User talk:Icewhiz/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Icewhiz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello. Help improve the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.27.68.20.150 (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I do not do fashion models (on Wikipedia) all that often.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

May you please, when you cite sources in edits like this, fill out the whole reference (if that makes sense)? I think I can actually turn this into a GA when most editors stop caring and move on to another current event. Any help like properly citing references is always appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I type these in manually and use the ref tag (which is an accepted way for a full citation) - I did see that I omitted the Author(s) in some of them (fixed). What else am I missing?Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to explain. I was corrected on this when I wrote my first GA. Reviewers prefer something like this: <ref>{{cite web (or book)|url= |title= |author= |work (or publisher for books) | date= |accessdate= }}</ref>. Your way "works", but an observant reviewer will request me to standardize citations during the review process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I avoid the cite template - and I got an article GAed with straight refs (which per policy are acceptable). Note that the article at the moment (I think!) has quite a few wrong cites (e.g. in which newspapers are cited as a web page - cite web). The cite template is a pain when typing it in manually - it works great if you use one of the citation generators and then copy paste.Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not overly worried, but I think you will agree that the article needs to settle on one cite template. I am more concerned with addressing the fragmented writing style all too common with current event articles and striking inessential/outdated material; 1RR and, umm, "emotionally invested" editors tend to slow things down. On top of that, I have not written a GA for a current event, besides the 2017 Sierra Leone landslides so it is a new experience for me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I think we need a more serious discussion on the casualties list. We need to either put it in a chart or remove it entirely (I prefer the latter). I will never be able to pass a review in its current condition.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I generally think casualty lists add little (above a certain number). As for citation templates - probably more than half of the refs will change in the next week - I do not think this will be stable. I am not sure a current event can really shoot for GA - usually that gets done after things settle down a bit - when the article is still in flux it is difficult to review any stable version and subsequent events written into the article can throw you out of GA. Probably best to GA a couple of weeks after things settled down. I strongly prefer raw refs - but I never battle over ref style (well, ok, I did once object when someone modded lots of refs of an article I wrote mostly by myself and changed all the refnames I remembered (and were descriptive) to :0, :1, .... While at the same time cn-tagging alt. names in a footnote (which I fixed by reffing) ), MOS style points, British/American, grammar/tense - if any of these get changed I happily live with the new ones.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit broke a link to one of the sources. Please amend this when you have the chance. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! Fixed. There is a bot that rescues these every few hours, but I should've checked the reflist.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Icewhiz, but this is an odd comment: well perhaps they've been shooting the assailants prior to them getting close enough to mortally harm the IDF soldiers. I have eyes and I can see the videos of people being shot at while running away from the fence for myself. Please temper your IDF advocacy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please cease making personal attacks. I am advocating for no one. As for videos - they are not a RS, and issues with videos in this area abound. In the context of current events: "The IDF warned Hamas published some of the videos "while others are edited or completely fabricated."The IDF also released their own videos of what they say shows various attempts at sabotage." Per [1]. As for the hurling of firebombs and explosives - I quoted several RS.Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that my heading was a bit uncalled for; I modified it to refer to the article instead. Still, I don't believe it's a personal attack to point out an editor's own comments, as I did on the article's Talk page and in this post. You were offering your own perspective on the matter (...well perhaps they've been shooting...), and I responded with same.

Still, I'm genuinely curious about your position on I/P area vs Poland's attempts at historical revisionism via the recent legislation. If you can (correctly) distinguish between historical scholarship and state-sanctioned propaganda, why not apply the same scrutiny to IDF's statements and Israel's positions? I've read a few books on WW2 propaganda and developed a number of articles on the topic, so this subject area is interesting to me. I see same 'battles of the words' in I/P area, vis a vis Wehrmacht's war-time propaganda, Poland's attempts to protect its name and historical legacy, etc... That's the point-of-view I'm coming from.

Please accept my apology for the heading which was insufficiently subtle; I've changed it now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to uncalled for OR on the lack of IDF casulties to attacks reported in RS with a refutation by raising a possibility. I do apply the same level of scrutiny. As for this month's events - the results were forseeable for all invovled, and if you want to look at things critically - look at who has actually been doing the legwork - organizing transport and levying personnel.Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The IDF?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 07:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For finding those entries on the Minerva in the first place 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		And for then helping my stupid ass out by merging the Minerva information to the list seemingly in a couple of seconds (My mistake was that I missed the two curly brackets at the end) 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you (Here ----->[2]) may have been involved. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D01E:3C0D:91FA:2E5F (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Icewhiz, I saw you're a member of WP:FINANCE and I was wondering if you had the time or interest in helping review a new version of the article for Financial Accounting Standards Board. I'm proposing a rather large-scale overhaul of the content as well as a number of additions, as the current article is rather disorganized and deficient of quality information. I'm looking for as much feedback and collaboration as I can find in making sure it's compliant with Wikipedia standards. I'd really appreciate it if you have the time to take a look, even if it's just a small part of it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am on the finance side of the accounting/finance divide (though I do consume accounting reports) - so this is less my cup of tea, and I am mainly editing via tablet (good for light duty editing, but for heavy stuff I want my PC) until next Monday. Try poking me next week if no one more relevant picks this up. I did take a peek - you do have several unreferenced paragraphs (which seem to br new text) - that obviously needs to be fixed. Some of your section titles are overly long e.g. "FASB resets its agenda, incorporates post-implementation review and private company voice". There is also an over emohasis on the history of the organizatiin (and I will note that moet of what appears under "Accounting Standards" is also historyish). Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I agree that some of the titles are over-long, and I've cut the one you mentioned specifically down considerably. I'll admit that neither finance nor accounting are my strong suits, and most of the work I do tends to have a historical focus. I haven't heard back from anyone else I've reached out to yet. Would you be open to collaborating on cleaning up this draft? I'm happy to do additional research where you might think it's currently lacking. My concern is that I'm too close to the content to really be able to see what needs refining.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's move this over to Talk:Financial Accounting Standards Board where I responded + the sandboxed article.Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As you have seen Sarsour has gotten herself into "intersectional" politics. So much so that she is now attacking influential American imams. She called Hamza Yusuf the founder of the First Islamic university in the US a white supremacist on stage at RIS 3 years ago, helped lead a effort to silence Imam Zaid Shakir after he criticized her embracing of race base left wing identity politics and the language it brings. Was called out by multiple Imams for leading an effort to brand Muslims 4 Liberty founder, and first Muslim to run for the VP nomination in a political, party Imam Will Coley as a white supremacist and a nazi for a fundraiser that's stated purpose was to emulate the spirit of Saluhadin, and do good for those who despise you. She finds herself at the head of a movement meant to ostracize and drive out all white muslims from the faith, or at least marginalize them to subservient figures. Imams of color who call it out are immediately silenced and called coon. Just some things i thought you might enjoy researching for your next edit on her article, all of this is easily found in a google search. Look up "my rahma does not extend to white supremacists", then the sermons "language of love and community" and "Imam zaid destroys feminism" and "Linda calls humza yusuf racist" (a man who walked with MLK) which were sermons in reaction to Linda and her crowd's new ideology, and religion. Muslims4Justice (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC) a concerned muslim who fears sees the damage her influence has on the muslim community.

I've been pushing this change for a month and a half, and you just slipped it in the backdoor. I know most of them didn't bother reading the sources, I know most of them didn't really follow the discussion, and this... subtle solution of yours is quite impressive. François Robere (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If you post walls of text, and many sources, very few will read it all. The discussion devolved into walls of text between you and the IP. Slatersteven stepped in to mediate, the way to move things in the correct direction is to compromise with the mediator - who probably (like most everyone else involved) did not read the walls of text...Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: you should not, however, posted in the TP how this proves you righr (even if it does) - that elicits pushback. The correct TP post would have beeb a simple support, perhaps grudgingly in the spirit of compromise... I suggest you undo your posts and do that instead - you want to deescalate, not escalate.Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You did more than just compromise - you committed first. It was very clever.

I know they don't. The reason it evolved in that way is because "short" quotes didn't work - she just ignored them and kept introducing more and more (and more) sources that supposedly supported her, all the while accusing me of "cherry picking", and none of the others picked it up. It's shocking but not surprising how Wikipedia dumbs down the discussion - these "walls of text", shorter than the average newspaper column, are barely sufficient in a field that has literally seen thousands of books written on every possible aspect, and even those are too long for some? How much lower can this discussion get?

Yeah, I apologize. I know it was the wrong "move", but... well, this issue was by far my longest and most frustrating "Wiki war", and it's not even that complicated - it's only the stubbornness of that one editor, and the apathy of the other editors and admins (and this naiveté of one of them - "if it's wrong, others will fix it"... yeah, I'm sure...) that made it that difficult. Then these twists - the mediator producing his own sources ([3]), and you managing to get everyone to agree - I wanted to set the record straight, and I counted on them not turning back after having already agreed on the phrase.

I'm not sure why, but these POV-directed edits tend to go hand in hand with poor phrasing, resulting in an overall poorly written text. I think I'll take a break from that article and go edit something less contentious, like the article on Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski should not be contentious. But the article is. Sources on his Canadian history work, family, and other non-Holocaust details would do the article good. Note his group made a major new release in the field - but coverage at the moment is mainly in Polish (there was some pre release info in English interviews) - I am holding off on adding this until there are English sources, preferably in peer reviewd sources - which I am sure will materialize soon.Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I know. I saw the PR on their site a month ago, but haven't yet seen the work itself.

I noticed a short discussion upstairs on citation templates. I'm sure you're aware of ProveIt, and Zotero can be configured to format citations in Wikicode (or any other format) on drag-and-drop. Coupled with a browser plugin it makes citation handling much easier, and reduces the need for manual input to a minimum. François Robere (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I might try that, though typing them with refs is pretty quick.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your comment concerning NMMNG's appeal, WP:ONUS applies to "mainspace" (i.e., Wikipedia articles), not to talk pages and other parts of Wikipedia. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the disputed material, but I thought you should know about WP:ONUS. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. This "FAQ" is sort of "stuck in the middle" - it presumes to be authoritative - but it is in talk space. Edits on it resemble main-space (WP:TPO obviously doesn't apply).Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll note - all this fuss is over a FAQ - this was a total waste of time (at least for me) - I tried to convince them all to cut it out as being off-topic - but then got sucked into actually providing sources for this rather (POV warning) silly argument about historical pretexts.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		All your help on Israel-related articles does not go unnoticed! Waddie96 (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Note, this applies to talk pages as well. Poeticbent talk 03:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A tad WP:POINTy to copy my DS alert to you - but thank you. Regarding Chodakiewicz, what I wrote may be sourced to - DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW?, Newsweek (among other RSes). I shall also note that WP:RS is policy - using WP:SELFPUBLISHED (or per your retort some weren't published - WP:USERGENERATED) for sourcing is a clear no-go - particularly when they are hardly cited by others (With one of the very few cites being Chodakiewicz in his Intermarium - of which one reviewer in a peer reviewed journal wrote - "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies"[4]). We should be using top-notch sourcing for World War 2 history - not self published books by Mark Paul (possibly a nom de plume) or Ewa Kurek (Poland stops ceremony for author accused of anti-Semitism (AP) or How Ewa Kurek, the Favorite Historian of the Polish Far Right, Promotes Her Distorted Account of the Holocaust (Tablet)) - who "has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II". Promoting such WP:FRINGE non-RS sources on Wikipedia is a serious matter.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This Mark Paul stuff's turning up at Bielski partisans. Clearly you've got more experience dealing with this nonsense than I have, so I thought I'd let you know. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: It has been inserted to Wikipedia for a long time, and is heavily promoted on the web by KPK Toronto. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul. The publication is questionable on a number of grounds - but the most relevant Wikipedia policy is simply WP:SPS which clearly prohibits it - if you see it, remove it, coting SPS. Icewhiz (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You might also want to peek at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust for a current discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this edit of yours; the edit summary seems to discuss Mark Paul and be about a removal but the actual effect of the edit is to reinsert the Bogdan Musiał book.

I'll take a peek at that, indeed. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I must've edited an old version - I struck out the two Paul links while editing an old version, but didn't remove Musial (who is more credentialed than Paul - Musial has actually been published - though he is very much criticized). Sorry. Self reverted.Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We've all done it from time to time. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please be informed of this [5] GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For having the fortitude and scholarly expertise to defend articles on musty, ancient events from extremist historical revisionism and its attempts impose a warped narrative of the history of Poland. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you are aware of this but I couldn't find any record of you being properly informed about it in the past. So here you go, now it is official for easy reference. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorized for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system.

Hello,

Would you mind explaining to me the meaning of Icewhiz ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Ice" + " " + "Whiz" (spaces are bad for you). Whiz - per wiktionary Noun(2) - "(informal) Someone who is remarkably skilled at something". Ice has a number of meanings, including the obvious, as well as acronyms such as ICE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So, it is in a way like in topgun... Not Iceman but IceSuperman'...

Thank you for the clarificiation. Pluto is the dog of Waltdisney and 2012 the year of my subscription.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup. though a "whiz" ranks quite bit below superman - :-) - usually just someone who is good at something. I'm not sure what I didn't capitalize the W - I've done so in the past, might have been a technical thing from when I registered the user (circa 2012 - so I really do not remember - and when I registered (I had done some IP editing previously) - it was really for fairly low-key editing - 5 edits from Aug 2012 to the end of the year (on hewiki - finance related) - so I probably really did not give it much thought back then).Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You said give a source saying that Hezbollah and Polisario front are allies and the source is not from morocco, so here it is. Here is one. This is a Belgian Group that found it out ^[1]. Here is also the Algerian Media confirming it^[2]. Algeria should also be added due this source or others. Or at least on countries that do NOT consider Hezbollah a terrorist group.-Fenetrejones (talk) 3:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw those, and also peeked at the Belgian original, but I am not familiar with them, making it difficult for me to assess them for RSness - you might be able to convince someone he isbetter versed in North Africa (perhaps in the relevant wiki project?) - or, probably, if you wait it probably will show up in Reuters/BBC/CNN/.... which are easier to assess.Icewhiz (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please join the survey for this RFC, give your comments, end the RFC or suggest the next course of action. Thank you. Jansprat123 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misinform. Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. I can't believe you are launching an edit war over whether this is a "rural county" or not - it is described in sources as such. What is relevant is the description of the county in 1942-44.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's you who have launched a war, even against Grabowski. It wasn't a county 1942-1944. Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You remove because you reject the source. Piotrków Trybunalski - the data are true. Wouldn't you be so kind to correct the references insted to remove true data?Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: - which article and diff? I did not edit Piotrków Trybunalski. If you point out the diff (or article) with an issue - I'll take care of it.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. The ghetto - Piotrków Trybunalski Ghetto - responded there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Why you don't ask CU check on this matter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GizzyCatBella it will facilitate matters one way or another.--Shrike (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm letting the evaluating admin(s) decide. I'm also not sure, given the long history here, that such a check would be conclusive.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience even if CU will be denied it will facilitate the case but as you wish.--Shrike (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It was not who started the SPI so nvm--Shrike (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It started off on a different vector (that was confirmed - self admitted) - but mid-course I noticed some very strong evidence.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		...and to rational and considered discourse generally. Actually, I had come here intending to give you a civility barnstar, but I see you have (unsurprisingly) received one recently already. And this one suits well enough under the circumstances. I've seen you around the project in the past, but your conduct in some recent discussions is what has caught my eye most. I've never known which phonetic usage of your double-entendre name you mean to emphasize, nor particularly cared, but as far as I am concerned Ice says it all for your demeanor; you are pure cool and patience under pressure, even willing to weather some intended offense and still come back looking to build a bridge, if possible. That is real character as I measure such things, and a disposition that makes you a real asset to the project, and its community in particular. Keep up the good work, but be careful--we're liable to stick a mop in your hands at some point! Snow let's rap 07:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m informing you that you have double tagged talk page of this new user -> Tatzref. You inserted one tag here on May 18th - [6] then you reproduced the same tag over here [7] on May 22nd. I'm assuming you have done this by error. Correct this lapse by eliminating one of this labels promptly. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are separate DS alerts for different areas., I did however make amtechnival error in the second instance which I will rectify.

I'm trying to build consensus to add a quote to the Wiki article on Hamas. can you chime in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmayer18 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jonmayer18: - probably best not to notify like this - as you'll run into the possibility of this seen as canvassing (I see you've notified Scaleshombre as well, he seems inactive) - I actually have Hamas on my watch list - I would have seen it. If you do want to notify - I suggest, in the future, you use pings and you specify the criteria of the notification next to the pings. I am sure your intentions were good - but this is a topic area where things tend to be "hot" and contested.Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that. Thanks for the information. Its a minor sentence, but I understand the principal now.Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I will respond at Hamas regarding the content you are suggesting + I will say I was notified of the discussion. The relevant policy is WP:CAN, under which "Appropriate notification"(WP:APPNOTE) is approved and "Inappropriate notification" is not - but you need to be extra careful in "hot" topic areas.Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a draft[8] can you add about pro-Zionist declaration that he gained from central powers to counter Balfour tfrom this source [9]?--Shrike (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Will do, tonight or tomorrow when I am on a PC and not a tablet.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: - did not get easy access to the article - but I added two book refs that were easy finds, some text, and the declaration itself to the draft.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You should ask access to jstor via WP:LIBRARY its useful.I will send you the papper.--Shrike (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW There is some interest stuff in this article for the Tel_Aviv_and_Jaffa_deportation.Are you going to add more to hantke article or you finished?--Shrike (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Done for now.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

See [10]--Shrike (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementGizzyCatBella (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you add your username to the comment here, so that it is clear who is saying what. Thanks! Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dang. Sorry. Missed a ~. Fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I see that this is a dispute that stretches across a large number of pages. In general, I'm not sure how I can help, it really isn't my area. At one point, I thought Paul, Chodakiewicz, and Wierzbicki seemed ok. But looking for independent sources that agreed with their less obvious positions, I often couldn't find any confirmation, and have come to my current opinion, which is in agreement with you. I honestly am not certain how sincere statements that these authors should be considered RS are and don't understand how to have a conversation about the issue. It seems to me more like a case where a significant number of editors are interested in a particular view, RS guidelines be damned. And it seems there aren't enough editors interested in keeping to the guideline. I'll try to look out for other high level discussions about it, but kudos to you for your efforts. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul is far from ok (as is Anna Poray). Wierzbicki I think (without looking into it) is possibly ok but biased. Chodakiewicz is more credentialed than Paul (there is space to argue about him) - but highly biased - his political blogs (in Polish and in English in iwp) are bad, some of his published work is usable but on the edge of the specturm - it also seems his later work (e.g. Intermarium that got called full of conspiracies in a peer reviewed journal) is more critically received (and he has also become more active in Polish politics in later years). Ewa Kurek is between Paul and Chodakiewicz in this regard (though criticism of her is much easier to find). Musial is similar to Chodakiewicz but in German instead of English. Leszek Pietrzak's stuff looks like mass market conspiracy. And then recently I has this guy's blog (search him) - [11] - used as a source (for something Jewish, of course)....

The Polish Wikipedia is actually much more balanced on many of these articles - there is a whole specturm of scholars in Poland (e.g. Alina Cała who Paul says is Jewish, but I have not seen anything in her bio (or her mother) to suggest this - she is on the left side of the spectrum) - and they get represented - and sure it is a bit skewed (as is any language wiki - including English) - but still on a POV that is not too far off. On some of the topics in the area of Poland (particularly when communists and/or Jews are involved in the topic) on the English Wikipedia (less travelled - articles that have had the TLC of 1-3 editors...) - you see the most extreme fringe sourcing, and then text that actually misrepresents it further to the edge.

In terms of Paul - yes - he is a big problem on enwiki. Part of which is because he is really easy to find in a google search and partly becuase of persistent insertion of his material into alot of articles.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your mention of Cała reminds me of another place I have dipped my toe in the issue with you.[12] In that conversation, Cała was shockingly and obviously incorrectly used as an example of a scholar whose work supports Paul. That conversation seemed to peter out, I'm not sure if any consensus was reached, but that page seems stable and only one poorly formatted reference to Paul remains. Anyway, as I said, kudos and good luck - I'll try to keep an eye out for anywhere I can be of obvious help. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at the parody example above the RfC (search parody) where he actually admits (in a footnote, not the text) to have summarized a published paper (of a young not too known scholar) and flipped the meaning around (Poles transposed with Jews).... Now guess what happens when you search for this rather obscure young scholar's work... You are quite likely to get Paul quoting her (flipped) in these open and readily available sources.... This is built for SEO, scholars trying to get a nitty detail, and for sloppy Wikipedia editors (myself included) looking to spirce something quick.Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Mark Paul is a red herring. The real issue is "#PolishRighteous" (or whatever the movement is called) and the like. If it were clear that a consensus were against using Paul, it might not put the issue to rest. As you point out, Paul is the least well respected of a line-up of scholars which fit into a certain view. If a consensus formed that Paul shouldn't be used, similar points would be made citing Chodakiewics, then Wierzbicki, then Strzembosz, then Musial, and on and on. To me, the whole effort seems like a waste of time given the size of the underlying issue - trying to deal with it on a case-by-case effort seems like a game of whack-a-mole. And all the work you've put into it hasn't even succeeded in dealing with the use of Paul in these articles. What is worse, it looks to me like there aren't a sufficient number of non-involved editors looking at these pages to enforce guidelines - indeed there aren't enough to reach a consensus. I'm not sure how to deal with it, you've tried to use RFC to bring more attention to it, but that didn't seem to work. Your post at RSN also didn't really address the issue. To me, the whole thing seems overwhelming. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't know geography an dhistory of Poland, but you keep to describe them. Please study.Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh? How so?Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You take a book and read it. Some day you will know there weren't 30 million ethnic Poles in the region.

You have made a number of small errors in the page. Please correct.Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say they were 30 million ethnic Poles in Poland - I said Cala said so - which she did. I would also note that the 6,620 Polish Righteous Among the Nations count for Poland is, per my understanding, based on Polish citizens or borders (and non-Jews within them) - and not on the (sometimes unknown) ethnicity of the recipient - thus possibly including Polish citizens of a Ukrainian background, for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please correct the language error you have made in the text.

This Wikipediaq isn't a hoover to collect any trash we find. We quote serious people telling precize informations. What is the 30 million? Please explain or I'll remove the idiotic number. I'm a mathematician and I'm unable to tolerate the way some humanists use numbers. 30 million is 30 million. It's not 20 millio n nor 36 million, it's 30 million. What is the 30 million? You quote, you are responsible,Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is Cala saying 30 million. Not me. I don't know how she got to 30 million (maybe post-war population? Different regions? Polish expats? Frankly - no idea what so ever) - but this is her number, not mine.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. please don't quote the trash you are unable to explain. ALina Cała has published thousands of pages, why do you select exactly this unacademic and unaderstandable slurs?Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the level of her books [13] bzdury pospolite i ezoteryczne.Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, clearly some people disagree with her. I added a "some" prior to the 30 million, to make it clear this is a round inexact number and not a precise figure.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess there is some value in preserving this comment of yours as it illustrates pretty clearly your POV and bias, nonetheless the wording is particularly offensive and you should redact it or strike it. And of course not do it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh? What in particular is offensive there?Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

" Poles were not particularly successful at killing Germans". On an article about WW2. Regardless of what the actual % of German military casualties were due to Polish action, this kind of phrasing is blatantly meant to be offensive and insulting. You could have made the same point (regardless of whether it's right or wrong) without resorting to these kinds of taunts. But you didn't. You chose to word it in a provocative way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Poles includes Polish Jews, about 100 000 of them in September 1939, probably thousands in Italy 1944/1945. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's neither an insult nor a taunt, and is directly on point to the attack above there on Gross (on his direct stmt on this matter). I shall however add a source for this, and I do regret you find this offensive.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is an insult and a taunt and the source you added does not support the claim. First it says "may", then it talks about the actual % killed not a "success rate". It's sort of hard to kill "lots of Germans" when you're occupied and subject to genocidal policies by two totalitarian regimes simultaneously. And the reason it's deeply offensive is because 1) it's ethnically based and 2) it's clearly blaming the victim. "Oh you should've fought harder, so it's your fault. You <insert ethnicity here> are always like this". I don't know why I even have to explain this to you, it's common sense and basic decency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not ethnic - it's nationality - and I chose to respond to the rather far out claim that Gross is fringe (while a self-published author is not) due to Gross saying "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" - this is not a comment I made without a context. FWIW many other nationalities/ethnicities (for instance Jews) also did not kill many Germans (The Jewish resistance, such as it was, was definitely "less successful" in this regard than the AK) - this is merely historical reality.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's obviously ethnic, please stop making excuses. And one more time, EVEN IF, we take Gross' claim at face value, it does NOT support your contention (% are not absolute numbers, "success" implies attempt, etc.) nor does it justify the offensive way in which you phrased it. The fact that you find it necessary to put the phrase "less successful" in quotation marks when talking about different ethnic group - but did not do so in your original statement - suggests you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about but are just playing games, intended to provoke.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are reading too much into "not particularly successful" - which perhaps should've been phrased more precisely - I had no intention to imply anything other than the percentage of the German military dead (~5 million in all), and hence number of Germans, that could be attributed to Poles per Gross's comment on "Poles killed more Jews than Germans". Gross's stmt, if you take estimates such as Grabowski for first half of the sentence, does check out in terms of the basic math (taking 1939 German dead, Warsaw uprising dead, and dead from other operations during the occupation).Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually came here to say that I already realised what the inference of the 'we were taught to hate Poles' stories was. Wilful naivety can be useful at times. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You may think your recent behavior on articles concerning Polish-Jewish history is acceptable. It is not. Kicking at hornets' nests for the sake of stirring trouble is your prime minister's job, not yours. Keep adding Gross-ly POV material and you will find yourself at WP:AE very soon. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not have a prime minister. And what I am doing is cleaning up some really poorly sourced material. Any material I do add is sourced to top notch sources. I do suggest you look at some of this - some of the English Wikipedia articles in this area are in a shameful state - sourced to highly POV fringe sources, with the Polish Wikipedia being less POVish than the English one.Icewhiz (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly - You sources aren't fringe, including the 200,000 myth, the other sources are fringe? Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Myth? Seems to have been published (a number of times), in reputable academic settings, by reputable academics, and also repeated by multiple news media outlets as the estimate (it seems the current leading one) for the degree of complicity. Which sources treat this a myth?Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

With you edit summary here [14],did you accuse me of POV pushing, do I read this correctly? Clarify.GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My comment was on the content of the paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest keeping, if possible, details of positive and negative articles to the works in questions, so that we don't have to worry about BLP issues so much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - I initially added this at random (having run across Cooper in a different context, and seeing that Cooper/Slavic Review were discussed at length - seemed DUE for inclusion). However, after looking at this a bit more, I think that sourcing should be better (no znak!) - with both positive, and negative reception. I also think Paulsson is not independently notable of the book (in fact, prior to your creation of the book article, I was mulling a requested move of Paulsson to the book) - he doesn't meet PROF/NAUTHOR, and he's not at GNG (definitely not independently of the book - coverage that he's had has all been linked to the book). Your thoughts on notability?Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have more citations than him, lol ([15] - and you are right, he clearly self-describes himself as Steve, omitting Gunnar from his GSCholar profile entirely) but his book is reasonably famous in the field. His research is also discussed in books ([16], [17] - note we need two searches, one for Steve, one for Gunnar, with Gunnar being more popular, and total = 2k hits, that's pretty good). He is called an "an expert on the [Holocaust] period" by Times of Israel: [18], presumably reliable newspaper you have cited yourself on occasion, if I am not mistaken. I think he would survive AfD, but you can of course start it anyway, there's nothing wrong with testing the waters in borderline cases like this. Personally, I lean towards being inclusionist, so I'd leave him be.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think GSP meets WP:PROF#2 due to his book winning Wiener_Library_for_the_Study_of_the_Holocaust_and_Genocide#The_Fraenkel_Prize ([19], [20]). Don't you think it is a significant and reliable award? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - PROF#2 is for Nobel prizes, Fields, Pulitzer Prize for History, etc.. The Fraenkel award is for PHD dissertations - as as such is excluded by bullet-2 of PROF-2 -- "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." - as this is an award for graduate students (basically for best PHD in the field for the period of the prize). Furthermore, I would argue this is for the book. In short - no - this is not nearly a significant enough award for PROF#2.Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

More importantly - there is quite a bit of "meat" with which to develop the article on the book. With the article of Paulsson - there is a dearth of sources - he's not covered as a subject (with the exception, perhaps, of the libel case - and even that is by a marginal source). Having an article with one short bio paragraph, a summary of the book, and a list of almost all of his 13 publications - is what this will remain with the current sources we have - as he doesn't have WP:SIGCOV and more important no WP:INDEPTH pieces on him.Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You were involved in a discussion of this issue concerning the article Human Right in Israel. The WP dispute resolution noticeboard thread is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#[Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel#Recent_trend_version_2] --NYCJosh (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

When you have responded to me saying I want to return Oxfam without "illegal" and then in the RSN claim that I want to use Oxfam for "illegal" that strikes me as being purposely dishonest. Please do not continue to purposely misrepresent my position. Thank you. nableezy - 23:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, cease with the personal attacks. The diff in question in the article itself contains illegal. I have not seen any concrete suggestions regarding poverty on the talk page. Had you presented clearly what text you were trying to support (on the talk page, and in RSN) - I wouldn't have responded in good faith with the last diff in which this was introduced as a source. I'll note that Erictheenquirer (who forgot to sign on the talk-page) who posted after you was still supporting this for "illegal". I will also note that if all you are trying to source is that Israel was withholding tax revenue - much better sources exist.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not the diff in question, as I said clearly on the talk page Oxfam was only used for the fact that taxes had been withheld and I am fine with the current wording. You responded to that, so obviously are aware of it. I havent made a personal attack. nableezy - 05:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling me dishonest is a personal attack. The last post on the talk page was by Eric - and he was still trying to use this for illegal. The only diff in the article was for the illegal bit. No one suggested "poverty" on the talk page or in the article. I was responding to what I saw as the dispute on the talk-page in regards to this source - I represented the dispute, not what you specifically said or didn't say (though I'll note you reverted this as well with the "illegal" language). And really - if you want a source for tax withholding - much better ones are available.Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I called your misrepresenting my position dishonest. I did not call you dishonest. I did revert to include the "illegal" as the original removal only referenced Oxfam as the source and I relied on that. I shouldnt have, I should have looked at it then instead of after and noticed that the only thing that supported "illegal" was a presentation at the UN. Which is why I said on the talk page I was fine with the wording as it was now. nableezy - 05:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I was representing what I thought was the dispute - which involved more than just you. Looking back at the talk page - after reverting, you did indeed support the current wording - but Eric was still gunning for including "illegal" - which is in the source you are trying to approve at RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oxfam doesnt support illegal in that, it calls the wall illegal. For taxes it only calls on Israel to release them in accordance with their international agreements, not that withholding them violates them. nableezy - 07:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here you have added a book by zoologist as a source for historical information about massacre in Soviet occupied Poland [21]. I have removed it, as this is not valid source about such historical events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you think of anything to add to this category? Both as in, existing articles I've missed, and which other works are seminal/important and we should stub them? (Note the category is not limited to WWII/TH issues, through those seem most prominent due to generating most media attention). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross's Golden Harvest. Eliach's There once was a world: A 900-Year Chronicle of the Shtetl of Eishyshok 1998. And quite a few more - it's pretty empty at present.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I admit I haven't heard of the second title, but you are right about the first one: Golden Harvest (book). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

On 14 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Menachem Hantke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Arthur Menachem Hantke sought support from Austria-Hungary during the First World War for the Zionist cause? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Menachem Hantke. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Arthur Menachem Hantke), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

article rescue and notability

Thank you for quality articles such as Loitering munition, Arthur Menachem Hantke, Wrangell Bombardment and Finsbury Park Mosque, done in collaboration, for patrolling new pages and rescuing articles, for helping with your knowledge of Hebrew and answering notability questions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Icewhiz Gambit (though Icewhiz didn't invent it): if someone writes anything critical of Israel, they are an unreliable activist and therefore they can't be cited. It would be funny if it wasn't so damaging to the encyclopedia. In my opinion, your editing is steadily getting worse and you have already passed the point when you should be topic-banned. Zero^talk 05:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is anything serious it is this revert which reinstated clear WP:REDFLAG material regarding lack of "full citizenship" (which, following discussion, seems to be mistranslated from the French). I did not say the author is "an unreliable activist" - please do not put words in my mouth - I did say it seems they receive coverage for their non-academic activities. Stating that a post-doc is "is an expert on the Circassians of Israel and her judgements are quote-worthy" - is a rather strong assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am kindly asking you to rethink your recent behavior. You are engaging in highly aggressive statements that do not build cooperative spirit of building encyclopedia. Statements like "He's advancing polocaust, which is quite fringey." or comparing Polish Home Army to SS can be taken by some as highly offensive. I am also worried by your careless use of sources to support claims that aren't there like this edit on Naliboki massacre[22]. Please rethink wording of your statements and your use of sources. Kind regards --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not compare the Home Army to the SS - though I shall note that several Holocaust historians and Holocaust survivors have written that the AK was more dangerous to Jews in the countryside than the Nazis. As for Naliboki - the current article is a mess, relying on poor and out of date sources combined with OR on top of that (or to be precise, what would seem to be copy pasted material from a SPS).Icewhiz (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Home Army. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I am done, for now. I missed the fact that the Polish participation was mentioned, I thought the argument was about some people removing it entirely. I've did a review of sources on talk. The big problem is, IMHO, that no sources discuss this in detail. I am not sure which sources you removed and what was restored ([23] is not very clear and I am pressed for time). But I removed a few bad sources, and if you want, I can review more. IMHO we need to get the early 2000s IPN book discussing Stawiski and see what is says, otherwise the article won't improve much. I cannot find much online. (But also note that AB's book doesn't seem to discuss this?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Yes - online sources are a problem - I stuck to what I saw as high quality sources that clearly mention Stawiki - e.g. I'm wary of using yizkor books (which I see as PRIMARY (though it depends - some aren't) - so limited use and usually attributed). The previous version (the one from Aug 2017 - that GCB restored) - more or less denied Polish involvement - it placed the main responsibility on SS Einsatzgruppen with minor participation of 6 Poles (released from prison and emerging from forest hideaways who were "led to" revenge killings by the SS). Regarding my edit diff in March - I mainly addressed Rossino (as it was sourcing most of the paragraph - while Rossino mentioned Stawiki once in a different context (troop movements on 23 June) - but more or less all of the sources in that version had issues (either non-RS, or not mentioning Stawiki).Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a good source for '6 Poles', through also taking the news report of IPN cited above, there's probably something right about some perpetrators being revenge-seekers released from prison. Also, we need good sources for the date of the massacre (July 4-5?). Overall, I agree with most sources you removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I found this testimony (in Polish): [24]. Do you think the person who wrote it was an antisemite? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well - scholars tend to view Polish stmts with skepticism - though this testimony seems rather forthcoming (BTW - the question isn't antisemitism - the greater problem is evasion/apologism - someone who is really-really antisemitic actually has no problem with admitting everything - the greater problem is with people who want to hide the past). The problem with these sorts of testimonies (and this is also true of Yizkor books - though the yizkor book (and there is one for Stawiski) is better if referring to their own town (when referring to other towns - the yizkor book is often based on rumors or heresay of what they heard) - is that this is what he heard and remember - e.g. he remembers the Jews of Stawiski being burned - but this doesn't seem to be borne out in other sources (the yizkor book mentions the Synagouge burning - but most of the Jews seem to be beaten to death) - and this testimony might very well confuse Stawiski with other towns (after all - there were about 19 of these - and this guy might have a recollection of say 4-5 of these events (via hearsay/rumor) - which tends to lead to a jumbled account and mixing of details.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the problem with primary sources, which why we avoid them. It's good to keep in mind that scholars who use them are in the end just making educated guesses and 'I like/I don't like' judgement on which sources to trust, and to what extent. Btw, you say "scholars tend to view Polish stmts with skepticism". What about Jewish "stmts"? Do you think they are viewed with less skepticism, and is this the right attitude? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Survivor stmts are usually taken with less skepticism (though usually one will try to judge a large number of them - and corroborate details) - this is true elsewhere - e.g. Rwandan genocide or Armenian Genocide. Survivor stmts, if they are eyewitness accounts, document a significant life event - and the survivor is more likely to remember every little detail (as opposed to someone passing by and seeing the event). Survivors also do not usually have an incentive to lie (though they may exaggerate or underestimate). The problem with the "other side" (and this is not Poland specific or even Holocaust specific) - is that there is a tendency to engage in apologetic discourse or denial (often out of shame - not wanting to admit), in the case of perpetrators or relatives/freinds of perpetrators (in a small town - often most of the town will be related (close or distant) or friendly with someone in the mob!) - there is a built-in incentive to lie to protect your loved ones (and then - second hand accounts also contain the lie). There is also a problem with property (at least in the Holocaust) - in much of Eastern Europe (Poland and elsewhere) - Jewish property (which was significant - in some of these place half of the town/village) - devolved to the non-Jewish residents (either officially, or they just took over) - this leads people who have held onto such war time property (houses, fields, etc.) - to be very wary - as they have a justifiable concern (at least in their own eyes) that if they own up - someone might come knocking on the door. Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There exist some reasons to reject some parts of Jewish accounts. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed correct (and is true for most PRIMARY accounts). This is particularly true for distant hearsay accounts (e.g. a 3rd or 4th hand account, and particularly so when the testimony is of a non-local (a resident of a different town who remembers he was told something by some one in a camp) - some of these distant hearsay accounts are really jumbled - Poles turn into Germans, Germans into Poles, a beating turns into a burning, and the account of one-two-three-four different towns gets jumbled up and attributed to one town) - however researchers do make use of such accounts (with great care) - in any case we should mainly be sticking to SECONDARY analysis and not making such analysis (on Wiki at least).Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You have created a number of cite errors. Please correct them. Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Done - or to be precise I removed all the unused list-defined references. If there are additional issues please alert me and I'll fix.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

When adding refs, can you try to use Wikipedia:Citation templates? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the ref tag is equally acceptable per policy - and I type them in manually - so it is much easier for me to work with the ref tag than remember all the myriad parameters for the cite template (which works if you fill it out via a tool - in yet another window). In short - I'm very unlikely to be a cite template convert - however - this is something I never contest - I won't change cites to refs or vice-versa (and in general - I'm the same with various MOS issues - these are topics I don't "really care" about) - the only thing that bothers me is if someone changes refnames on an article I'm heavily involved with into some indecipherable (e.g. a descriptive refname into :3 via the autofill tool).Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Refs are acceptable, but not recommended. For article to become GA+, conversion is pretty much a standard these days. I strongly advise you try to learn to like cite templates, they make stuff look nicer, are machine-friendly, and generally help clean up refs sections. The autofills are not great, but if you use visual editor it doesn't matter. The visual editor 'reuse' cite tag is really nice. It took me years, but I moved from editing refs in code to editing them in VE. It's better, just need to learn new tricks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not using the visual editor.... And I got an article to GA recently with refs. Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't indicate the cite template being superior. In short - I'm unlikely to "convert" until I'm forced to do so by policy, :-), which presently I'm not. I do however avoid, in general, contesting citation styles and MOS stuff.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Then at the very least pretty please add external links to your refs. So I don't have to google to find the journal, etc. Nice find with the HS journal, I will read it soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I do usually - though sometimes not with pay-walled stuff - but on reflection - I will.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But only in Polish? [25] Wonder if the author is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the topic of Polish-Jewish history has recently become rather toxic (WP:BATTLEGROUND). I generally try to stay as neutral as possible (been there, done that, got stressed enough), but the sad consequence of this state of things in the long term, is, usually, and ArbCom and excessive use of banhammer (see also User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_radicalization_of_users and several other essays I wrote on this). What needs to happen is a deradicalization of editors, and reestablishment of WP:AGF. In practice, this is though, but gestures of good will help. I am particularly concerned over recent topic ban of User:Poeticbent, who authored dozens of quality articles in this topic area (see bottom of User:Poeticbent). I haven't reviewed the circumstances in much detail, but if I am not mistaken he was topic banned significantly for what appears to be a WP:NPA towards you. It saddens me to see this state of affairs, particularly since I think we can both agree that Poeticbent's contribution to this topic area are unrivaled (in other words, IMHO no other editor has created so much valuable content on the P-J topics). While he might have some bias towards some sources when it comes to the Righteous issues, and clearly, he took this not so well, I think it is a loss to the project that he is not allowed to edit this topic and create more content on important Polish-Jewish figures like [[Berek Lajcher], or other items like Łomża Ghetto, Piotrków Trybunalski Ghetto , Mińsk Mazowiecki Ghetto, Pińsk Ghetto and others (I won't list them all, just for ghetto articles he seems to have created 17 or so). Now, why am I mentioning this? I think that if you were to make a gesture of good faith towards him, and ask for his topic ban (again, implemented following a NPA on you, and a conflict between the two of you) revoked, it would go long way towards de-escalating tensions in this topic area. The alternative, I am afraid, is (based on experience with such conflicts) a raise in people reporting one another at AE, and likely an ArbCom which will solve things by blocking / banning many participants on both (?) sides. I do think, however, that if the two of us try to work together and moderate less experienced users we could mitigate the loss of editors (not too mention radicalization) that is already happening. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Responded via e-mail.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

On 27 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Secret City (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in his 2002 book Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940–1945, Gunnar S. Paulsson estimated that nearly a tenth of Warsaw's population were helping Jews during the Holocaust? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Secret City (book)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bielski Partisans 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.

Hi Icewhiz -

Thank you for notifying me that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip M. Epstein was marked for deletion. I am new to Wikipedia editing and want to get it right

--Rddavistoronto2 (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rddavistoronto2: - at the AfD, sourcing is key - I suggest you read up on WP:RS and WP:GNG if you wish the defend the article (both are good reads regardless in terms of Wiki policy).Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Rddavistoronto2 (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Sorry to bother. I may have screwed up and accidentally deleted the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip M. Epstein . Is there a way to recover the deletion and to apologize for my mistake? Rddavistoronto2 (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Apologies again. All good. I figured out my mistake. Rddavistoronto2 (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries. No need to ping me on my own talk page (it pings automatically).Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

... but you may want to take a look at the lead of simple:Poland and some other articles there... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm - yes - that's pretty bad - but I'll leave it to the simple English people.... On second thought - toned it down a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

[26] Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 50 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive, please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping New Page Patrol and keep up the good work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

[27] Kind regards

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This will be deleted in 36 hours, so take your own off-Wiki copy if you want it. Zero^talk 09:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No one reads them per WP:TLDR its just waste of time you don't have to defend yourself/answer each ridiculous accusation you may though ask admins if they expect you answer usually they don't. --Shrike (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I know - but some of them were just really out there, and I thought they did require a response. You are correct that generally, I need to respond less.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

All that struggle, and the recent crisis was not even mentioned at Israel–Poland relations. You (and all the talk page watchershere) may want to take a look at that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Added it to my watchlist. Would make sense to add there particularly due to the recent (week ago?) agreement - will try to get to it. Politics have not been my motivation here in the past few months - I got involved due to the widespread use of sources such as Mark Paul, a couple of outright hoaxes, and promotion of a couple of myths as fact in wikivoice - on historical articles (often using sources such as Paul).Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Will have to be someone else in light of below, and I will be updating my watchlist to avoid mistakes.Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from the history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 20:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Self-note Clarification regarding scope - [28][29] - (copied from Sandstein's talk) -

1. I do quite a bit of work on AfDs and on military history, and would want to be sure I am taking a wide enough berth around the TBAN. I would appreciate if you could clarify scope regarding (in regards to AfD !votes and/or edits to such articles (that are not Poland specific)):

a. Military Equipment - Polish military equipment are obviously in-scope. Would Messerschmitt Bf 109 (ubiquitous German warplane, also in use over Poland), or T-34 (ubiquitous Soviet tank, also in use in occupied Poland (as well as post war production)) be in-scope?

b. Military personnel - Polish military personnel are obviously in-scope. Would a figure such as Hermann Graf (German fighter ace who also flew or was based in occupied Poland during parts of the war), or Ivan Konev (Soviet general - also commanded the advance through Poland in 1944-5 as well as doing many other things) be in-scope?

c. Military operations - Invasion of Poland is obviously in-scope. Would the Occupation of the Baltic states (close to Poland and related to Molotov-Ribbentrop), Operation Barbarossa (started out in occupied Poland, rapidly moved into Ukraine/Belarus/Russia), or East Pomeranian Offensive (in pre-1945 Germany, after the war became Poland) - be in scope?

... Thank you for your time.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

1. These subjects are only in scope of the ban if they are mentioned in relation to the war in Poland. You can still mention or edit them in articles or content that is or are unrelated to Poland's World War II history.

... Sandstein 08:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Type 003 aircraft carrier. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Madrenergic^talk 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jetson401. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not leave such messsages without a basis in fact. Multiple editors have objected to the edits on this page.Icewhiz (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Dumb question: but what exactly is the difference between the incendiary balloon and the fire balloon? Both articles are describing the exact same thing, albeit the former is more developed and does not include undue focus on the Gaza protests.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The fire balloon is about the specific Fu-Go Japanese bomb (and probably should be titled Fu-Go) - in use 1944-45 (and there was prior British use in Operation Outward). Incendiary balloon is about this weapon type in general - from 1849 to 2018 - it currently has about 2.5 lines on the Gazan use - which is pretty brief and to the point. I am intending to expand pre-Gaza use more (as it is actually more interesting). The difference between the two is a-kin to the difference between Fighter aircraft and McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle.Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Gazan designs, or alternatively the Gazan firebomb campaign (which continues to present day - after the border clashes have for the most part petered out), would pass GNG for a standalone article and could probably be expanded in a standalone article, however my motivation to write up incendiary balloon was to describe the weapon class - not the specific use in Gaza.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to DYK it? --Shrike (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We could. It does still need work - it was just created today. If you to chip in that would be great.Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it already qualify.Please remember there are some deadlines to create the nomination--Shrike (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Icewhiz. Thank you for your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emir Wissam Ben Awad. Your detailed investigation is very much appreciated. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Icewhiz, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

[30] Hello Icewhiz, I recently made an complaint on ANI which is also related to you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

On 1 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Incendiary balloon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that incendiary balloons made from condoms and party balloons, and incendiary kites, have been launched from the Gaza Strip and started hundreds of fires in Israel in 2018? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Incendiary balloon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Incendiary balloon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• that's all I've got.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Just want to let you know users are repeatedly violating WP:MUG on the Paul Manafort page. For some reason they continue to remove the image in place of a mugshot. BOLO 97 (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I see you deleted my authoratative source on the Shooting of Markeis McGlockton article. We have a rule not to delete authoratative references.
--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY and furthermore WP:BLPPRIMARY. We do not use police reports aa soirces directly.Icewhiz (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you read this police report? There only straightforward facts. The rest of the police report has had edited out.

The following is taken directly from WP:PRIMARY.

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

But we prefer secondary sources of which there is no lack here. Furthermore as this a BLP situation WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly prohibits sources such as police reports.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP is an abbreviation for "Biographies of living persons". This article we are talking about is about deceased Markeis McGlockton.--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You have a BLP shooter who is 50%+ of the article. BLP applies to recently deceased as well (up to say 6 months) - so it is actually in play for the victim as well. And finally - you simply do not need the police report - on more obscure incidents sometimes you have extra detail in primary documents - but this case has been so widely covered that just about everything in that report appears in NEWSORG sources - inclusing what you were sourcing with that ref.Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

^[1]

I'm not sure how proper it is for me to comment on my BLP page but saw your remarks so thought I would ask for suggestions here, in case this BLP page is to be retained.

I agree that perhaps what is interesting is, as you noted, that the protest was a "novel intersection of American gun rights and airport security" and for "his previous high profile research position and for his decision to engage in a a high profile guns rights protest".

Would a section titled perhaps "Political Activism" which covers this as a protest, rather than a criminal case, be appropriate? If so, how best to have that added?

If that is covered, in the interests of objectivity it should be noted that my deal was not a "plea bargain" because I was actually never formally charged and never pled to anything. It was formally a "Pre-indictment Resolution Offer". Additionally important to note that my arrest record was cleared by the court. Both of these facts and the documents are in the Lemons article.

Another article which discusses a bit more about me and my beliefs in this protest is: http://www.azfamily.com/story/28384598/man-bringing-gun-to-airport-a-political-statement. Our full statement is linked from the story here: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/26196263/neuroscientist-says-ar-15-not-pointed-at-anyone-at-sky-harbor . (Sort of hard to believe there are 186,000 results at Google on that event).

An additional article which discusses more about me and my beliefs regarding the TSA is here: https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/brain-scientist-peter-steinmetz-protests-tsa-at-phoenix-airport-in-wake-of-terrorist-attacks-7844851 and https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/dr-peter-steinmetz-update-anti-tsa-protestors-talk-with-passengers-on-busy-travel-day — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNSteinmetz (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You may definitely comment on your own BLP page (the main venue would be the page talk) - editing the page directly is strongly discouraged, but constructive comments are welcome. Point taken on the pre-indictment resoution.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the AE filing, given the questionability of whether the article is under sanctions or not. I would still question whether the editor's modus operandi of rapid-fire reversion is a net positive, though, and I will be keeping an eye on their editing. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון:, @Black Kite: - He does need to slow down in some cases (sometimes overreacting by re-reverting), and he does need to learn to use the talk page more often and sooner (both issues being typical issues with new editors). however if you examine the actual reverts - the vast majority of them are net positive (ranging from outright vandalism, to clear non-improvements).Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I note that Seraphim Systems has complained about my edits. {Up until this, I had no idea even what (WP:AE) meant.} I didn't realize he/she had been complaining as I hadn't logged on to Wikipedia for almost 51 hours, and didn't go to my Talk page for a while. I had changed the description of Kavanaugh's times at Boston to eliminate the redundancy and put his performance into some context. His time, "under four hours" is immediately reiterated as (3:59:45) if I recall correctly. I frankly found its inclusion in the article as odd, given his slow times. His 4:08-something is probably comparatively better than his time five years earlier, given the increasing toll that age usually takes on performances. If it were up to me I'd delete the entire mention of it. I also wondered how he had qualified for an entrant's bib, if he was that slow. I looked up the qualifiers for those two years, and they're not fast, but considerably faster than what he ran at Boston. Ironically, the last article I edited before signing off for days was about the economist Dambisa Moyo, who is 49 or so, and who is ironically also described as an "avid" marathoner. (I had just seen her on CSpan in a fascinating interview, and logged on to get more of her fascinating history and posted a link to the interview.) I saw her picture, and she looks pretty slim and athletic, but when I researched her time, I found it was about an hour and a half slower than his (a fast crawl). You've run marathons, so I expect you understand these relative times. I'll send you a note about my own history, if you'd like, not for posting on Wikipedia. "SS" also complained that I had reverted something about Kavanaugh's consumer debt without having gone to BDR or whatever. In fact, I reverted a deletion by an IP editor without realizing it had been discussed days or weeks earlier. Since it was an IP edit, and wasn't clearly explained why it was done, I didn't research it by going back considerably through prior edits. Here's the BAA qualifying criteria: [31] At 50 years old, he needed a 3:30 for a qualifier, 38+ minutes faster than he ran in 2015. At 45, he also needed a 3:30, half an hour faster than he ran on Patriot's Day, as the requirements tightened up a bit after that. I wonder if he somehow got around the need for a qualifier? Since he was teaching at Harvard, he might have had some local juice. Activist (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Activist: Yes - I got involved in the article after seeing this at AE - this involving a dispute over (amateur) marathon running piqued my interest. American politics (which for the most part I stay out of, the "consensus required" thing and partisan editing is such that editing in the topic area seems painful) can be heated - and I've seen cases at AE that were heated - but marathon running? In terms of the AE report (on which I won't comment - as I'm staying out of AP2 for the most part - I do post on talk pages (if something drags me in - e.g. RfC or AE in this case) and some AFDs (usually if they intersect with other topics I'm into), but I'm staying clear of main-space edits - you might have an out on a technicality in that you were notified 1 year + 2 days ago - which is over the 1 year threshold. But that's a weak argument. I did not really look at the merits either way of SS's complaint.Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 857039235 by Wyn.junior (talk) Beyond the NPOV issues, this is a BLP issue - this wasn't filed by Pam Bondi, but rather by Bernie McCabe, the state attorney for Pinellas County - per the cited source.

What is "NPOV"? Please do not use abbreviation.
--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wyn.junior: see WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP - both of which are standard abbreviations on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons should be used instead of abbreviations. Some people don't know what these abbreviations stand for.--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately Marika Sherwood has no knowledge of computers and thus cannot contest the 'speedy deletion process. She is 80 years old. Even I find it inordinately difficult to navigate the admin Wikipedia pages, with the exception of reading the public pages, which I help fund with an annual donation. She has been an academic, researcher, writer, historian and lecturer since the late 1970s. Her list of publications is enormous, with at least 40% of them with people such as Routledge and IB Taurus. She is also a regular contributor to various academic journals, has written school history books, writes articles for newspapers such as the Guardian and magazines such as History Today and is the founder of the Black and Asian Studies Association at the London SOAS. A brief search on Google shows 1,310,000 results. A quick search of Amazon shows 11 titles. I would imagine a lot more can be found with a little more sleuthing. As I understand it the principal objection would appear to be that she owns her own publishing company. She started this in order to sell her research books in Africa, at cost price. Surely a worthy notion that other publishers might emulate. Another objection would appear to be that she is not be famous enough to be in Wikipedia. A lifetime's work and her Google listings should answer to that notion. I do not object to the proposed deletion on the basis of 'family', I object on the basis of the faulty assertions made. Furthermore, can family not be objective, is this a court of law? I may or may not agree with her politics, that is for me to decide, but I can object to a flimsy argument when I see one. CraigSherwood (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Do read WP:COI please. The self publishing company only detracts from books published solely via the self publishing company (as opposed to a reprint). The question notability wise is meeting WP:NPROF - which in my view she does not, despite her career output.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I made no comment on the body of a contributor - merely asserted their comment was not congruent with coverage in RSes - which I provided in the same thread - which is precisely what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia (work with sources).Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the template, I forgot it had that dumbass bit about welcoming you here. In fact, on reflection, I was going to roll me back, but you'd already replied. I was thinking more about the insinuation that a theoretically neutral contributor was a fully-paid up member of Momentum's publicity cell. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at - diff, and diff, and diff... My intention was not to label the contributor, but to say that the comment above was inline with the Momentum/Corbynite position regarding the events - which certainly was covered in RS as one of a number views, but is far from a singular view in RSes. Anyway - regards.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The Kidnapping of Amber Swartz–Garcia is nominated for deletion ... again.

Here is the current nom. Here is the nom that you weighed in on. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The location of the first attacks is in the first paragraph and Northern Israel is mentioned. The sentence The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories from which you removed "Israeli-occupied territories" in your edit [32] is the minimum consensus after Yaniv removed the descriptors from Egyptian Sinai and Syrian Golan heights.[33] The wording can be tweaked but there is consensus against erasing mentioned of the occupied territories. This is a recent discussion and 4 editors participated to reach this compromise which has been stable for over two months. Changes to the wording should preserve the balance in the current consensus or be discussed on the talk page (discussion is still open). That's all the time I have for today, so you will have to discuss this with the regulars at the relevant article's talk page. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I posted at the TP. I do not see a consensus in the previous section (in fact I see editing against the consensus there), and in the context of the opening strike - this stmt is simply factually false. The Egyptians launched cruise missiles at Tel Aviv.Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I responded at the talk page. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any good source you could add to this to help demonstrate notability? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I added the Hebrew name. Probably would survive AfD - this is a multi product brand harking back at least 30 years with significant market share.[34]. I am mostly on tablet/phone for the next couple of days - might get to this in a few days.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Added a few references. A bit of a bitch to BEFORE, since קליק in Hebrew is "click" (despite the "Klik" branding in English) - which is a very common word. Not all coverage has Unilever in it - in short a bit of a pain to week out false hits.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If the page is under 1RR restrictions, this [[35]] and this [[36]], are a clear violation as they were within minutes of each other, not 24 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, I strongly suggest you strike your false assertion above - I gave you the courtesy of a headsup rather than taking this to AE. In regards to the two diffs above - they are consecitive edits, and are therefore a single revert per WP:3RR - A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

And my two edits ere ore then 24 hours apart, so also were not a technical violation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to strike the above. As I said in my comment on your TP, reverts 24 hours and 13 minutes apart would generally be seen as GAMEing, despite not being a technical violation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

OK struck, but I cannot see anywhere where what you say is true. In fact it seems a massive misrepresentation of policy. So care to actually link to any such policy or (even) essay?Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Which part? The gaming aspect shoild be clear (and there were many AE actions for 24 hours plus a little bit). Determing what is "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." requires common sense. Most pages related to UK politics are not ARBPIA, however a page with numerous mentions of Israel/Palestin.../Zio... covering antisemitic incidients that some in Labour defend as being merely anti-Israeli or criticism of Israel - is clearly ARBPIA. (just as UK policy in India/Pakistan would be ARBIPA).Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Both, as I disagree that it is either clear that just making 2 reverts is a generally considered clear breach, so point to where policy says this. Also I see nothing about an article about a UK political party being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so point to where this was decided by consensus. Indeed I seem to recall that much of the debate about Labour has tried to stress that this is not about Israel, but antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Elements within Israel contend they are merely criticising Israel, not engaging in hate speech. Regardless - the page mentions Israel, Palestine, and Zionism a multitude of times. In regards to policy, the relevant bit is "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." from ARBPIA. In ARBPIA there is no per page logging requirement - this is live on all pages that are reasoonably construed.Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So I will take that as, no there is no policy that says it is generally considered edit warring to make a number of edits that just pass the RR test. And that, no there has been no discussion saying that it is reasonable to construe that just because an article about a political party talks about Israel, Palestine, and Zionism it is about the Palestinian-Israel issue. And as (as I said) the parties making the accusations are saying it is not about Israel then ,no , it cannot be reasonably construed that this controversy (or the article about it) is anything to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. So I shall now take no more notice of this, if you think I am in violation of policy report it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The article on Thinsulate is currently being discussed for deletion. It would be greatly appreciated if you would offer your thoughts. The discussion is here: [37]. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lovelylinda1980: - please note that such an approach could be construed as CANVASSING - best to place the article in the relevant delsorts and let who comes come.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

But the instructions on nominating articles for deletion specifically included a directive to notify users known to monitor deletion discussions. Did I misunderstand what I read?Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lovelylinda1980: Posting on user talk pages (unless you notify everyone + use a very transparent criteria for selecting users - e.g. major contributors to the article or some very clear criteria) tends to be contentious (though I suspect Thinsulate will not be a contentious nom, in some cases AfDs can be quite heated) and is often challenged (see WP:CANVASS). The most straightforward way that notifying AfD regulars is usually done is by placing the articles in the relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact lists. You can read up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Note that you can add AfD manually or use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting#Scripts and tools. AfD regulars usually watch various delsort lists (and participate in topics they are versed in).Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Note - I do not doubt that your motivation here is positive - :-). Just trying to point you towards a better way of notifying.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I would also like to point out that I notified the creator of the article as well. Strangely enough he is still here after all these years and is now an administrator. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lovelylinda1980: I'm not !voting on this one (not my specialty) - but it isn't a clear cut delete - there are quite a few google book hits - though possibly not enough. Furthermore Wikipedia standards back in 2006 were different (generally lower). At times long ago creators will actually !vote delete for their own articles - I've seen that happen a few times.Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Icewhiz,

Almost certain that in this edit at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 4#Views of Deborah Lipstadt you meant to say, '...doesn't mean these are "scare quotes"'. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes - indeed - and as opposed to my usual typos and word mismatches (which I take care to keep out of main space, but...) - that quite changes the meaning of the sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

I have removed the additional text you added in the Margaret Hodge article about antisemitism allegations. Hodge hasn't made any reference to the three newspapers but only the code so this is unnecessary editorising. 165.120.72.64 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Take to the article talk page. I restored the content - minus the three papers.Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi This account continue to do non neutral sources and remove sourced information. Like to EoL. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

They seem more Yemen focused. Feel free to e-mail me.Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2017 edit is irrelevant. The relevant sequence of edits is: edit on 8 Sep, revert on 20 Sep, re-revert on 20 Sept.

From the motion you were quoting, I give two Arbs' quotes: From Callanecc: My interpretation is version 2 - the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert. From Mkdw: My interpretation is version 2. Basically, "its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" from the time it was reverted.

The aim of the rule is to make the person wait 24 hours after the other user's revert. It's stupid, and I told you so, but that's what it is.

As to the 2017 edit, I also recall some crazy person saying that the rule is bad because you have to technically look at the history indefinitely long in the past. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You are reading a revert (or any edit) as being counted as the "original author". In my view (which is what I understood to be discussed at ARCA) - "original authorship" applies to newly authored content - per my view, the 2017 edit was "original authorship", sep7 and sep20 were reverts.

No, I'm describing edit, a revert of that edit, and a re-revert of that edit. It's completely self-contained. The simple and natural interpretation of "original author" is: if someone reverts something you added, you need to wait 24 hours before adding it again. That was both the spirit and the letter of the rule.

If you want to interpret "original author" as the 2017 edit, I can't understand how anyone could support such a stupid rule. Especially because I pointed this exact issue at the time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian's interpretation is what I also think the intention of the rule is. When I suggested the other (common English based) meaning of "original author", one of the arbs considered it "gaming". But the only thing I am sure about is that we are entitled to be confused. Also note Sandstein and Drmies' statements in the GHcool case now at AE. Zero^talk 09:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but I think we can all agree that specific provisions in ARBPIA (and this would be the most egrigious one - we have normal 1rr and an arbpia 1rr) have reached an arcane level that experienced editors in the field disagree about, and admins are reluctant to uphold. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Icewhiz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.