not open a new conduct thread unless you can describe a conduct issue. If you want to discuss content, because you disagree with Kleuske's edits, you still can do that, as long as you focus on content. Now - What do you want? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to block you, because I think we have not arrived at that point. I am, however, going to caution you to be more attentive to the comments of those who disagree with your edits and proposed edits, and to make more use of Wikipedia's processes for achieving broader consensus, such as WP:3O, WP:RFM and WP:RFC. If you are confident you are right, then an RFC with a neutrally-stated premise, will give you the support you need. Please also be less aggressive in your comments to others. If you continue to be belligerent and personalise disputes, you will most likely be blocked or banned. Please consider this both warning and counsel. I have no dog in this fight, but if you have people like Robert McClenon criticising you, then you are definitely doing something wrong. Numerous venues exist for discussing edits and sources in a calm and collaborative way, please use them. Guy ( Help!) 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
[[WP:]]
s. I personally heard the lines "I tried editing there once" and "I used to edit there, but..." on more than one occasion, from people whose professional and academic proficiencies are indisputable. I'm not bothered by Robert McClenon, and at this point I'm not sure I would care even if did sanction me; but Wikipedia has a problem - a serious problem - and that problem manifested throughout this whole thing; you won't hear it from people like McClenon, content as they are in the forest of policies, guidelines and other cultural artifacts that Wikipedians begat for themselves, but you will hear it from everyone else; and when everyone else are criticizing you, then you're definitely doing something wrong.
François Robere (
talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
References
I appreciate your input on the editing issues described on the talk page of the Vagina article. I am only coming to your talk page because I didn't want this note to get lost in all the goings-on. I have to agree that things got rather complex and you seemed to sift through it all pretty skillfully. Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts here, but as I noted there, you do not appear to be familiar with WP:MEDRS and other guidelines and norms for editing about health, and as far as I can see you have not dealt much with alt med and pseudoscience, which are topics that have discretionary sanctions on them. While I appreciate your effort to help, offering opinions that are not based in an understanding of the policies and guidelines is not ultimately helpful. Please reconsider offering third opinions on those matters until you understand that underlying policies and guidelines better. Best regards Jytdog ( talk) 21:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, François,
At this discussion, regarding proper pronoun usage you said, "I try to use 'they' to avoid gender-related mistakes..." but there's a better way: intead of "they", use "{{ they}}":
If you wish to change your pronouns, you can do so by going to your Preferences. HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
François, thanks for working with me on the article, let’s pause the editing of this article for some period of time because it has been reverted too many times already. This may be viewed by some as a Edit War. Cheers GizzyCatBella ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I read the Polish press and I can tell you that the issue of Polish complicity in the Holocaust is not controversial in Poland at allIndeed, it is just widely denied, at least from what I'm seeing time and time again. Would you prefer we go to my original phrasing? François Robere ( talk) 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Francois, in response to your recent message to me on the other page, I’ll utter my thoughts here instead. You mentioned an antiSemitism in Poland. It's true, Poland had a very large chunk of antisemitic element among its populace always. It is somehow typical because that was where the most Jews lived for a 1000 years, you don’t have antisemites in Greenland, don't you, LOL? The conflicts between Jews and Poles were mostly based on the faith disputes and economic issues. Some Poles, for example, being Catholics unfairly blamed Jews for the death of Christs. Some Jews, on the other hand, favored other Jews in business and discriminated Polish traders. The list of this minor conflicts between the Jews and Poles is very long but in general Jews in Poles lived in Poland together in relative peace and harmony for centuries. This all changed on the outbreak of the war. Jews lost all rights because of the Nazi orders and that is when some of the antisemitic elements within the Polish society blossomed. Jewish life was worthless, criminal element further demoralized by the reality of the war took advantage of the situation and committed many crimes against the Jews, rapes and murders. But you need to understand that these people didn't represent Polish society as a whole. Majority of the Poles were rather sympathetic to the Jewish situation, and many actively helped despite the fact that any help was punished by death (imagine that!) Now think how painful it must be to those righteous Poles and their offsprings when they hear that “the Polish Nation is complicit in the Holocaust" this is unfair. Guilty is the criminal element of the society, not the Nation. The reason I’m writing all this to you is to strive some kind of understanding and sensitivity of how the Poles feel about all of this. PS I’m old Francois, some Jewish blood here also:) you can say that I’m telling you all this from my life experience GizzyCatBella ( talk) 21:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Interested in giving your third opinion a second time? The third party has organized a new soure which he believes to back up his change from 1879 and 1890 and naming Italian Eritrea as a successor state. In reality it's just a more detailled version of what we already observed: There was some armed resistance after the imprisonment of the last Bahr Negash. It even states that Ras Alula was the de facto ruler over the Eritean highlands, so it's a shot in his own foot really. If you would state the obvious we could reverse his changes without many problems. GG LeGabrie ( talk) 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Francois Sorry about not getting back to you earlier, too busy. Good work on the article C. with the Axis P. looks much better in many aspects especially that it has been abbreviated. Now, when I read it I do sense, however, an unintentional POV from your part. It all comes back to what we talked about previously, (remember?) your strong opinion. Expect an invasion of other people with Polish POV. You may contemplate working on some things a little to avoid that. For example, you stress Grabowski’s finding as an undisputable and eternal truth. However, his finding of 200.000 plus Jews killed by Poles is in fact unusual. He goes against the finding of everybody else, other than Gross but this guy has very little credibility. Secondary, you need to add that the police blue police (former polish police) had to report to duty for the Germans or face the death penalty. There I more but start with polishing that, otherwise, you will find your version changed, I’m certain of that. I don’t want that to happen because I like it, you did a good job. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Hey GizzyCatBella,
https://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Victims-During-English-Hebrew/dp/0896040550 This is not a bad work by Gutman and Krakowski (you know who they are right?) a landscape of conclusions from a Jewish viewpoint. You should read François one day if you haven’t already. I usually read historical work of both views and draw my own opinions. I can suggest some work of respected Polish or other scholars for comparison if you are genuinely intrigued by the topic. https://www.amazon.com/The-Holocaust-and-European-Societies-Social-Processes-and-Social-Dynamics-The-Holocaust-and-its-Contexts/dp/1137569832/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8 GizzyCatBella ( talk) 08:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
[9]: you should also restore the reference that backs it up. Currently this number is unsourced. I support the resotration of the sentence we had in the article, which cited several historians. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect that is not what you asked, you asked what she meant by Money being behind it, not what evidence she had for the bias of some sources, please drop this now. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
We have a compromise over at Polish collaboration, and your objection to it reads more like "I do not like it" then any valid objection. As the page is under DS this might not be a good stance to take. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not here to report "facts" we are here to report what RS say.Oh, and I haven't asked for RS maybe 20 times?
I found sources that back here claim, how come you have not?Because it's not my burden of proof. Bella made the claim, Bella needs to back it up, and you should be asking Bella why she didn't, not me. Have you? François Robere ( talk) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
she has accepted it why I am going to ask her why?You didn't answer the question. I asked you why you keep bothering me, and never warn others against edit warring, "cherry picking", refusal to discuss, insulting other editors, flooding the talk page to make a point etc. etc. François Robere ( talk) 19:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi FR, can I just ask you to use a more standard format for reference sources, we constantly get these 'Cite Errors' at the bottom of the article, that a reference source was citied but not referenced, I suspect it's related to formatting issue. -- E-960 ( talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The book about the GG is the only recent one about the GG in English I know. It's rather about the Holocaust in GG than about the GG, but still contains some informations. I have explained who were Communists in Poland and why I believe that the subject covered in the book deserves to be mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 08:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Context in TP comments
I see you left me a message on the need for context in TP comments. I think that...".
as you did here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing to inform you that an AfD debate has been initiated for the article Environmental inequality in Europe (formerly Environmental racism in Europe). Thanks, Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the second time in the last two days that you've made passive aggressive personal attacks (the other time is here). I guess you think that phrasing it with phony-concern with my well being is either funny or it excuses the actual nature of what you're doing. But it's not and it doesn't. So please refrain from these kind of comments in the future.
You might also want to explain why you blind-reverted an edit without bothering to read what was in it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it.
How about you "focus" your RfC (and format it properly) so that it doesn't propose one thing, and then tries to sneak in another?
And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian... Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem
As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum!... YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING.
Please, come up with better excuses for reverts.
Hi FB, could you just fix the 'cite errors' that came up after the NSZ changes. -- E-960 ( talk) 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This will be deleted in 36 hours, so take your own off-Wiki copy if you want it. Zero talk 09:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
If there are any Polish-Jewish articles discussion might have stalled but fixes are needed. I think most of the articles stabilized in the past few months, hopefully more because we reached consensus than because of the unfortunate topic bans, but I also haven't been that active. If there's anything you think we should work on, do say so. It would be great if we could reach consensus before said topic bans expire, so that when our colleagues come back there's less reason for any more disagreements. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
[23] I have the book "The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945" in front of me, there is nothing about Antyk on page 385.Can you explain this? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
While both solutions have pros and cons, I'll point out that the old school style of references ("five refs for Piotrowski, etc.") allows Google Page links to individual pages. Unifying references often removes those links, making verification a bit more problematic. Not that I intend to revert one change over another, just pointing out why I generally prefer and use separate refs for each page if possible (and links are available). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This is particularly true when content is under V/NPOV contentionWhy? You can add page numbers and quotes with {{ r}} as well. François Robere ( talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
<ref>
, to allow multiple footnotes with quotes that all use the same citation (eg. <ref>{{r|Source}}, p. 5: "quote"</ref>
), but it didn't really work.
François Robere (
talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)I see that you moved the reflist-talk that displayed the references in my comment at this AfD. Please don't change my comments. I wanted the references to be seen at that point, and I have moved it back. If more reflist-talk's are needed, they can be added at any time. There can be more than one in the discussion. Thank you. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear François Robere! You undid the government response in the article, while at the same time added two noname someones' opinion to the page. In the wikipedia if we are discussing a debate, than the principle is that the argumentation of both sides must be presented equally, and can not be disqualified as "not RS on academia" etc. Your contributions raises the issue of POV pushing. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Please reconsider what you delete or not. It is not only an academic question at stake, but a legal issue - and in this field, the government totally has the right to respond.-- 5.204.115.190 ( talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It IS POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 ( talk) 19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete the US Ambassador's opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 ( talk) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
You deleted sourced info. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 ( talk) 06:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
As discussed in more detail at AE, I am warning you not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence. The Arbitration Committee has decided in this respect that "an editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. ... If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums". If you continue to engage in such conduct in topic areas where discretionary sanctions are in force, you may be made subject to bans, blocks or other sanctions. Sandstein 22:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
[There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[24] François Robere ( talk) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:21, 26 February 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."
, I suspect that GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources; all in violation of any number of policies;
[There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[25] And third, that user just edited in clear violation of AE and got a slap on the wrist, [26] and you're blocking me from the entire encyclopedia for a week? You're out of line. François Robere ( talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to note, again, that our admins have been consistently negligent in protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism. The fact that Bella is still allowed to comment anywhere even vaguely related to Jews and Jewish history, after having committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has, is a sign of their failure. That you were implying a specific editor to be an ethnically-motivated vandal is clear. If someone is actually an ethnically motivated vandal, you provide proof with diffs and bring it to ANI and they will be blocked, but you don't get to use it as an attack and trump card in disputes, especially for requests that are apparently unrelated to the person in question. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
[Bella has] committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has- that is well supported by Sandstein's comments in that case and doesn't require further proof. I did not accuse Bella of vandalism - that is your inference, and you should've asked for a clarification before sanctioning me for it. As for prejudice - the anti-Semitic context of the discussion is well established, as evident by Sandstein's own comments (for which he wasn't blocked, or even admonished):
GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources.
the account's singleminded crusade towards adding racist pseudohistorical sources, nor another editor who accused a third for
[filing an] obvious "payback report" for the fact that [his] partner in edit wars... recently got indef blocked(an accusation he made many, many times before), suggests to me that you blocked me from the entire encyclopedia not for policy violation, but for criticizing admins. François Robere ( talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Summary of events
|
---|
Regarding
this AE discussion and
this diff, which resulted in a week-long complete block:
I criticised the admins for allowing ongoing antisemitic abuse on pages related to the Holocaust and Polish Jewry. I did not single any user "out of the blue", nor did I make specific accusations that weren't already on AE record. The admins' reading of my comment as if I had done so was wrong, and their reaction punitive and disproportional.
|
@ Sandstein and TonyBallioni: I have some questions to both of you regarding the above.
VM didn’t add diffs because he assumed I knew what he was talking about. The same applies here: I assumed Sandstein knew what I'm talking about, as he was the one who banned that editor, and earlier that day engaged (and absolved her). Why did you accept in that case but not in this one?
the points VM raised could have been the basis for an AE report against Icewhiz... I don’t think it’s appropriate to be sanctioning someone for commenting on one AE thread about issues that would be a valid report in another. This isn't something VM said - it's your statement, and it could apply here equally well. Why didn't you raise it here, only there?
François Robere ( talk) 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
there’s a difference between a content dispute and what at face value looks like a tit-for-tat AE report:
if you had made the same report at AE... I would have blocked you and closed it for the same reasons: You're just repeating what you said earlier, which is not helpful. Do read what I wrote and try to be helpful by telling me exactly which part you object, and why.
I’m not in the business of comparing sanctions: every situation is different and every editor and action is considered holisticallyWell, you're in the business of WP:ADMINACCT, and you haven't really explained how all of this sits well from a holistic perspective.
"WWII is a major area of scholarship, and virtually all reputable sourced end up being published in English" - This is an extremely parochial, Anglo-Saxon-centric, ignorant claim which borders on racism. It's also completely false. Hate to break it to you, but English speakers, their bloody conquest of the world and all, do not actually have a monopoly on truth. Indeed, the more interlinked the world becomes and the more freely information flows across borders, the more we discover and the more obvious it becomes just how limited and, well, fucked up, this kind of Western-centric exclusivity actually is and how much damage it has done to human knowledge. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
And in this particular topic area the glaring fact is that most authors writing in English, with some notable exceptions, either don't have access to, or simply don't bother to consult, primary sources because these are not in English (or possibly French or German). And to be frank, most Western historians can't be arsed to learn a language that is not one of those three. Which makes them actually WORSE secondary sources, not better. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you read The Fox Effect? It's not an accident that Fox is a propaganda outfit, it was the entire reason it was founded. Ailes believed that the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post and New York Times. And incidentally, Network Propaganda is a very compelling argument against pretty much all right-wing media sources. 152.62.109.216 ( talk) 16:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that you are or were interested in creating an RfC on Fox News. I found a report from Media Matters for America on how Fox News mixes disinformation with the hard news every day in its hard news division at https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/05/13/fox-news-lie/223683 that was released on May 13, 2019. However, this report focuses on the actual video channel and not on the content on the Fox News website, so it could be somewhat irrelevant. I just do not have the time to start an RfC or read the whole report at the moment. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 04:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Fox News' news (e.g. not pundits) division on climate change:
Please be a little more careful in your future editing than adding mention of an obvious joke to a WP:BLP as if it was a serious statement made by said living person. I know you're on a crusade against Fox but that doesn't allow you to ignore some of our more serious rules. 199.247.46.106 ( talk) 06:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Please restore the comments that you deleted on the RS noticeboard Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
In the BLPNB discussion you wrote "...that Poled killed between..." Did you mean to use the word "Poled"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
diff - Just Do It. Well, OK, I don't want to sell shoes. I did find the program somewhere, and some of it is described in accounts in the article. Most of program details are in French (at least the sources I've found - I suspect there's Polish too somewhere, but I've been working of EHESS and French sources more than Polish). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Joseph Berlin, does not have enough sources and citations 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.
Hitro
talk 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
To this. Oh no, I am not really involved in editing this page and the subject area. You are involved a lot, and most tellingly even after the end of the official arbitration, with ridiculous comments like that, litigious complaints and block shopping. Frankly, this is not helpful. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I know that Molobo is a highly opinionated contributorHe's not "highly opinionated", he's biased and careless, and I'm not the only one who noticed.
How come? It does support the statement.No, it doesn't, as I repeatedly explained throughout the discussion. [48] [49] [50] I encourage you to re-read the sources, or in the very least the quotes, and see how they line up along these distinctions (and others introduced later in the discussion).
I would never frame this phrase as Molobo didHow would you "frame" this phrase?
More important, you are fueling a long-term conflictI repeatedly offered an alternative phrasing, as well as asking Molobo for his own. I suggested following the advice from NPOVN twice. He made zero effort to compromise, or even to review his sources - he never admits a mistake, so trimming his additions isn't an option. The only thing that got him to change his behavior, if only temporarily, was messaging Sandstein and taking it to NPOVN. How would you have handled it? François Robere ( talk) 20:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how you could possibly read those diffs like that. There's a fine line that needs to be treaded here, so as not to make an already disgusting discussion unbearably so. I didn't enter this discussion lightly; I only did so because I think it's important both within and without Wikipedia ( note, explanation). There are certain narratives that are being pushed here: the same editor who pushed this change also brought faulty sources to argue against property restitution; censored various bits on antisemitism in Poland; and even inserted a poorly-sourced statement to an article on a long-dead Israeli PM, about his father being " Judenrat". We ought to be ever more precise and careful if we don't want to present our readers with a skewed image of reality. François Robere ( talk) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
All of that does look to me as a POV editingOr a conservative approach to sourcing on a volatile issue?
Strangely, but it is actually you who complained about these contributors on arbitration pagesIt's "contributor", singular, and Ealdgyth and Icewhiz mentioned him as well. François Robere ( talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
With regards to telling other editors to "get a fucking life
" (
[56]).
Personal attacks are not permitted on our project, and that applies to arbitration space as well.
SQL
Query me! 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on LGBT-free zone. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 ( talk) 09:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories, then it's pretty clear from LGBT-free zone#Demonstrations. cf. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which has the categories Ethnic cleansing in the Americas ( Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest#Impact on indigenous people) and Environmental disasters in South America (despite the word "disaster" not being used anywhere in the article) attached. François Robere ( talk) 10:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It can also describe politically-motivated violence by non-state actors... against other non-state actors. Non-action on the part of a government can also be characterized as a form of political violence, such as refusing to alleviate famine or otherwise denying resources to politically identifiable groups within their territory.(from that article). That seems to describe both some of the support of the "zones" (eg. by Clergy), and their very nature - denial of rights (not to say of existence) of certain "politically identifiable groups". François Robere ( talk) 10:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
You wrote on Talk:LGBT-free zone: AFAIK no one else here is affiliated with any organization that's engaged in related activities. So, upon what do you base this knowledge? It is a fact that I have voluntarily declared (some of) my affiliations on my user page. It is also a fact that neither I, nor anyone else here, is required to disclose affiliations except when they are being paid to edit about them. The vast majority of editors here act pseudonymously and reveal as little as possible about ourselves! So I am intrigued by your insinuations (along with @ Jackgrimm1504: that really nobody else but me could possibly have a bias regarding such a topic -- just because nobody else has volunteered to say so. Actions speak louder than words: I have been a Wikipedian in good standing for 11 years, with zero blocks, and I edit all sorts of topics and articles. I am not here to promote my bias, I am here to improve and build an encyclopedia. Once again -- if you believe I have a genuine conflict of interest then report it through the proper channels and don't attempt to air dirty laundry on an article talk page, where we discuss improvements to articles, not one another. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your thoughts over this thread. ∯WBG converse 19:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you, sir! François Robere ( talk) 20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It’s obvious, but I thought I'll ask you to confirm. Who are you referring to as that “one particular editor” here [61]? GizzyCatBella ( talk) 17:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User:François Robere/sandbox/Dealing with racism on Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bovlb ( talk) 04:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I accidentally blocked you, my sincere apologies. Guy ( help!) 21:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
You need to remember that Marek is also interested in the Icewhiz situation, and he is as convinced that he is right as you are. Your best course is to make it really obvious which of you is trying hard to assume good faith. See what I mean? Guy ( help!) 22:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information on Wikipedia.[note 1] Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.
I suggest you ask admins to remove edits where you posted links to article doxing one of Wikipedia users. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit here as the discussion is now closed. If you have further comments about an arbitration decision, please consider following the appropriate channels as listed in the note which closed the discussion. – bradv 🍁 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi François, you said there was no way to invite people like Dreifuss or Grabowski to review our articles. Actually, there is. Any editor can invite them to review an article—or even just a particularly contentious section—and post their findings on a talk subpage or send them privately to the editor. Another way for them to get involved is through the Wikipedia education programme. They could use Wikipedia as a teaching tool and have their students make corrections. That would be extremely helpful, so long as the students used English-language sources by Holocaust historians. A lot of the problems in these articles could be fixed with the involvement of mainstream Holocaust historians. SarahSV (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
You are reported on WP:AE [64]. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Joshua Steinbock, does not have enough sources and citations 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.
Onel5969
TT me 23:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
To this. I do not think this is a problem for WP because almost all contributors are anonymous in this environment. You do not know the gender, ethnicity, age, etc. of other contributors, unless someone was outed or wanted to disclose something about herself/himself. One can judge others only based on the pattern of editing, but this is people's personality, rather than anything else. In fact, I did not see any ethnicity-based or gender-based discrimination around here. If anything, I think admins were generally more supportive of editors who could be viewed as "pro-Jewish", but I see this along the lines of an "affirmative action". Speaking about other biases, I think there is a significant liberal/leftist/socialist bias on the site, but everyone has a bias, and having a bias is not a discrimination, and not really a big problem - as long as people agree to follow all editing and behavior rules. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent articles, including Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study, 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 at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent articles, including Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study, 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 01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I do want to draw your attention to this, in light of the fact that the WCC article, among others, falls into the scope, and it is quite possible controversial newspapers fails this remedy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, and only reflects my personal notes about what I think others said. The closer may or may not look at it. FYI, I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast clarification. I'm still a bit confused.... where you wrote "hatting" to me (and I think most editors) that means using the archiving templates like {{ Hidden archive top}}. I think you mean changing the way we now use the various WP:Hatnotes. If so, others may more easily follow your comment if you make an appropriate tweak. If you just change the original, I doubt anyone will complain. No one has commented on that aspect of your remark, and we're all working hard to keep organized. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
We go through three main phases of evolution of terminology here.
That's how it seems to me, anyway. Guy ( help!) 14:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
After watching a documentary on Netflix I was looking through the article on John Demjanjuk. It appears to have been completely taken over by people claiming that Demjanjuk is innocent or should not have been tried, despite his conviction for being a guard at Sobibor in 2011. That's leaving aside whether he was "Ivan the Terrible" at Treblenka. I wonder if you might have a look at the sources employed. Can you think of anyone else knowledgeable about such things who'd be willing to cleanup that article?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Speaking about your edit summary here, I do not think this is covered by the sourcing restriction for Poland in WW II. However, just to be sure, I filed a clarification request at ARCA. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
My family was killed by AK fascists, despite this my grandad served in the Red Army and liberated Poland from fascism. Is what going on the Home Army article OK on Wikipedia? Polish blogs and right-wing media? Aren't there rules against this? Is there management I can complain to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that the D part of this is used before AE. Those letters, not mentioned in that link, are not conductive to creating a good editing environment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI. In this edit [65] you gave this diff [66] as an edit by Molobo, when I think you meant this edit by Molobo that you linked to in the other thread above [67].-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no intention of reporting you anywhere, but I just wonder if in light of the recent source remedy, you think that [68] is an acceptable source or not? It seems to be a self-published lecture, no better than the lecture notes you criticize at Talk:Home Army, and in fact even worse, as unlike AC's notes, it has no bibliographic citations or such. In other related news, I invite you to comment about source issues I raised at Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. PS. I strongly suggest that no report should be made to AE about any source without a prior talk discussion about it, preferably at RSN. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Due to your constant snipe remarks about my person, posting, addressing me by my wrong name, and repeated calls to sanction me to editors based on closed Arbcom case I suggest you read WP:HA Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing As per above I request that you cease making comments about me unrelated to discussed topic of Wikipedia article, address me by my full account name and stop trying to reopen Arbcom case which was closed long time. I am fully prepared to discuss subjects of articles, sources and other issues, but your constant addressing of my person instead of the subject at hand needs to stop.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, pls stop with selective editing, you removed a quote by a reliable historian Marek Kornat, who is coming out with a biography of Lipski, and gave several interview on the matter since Putin's remarks inlcuing here on PolishRadio [74]. Since, this false claim about Lipski was made just a few days ago, news website will be the only sources that will have a direct reference to the issue. Also, the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland put out a statement in which they criticized Putin's remarks about Lipski, citing an example of when Germany started to expel foreign Jews living in the country, Lipski and the Polish diplomatic service rendered them assistance, so statements opposing the anti-semitic narrative about Lipski are justified. So again, pls refrain form selective editing of the text. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that AE ruling is pretty clear: [75]: "Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy. Using it as a source does not violate the remedy.. " The clarification requests to Arbcom did not seem to have produced any conclusive rulings and the remedy in question has not been clarified or adjusted since said clear AE ruling was made. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC) PS. Rather than try to reinterpret the Arbcom ruling, I'd suggest tagging those parts with {{ better source needed}}, and we can discuss that particular article at WP:RSN if needed. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm. [80]. What do you think about this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Clashing with [81]...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
In an off wiki discussion someone pointed this article is non-neutral, and I tried to remedy it a bit. I don't know who else may be interested in this topic that is, well, not topic banned or worse, and the more eyes the merrier, etc. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 "hounding" accusations
|
---|
WP:HOUNDINGPlease halt WP:HOUNDING, following me around and reverting my edits as you did here: [83] and here: [84] and here [85] and here [86] and here [87] and here [88] PS Also. Do you have a source that Adam Mickiewicz was an Lithuanian? I advise you self revert. Thank you. GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
FR, can you pretty please consider that we are all here to build the encyclopedia, and working together is preferable to fighting? We should assume good faith and work together to improve the articles. Reporting others instead of trying to discuss things with them, mentor them even if you feel you know better, is not very constructive. I would be happy to act as a mediator, if you have concerns over editing of Bella, how about asking me to review it first? I would also be happy to advise Bella on whether an edit is fine or breach the T-ban. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:HOUNDINGPer WP:HOUNDING please stop following me around like you did on Mragowo article and others you have never edited before I did [102].You have engaged in following me around before [103] and I ask you to stop this now. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC) April 2020In this edit at 20:45, 31 March 2020 you removed properly sourced content and the source without explanation. That is the first edit you made to that article. Your edit summary was ping|MyMoloboaccount. In this edit at 20:46, 31 March 2020 you removed properly sourced content and the source without explanation. That is the first edit you made to that article. Your edit summary was ping|MyMoloboaccount. If you can't come up with a convincing explanation of those edits made within a minute of each other, or a full apology and assurance that this sort of thing won't happen again, I'm going to block you indefinitely for WP:HOUNDING. -- RexxS ( talk) 09:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Look, you need to understand how this looks to an outsider. Two editors are in conflict. One looks through the other's contributions and then edits articles they had never before edited to change the other's edits. Let me explain, in case it's not already obvious, if you're in conflict with another editor and they have already complained three months ago about you following their edits, it's an incredibly bad idea to then take it on yourself to follow them again and edit their contributions. No matter what you think your intentions are, that behaviour is indistinguishable from wiki-hounding: "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing ... for no overridingly constructive reason." I don't accept that it has to be you who corrects MyMoloboaccount's grammatical errors. So, last chance, what assurances will you give that I won't find you creating the same pattern of contribution-following an editor you're in conflict with in the future? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
|
I've written a thorough explanation of the above, which I'll make available on request. As of May 2020, VM remains T-banned and GCB's T-ban lift request has been denied. [130] Several discussions have taken place within the TA since this affair was concluded, including the following: [131] [132] [133] [134]. François Robere ( talk) 09:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
As of April 2021:
François Robere ( talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I don’t know what this is about, but it’s probably a bad idea to disparage people based on their looks on an administrators notice board. Kleuske ( talk) 14:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
FH undoubtedly represents one side of the debate. I just created an article on a book representing the other (and more recent) view, Such a Beautiful Sunny Day: Jews Seeking Refuge in the Polish Countryside, 1942–1945. Feel free to help expand it (and maybe you can help locate more reviews, I linked one on talk I couldn't access). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Francois, I really hope our discourse does not degenerate into personal attacks. If I ever say something you find offensive, you are welcome to ask me to refactor it. Which is why I'd also ask you to refactor the comments at You're coming awfuly close to claiming racist perceptions are based on objective reality. and antisemitism is the result of Jews being "collaborationist communists", which is what you're promoting here. I find your recent comments way over the top and I'd appreciate an apology. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what makes you think that anyone here is trying to deny that antisemitism played a role in it. I'd have thought that by now you had done enough reading in this topic area to understand that antisemitism and like don't appear out of the thin air. It is only reasonable that a background section should explain why antisemitism lingered, grew in strength and eventually resulted in this calamity, and per numerous sources cited, such an explanation clearly involves issues related to the Żydokomuna stereotype.
I wrote "the stereotype was an effect of antisemitism, not a cause". I wasn't claiming you had said it. I don't understand what's meant by this:
While there maybe some fringe feedback (a very tiny number of young Jews might have assumed that since Poland is antisemitic, the 'brave new world' of the Soviets is not - and note this is just a speculation, I'd need to revisit the sources to see if this is supported), it is a very minor element of the story, and likely not relevant to the Jedwabne, and it certainly not what I said, nor intended to.
SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴 Talk🌲 Help out at CCI! 20:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, while the image may be used under a CC-NC-ND (non commercial , non-derivative) license, which appears free, WMF has required use to treat free images as defined at Free license via [139] (see m:Resolution:Licensing policy and the first section "Free Content License").
That means a free image must be reusable by all - including commercial users (meaning an NC image can't be free) and must be able to be modified (meaning a ND image can't be free). As such that graph exerpt is not a free image per our policies, and thus is non-free. And because that's a non-mainspace page, it cannot be used there. -- Masem ( t) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trying to do some technical work and I'm being interrupted by getting notifications from you every few minutes. Stop that now, please. I've stated my position quite clearly and I don't expect to have to repeat myself. If you're dissatisfied with the reply I've given you, you have the option of taking your complaint to ANI, because you're wasting both our time by further arguing the toss at my talk. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, please read WP:PROD as an article that has previously been deleted at AFD cannot be prodded if it is recreated. Also it is not permitted to replace a prod that has been removed, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting a typo here [142], however I am flabbergasted that you consider it a source misrepresentation, and would ask kindly to retract this bad faith accusation. Btw how did you find yourself to the article, I don't believe you edited it before? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
his father looked the other way when anti-Jewish violence spilled on to the streets.
his father would "look the other way" when faced with Jewish violence on the streets.
I pinged you at your AN thread, but it wasn't a new line so you might not get it. No need to reply to me here, just letting you know in case you aren't watching AN. Primefac ( talk) 21:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
François Robere, pls drop the WP:DROPTHESTICK. You keep forking this issue every time the discussion is coming to an end. The discussion was about the use of the word "never", and I agreed with you that that is not the best wording. Now the issue of the Polish Constitution came up. Again your approach is not neutral, because your wording ties the definition to just one issue, what about polygamy (it is legal in some countries), so just to say what the law defines as marriage in Poland is sufficient, and the reader can make their own value judgment based on this. -- E-960 ( talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
your wording ties the definition to just one issueIt's not "my" wording, it's yours - you explicitly added the statement at that time to resolve this disagreement. [147] You made the connection, not me. And BTW, I can't find any discussion of that article with respect to polygamy; if you have any, do share. Cheers. François Robere ( talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
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)
Well done, as usual Francois. nableezy - 12:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Your latest edits have breached the 1RR rule on both Haavara Agreement and Rezső Kasztner. Please self-revert. RolandR ( talk) 15:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
At the Hamas article, as explained there, your editing in respect of the addition of an image without consensus for that can be construed as tendentious and a slow edit war. Kindly self revert. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
In particular, anybody who gets into a revert war to add or remove language relating to abortion from an article would be covered by these sanctions. You would be on safe ground if you wait for agreement on the talk page before changing such language. If it turns out that you can't edit neutrally, there is the possibility of a topic ban from abortion. You recently opened a complaint at WP:AN3 about another editor where the issue in dispute was how to describe the abortion law in Poland. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
François Robere, in order to allow for a productive discussion to take place on the talk page, it might be a good choice if you just took yourself out from further editing — this based on your comments, such as this one "I don't know, nor care." As I mentioned before, someone reverts your edit ( Wikipedia:Tendentious editing), and you throw a tantrum and start re-inserting the text or make even more changes across the entire article (instead of sticking to the discussion until a consensus is truly reached). Also, someone challenges your point with source(s), and you make dismissive and belittling remarks, such as the one above. I was taken aback by such a crude comment. I mean, if you are not interested in the article subject matter, why get involved in the discussion? Please be respectful of other editors and their efforts, as I'm trying to approach the discussion in a constructive manner. -- E-960 ( talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi François Robere,
Just to inform you: I put a request on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Just that the talk might come to a solution soon...-- Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 14:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I made a request at REFUND, where I said you suggested I review the Paul Joseph Watson article. The deleted revisions were restored. I did look at them. I saw nothing obvious, so I was going to go to where you made this suggestion, and ask you why you suggested it.
I apologize.
The suggestion was made at Angeli's AFD, not BLPN, and you didn't make it.
If my comment mystified you, and you wondered whether I was playing games, or just overtired/going senile, it was the latter.
Cheers Geo Swan ( talk) 04:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you help me? The text I added days ago was deleted because it was too similar to the one in The Times of Israel source, so I tried to rewrite it all over again:
Polish historian Tomasz Greniuch, who wrote a book called "The Way of the Nationalist" in which the Nazi collaborator
Léon Degrelle is glorified, headed the IPN office in the city of
Opole for three years. In 2021, when he was appointed head of the office of the Institute of National Memory, images of Greniuch giving the
Nazi salute during the demonstrations of the fascist and anti-Semitic movement
National Radical Camp were released, causing a scandal that led to to protests also by the Embassy of Israel. In 2018, Greniuch was awarded by the President
Andrzej Duda with the Bronze Cross of Merit, a state award awarded for his study of "cursed soldiers", the Polish resistance fighters who opposed the
Soviet Union during World War II and after the war. Following the scandal, Greniuch resigned from his role.--
Mhorg (
talk) 17:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Polish historian Tomasz Greniuch, author of the book The Way of the Nationalist, was appointed in 2021 as head of the Institute of National Memory office in the city of Wroclaw. [1] Greniuch had previously headed the institute's office in Opole, and in was awarded the Bronze Cross of Merit by Polish President Andrzej Duda, for his work on the " cursed soldiers". [1] When images of Greniuch giving the Nazi salute during the demonstrations of the ultranationalist [2] far-right movement National Radical Camp were released a scandal broke, with the Israeli embassy in Warsaw rebuking Greniuch and several politicians calling for his dismissal. [2] Greniuch eventually resigned from his post. [1]
References
Please see - [157] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this is just an info that there has been a thread opened about Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 21:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Continuation of the same story: I have prepared a (rather long) text about behaviour of some editors on the article. I intend it to file to either BLP noticeboard or ANI, but first please review the text and suggest any possible changes to it (preferably by trimming the text's length). Thanks. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
By obligation to notify users concerned in the ANI case, I hereby notify you that There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 17:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
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 don't get ownership of an article because you once were active on it. You haven't edited Jan Grabowski in over a year and today you jumped in and edited the same exact section that GCB was editing with the very next edit. Because of that, I blocked you for 48 hours -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
As of March 2023:
The text no longer exists in the article. It was amended two weeks after this discussion took place, and was eventually removed. [174] Sources available at the time that would shown that WP:BANEX applies include:
François Robere ( talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Please reads wp:outing, it does not matter how obvious it is, if it has not been publicly declared here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
As I said in my reply to his piece, published in the same venue ( [175]), etc. [176] Cheers. François Robere ( talk) 10:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The referendum did not happen because most Conservatives MPs wanted it on its own merits: most did not. The reason was that UKIP was taking 10 - 15% of their vote which, in the UK's FPTP electoral system, would mean that many would lose their safe seats. Cameron thought a referendum would be an easy win and would lock the issue away for a other 50 years. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Give a date, don't give a date. 2016? 2020? Still dragging on?. I played with all of those and was not really satisfied. Maybe I'm too close to it. I'll be interested to see how others respond to your version, but at least we agree that Brexit is an extended process, not a moment it time. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
FR, for this [177] flash of genius, I hereby award you the EEng Burma-shave Platinum Medal of Achievement, with Tiny Sapphire Chips and Diamond Sprinkles. Well done! E Eng 03:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi François Robere. I want to offer my sincere apologies to you, here rather than somewhat in passing at RfAR. I failed you on more than one occasion, which has been a source of deep regret for me for some time now. El_C 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi François Robere, I know you are very experienced with academic sources. In your opinion, is the motivation used to remove this content acceptable? [178] [179] [180] Academic sources are not always accepted? Or is it a problem with the site they are uploaded to? Thank you for your possible help.-- Mhorg ( talk) 21:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi François Robere, perhaps you saw that Mathsci has been banned from Wikipedia. He’s been edit-warring not only in musical topics… In his farewell-statement, Mathsci identified his friends/network, like Smerus. This made me understand things much better, see things clearer: Mathsci and Smerus, together with Nihil novi, as you might remember, started dominating a RfC about Frédéric Chopin, filibustering without end and like that omitting sources and quotes they didn‘t like. More than once obviously acting as a group. [193] [194]. Now knowing about Mathsci’s friends and their conduct, shouldn’t there be a reassessment of the results of the RfC? Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 07:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I edited this talk page to remove lint errors, including missing end tag and obsolete HTML lint errors. This is specifically authorized in Wikipedia:Linter#How you can help. The edits left the display unchanged. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 07:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
{{
they}}
, had merge warning boxes that were generating
div-span-flip or other high priority lint errors. When I edit a page to fix lint errors, I fix all that I can. I fixed everything except the errors generated by the template warning boxes, and others edited the templates and fixed the warning boxes, so this talk page is now lint-free. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 17:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)As you did at Political editing on Wikipedia. Keep it up and don’t be surprised if you get blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
VM never corresponded with Lovkal nor edited "COI editing on Wikipedia", which means he must've followed me to both. I have no idea about any of that, and atm I know next to nothing about... whatever this is — but that should probably be addressed (though, probably not here, at a venue in which VM can't respond). El_C 09:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller, yes, you assumed correctly. For the record, the following is a timeline of that dispute as seen through the article's revision history (Oct 17-21):
+1,425bytes stub ( diff).
+22,075bytes worth of content ( diff).
The question that François Robere originally posed on my talk page, and which I then brought to your attention here, remains, however. And that is: how did VM even know about this page, that François Robere had created a day earlier, in the first place? El_C 11:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
watching Robere's contributions— that would be WP:HOUNDING. El_C 14:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political editing on Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Wareon ( talk) 16:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, with regard to this [197], I might have made a mistake, but I don't know where.
Were you referring to this discussion at NPOVN? In fact, the two discussions concern the same article, but have different topics: the removal of the section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces (NPOVN) and the inclusion of references to mass rape and rape as a weapon of war in the lead (ORN). Since the topics are different, I thought a unified discussion on the same noticeboard was not desirable.
Or were you referring to this discussion at RSN? In this case the topics were identical, but I was convinced by MVBW's argument that the right forum for discussing it was not RSN, so I closed that discussion and linked it in the new discussion I opened at ORN.
As I said, I may have made a mistake (opening two threads for the same article; opening a thread at RSN and then withdrawing from it) but I don't understand what I should have done differently.
Thanks, Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 11:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
You are mentioned extensively in the recently published academic paper Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust [198], for all the right reasons of course. Thank you for the good work. Happy reading. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 03:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
These guys are not my colleagues, I do not know them, and I never edited their BLP pages. But they put themselves in an extremely precarious position. The privacy issue alone is a huge problem. Consider a medical researcher who does a study with patients. Mentioning them anonymously in a paper is fine. But consider him writing their real names and mentioning: "and BTW, their stolen email correspondence is here". That guy would be out of his job tomorrow, and it does not matter if Arbcom decides he was right and bans the patients. Yes, I know that privacy in medical research is covered by special regulations, and of course these " human subjects" are different . But still... Of course I may be wrong because I have never been a member of ethics committees who debate such cases, and I do not want to be. Actually, I am amazed how reviewers of their paper missed it, so this is now may be also a responsibility of the editorial board/journal. But I am not surprised by the poor quality of review, I have seen worse. They could easily fix it in the paper by removing a couple of phrases and links. But they did not, which together with other highly personal and charged accusations, suddenly transforms a potentially legitimate scientific publication into an attack page. In other words, there is a big difference between studying "human subjects" in their social environment, such as WP (that is what they suppose to do) and going after these subjects by outing them and submitting a complaint about them to WMF. That is what I would say if I were a reviewer of their paper. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that libel lawyers vetted the paper before publication? That would be a very unusual situation. Usually universities don't even know about papers until they are published. Zero talk 01:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ François Robere, in terms of etiquette, we should, presumably, now stop discussing this subject at The new section "Ancillary changes" doesn't belong in this article.
Do we need to put something on the Talk page of Thirty-seventh government of Israel about the additions we intend to make?
Do you have a plan for how to proceed with the additions? Misha Wolf ( talk) 22:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ François Robere, I don't want to distract you from your work on the Controversies section of article Thirty-seventh government of Israel, but I've just finished reading an interview in Haaretz with a man called Assaf Sagiv, which strikes me as very important. Do you have access to Haaretz? There is no Wikipedia article about Assaf Sagiv but I feel that there really ought to be one. The only mention of him that I can find is in the article about Azure (magazine), of which he was editor-in-chief for 5 years. I would be very interested in your thoughts about the interview and about the creation of a Wikipedia article about Sagiv. Thanks Misha Wolf ( talk) 21:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Assaf Sagiv, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from
reliable,
independent sources in order to show it meets
WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(
?) 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.
Onel5969
TT me 14:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
FYC: Special:Diff/1146771313 Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. I believe you have exceeded the extension granted to you based on number of diffs. Personally (and truthfully the other drafters might feel different and if they did I wouldn't argue otherwise) I was willing to let this slide. However, that becomes less true if you start duplicating evidence you have already submitted as you did around the events on Guerillero user talk page which I had already summarised. If you have duplicated other evidence (whether summarised or unsummarised) please consolidate or remove them as appropriate. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Missed one! Both GCB and Piotrus !vote keep here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, François Robere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Assaf Sagiv, 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 15:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the article about Assaf Sagiv was moved to draftspace. Can you add references from reliable source about him and then submit the article for evaluation so that it could be moved back to mainspace? As well, if you find reliable references about him, please add them to the corresponding article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
When you see an article about a Chinese topic that you feel does not demonstrate the topic's notability, please check the corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia before you start the AFD process. (That applies to other country-specific or language-specific topics as well.) Often another language's Wikipedia will have a better article on a given topic than the English Wikipedia, and you can expand the English article by adding text and references from the other language's article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
In 2022, you added the "needs update" tag for the hierarchy-of-evidence pyramid [1] at the pages Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Hierarchy of evidence. Could you clarify why the pyramid needs an update? Thatsme314 ( talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Thatsme314 ( talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
pretty sure thats more than 1 revert at 2023 Israel-Hamas War, just this and this violate the restriction, and thats not going in to analyzing the other edits to see if they were reverts as well. nableezy - 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editwarring at page under Israel-Paelstine arb sanctions. Thank you. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello François Robere, in the interests of not escalating things to AE before asking for an explanation, can you please explain
this edit, in which you write According to another New York Times report, "Hamas has used civilians as human shields and positioned underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals".
citing Cooper, Helene; Schmitt, Eric; Goldman, Adam (9 November 2023).
"Israeli Forces Have Limited Time in Gaza, U.S. Officials Say".
The New York Times.
ISSN
0362-4331. Retrieved 9 November 2023.. The cited article however says Hamas has long been accused of using civilians as human shields and positioning underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals.
You removed the long been accused, changed using to used, to claim that the NYT supports as fact what they report as accusation, and you did it within quotation marks. Can you please explain to me how this happened?
nableezy - 13:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Francois,
I would be glad to assist you with reference template formatting if ever you are in need. I noticed that it is a common theme on your talk page. I also sense that you have a preferred style of referencing... and that it is WP:MOS compliant even if atypical. (And also that you are technically fluent given allusions to Linux kernels or such somewhere!) Whatever the case may be, don't hesitate to hail me on my talk page if I can be of use with citation formatting, or anything else... particularly anything that is a source of sturm und drang to Wikipedians.--
FeralOink (
talk) 14:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)