User talk:GizzyCatBella

GizzyCatBella, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi GizzyCatBella!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was changed by GizzyCatBella (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.896802 on 2015-09-21T08:36:44+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

I hadn't removed any sourced information - I've moved it up, and removed unsourced/irrelevant parts. Feel free to report it. Trasz (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding new comments

Can you please make sure you add your comments to Talk pages always at the bottom, indented only one ':' more than the preceding comment, instead of adding your comments in the middle of existing ones? Otherwise it quickly becomes impossible to follow the discussion, especially for those readers who are not involved now and will read the whole thread in the future. Thanks. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You just did it again. --Deeday-UK (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a continuation of the same comment, it should stay together. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia's guidelines on Talk pages: "the latest comment in a thread should be posted in chronological order and not placed above earlier comments", otherwise it creates confusion. For example, the comment currently at the bottom, which starts with "GizzyCatBella – you’re right, and I thank you for the feedback..." refers to an older comment of yours, not to the comment immediately above (which you just moved back out of chronological order) as someone would expect. Not only that: comments placed in the middle of the thread can easily go unnoticed, as most people just look for new comments at the bottom. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Its one and the same the same comment, I can take out time stamp if you find it confusing.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same comment, it's something additional you said in the discussion almost a day after your previous contribution, while another editor had added a further comment in the meantime. There is really no good reason to mess up the chronological order of comments, but if you want readers to miss your posts because they are added at random places in the discussion, go on and put your comments wherever you like; I won't look for them. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I will post all at once next time, no problem. I will remember about it. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to reiterate that you need to be putting your comments at the bottom of a section, per Deeday-UK (talk · contribs) R9tgokunks ✡ 19:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Politics

Yes, I might be wrong about your political motives; you seem to be simply a standard conspiracy theorist; the language you use is typical: 'manipulate public opinion', 'lies', 'cover-up'... Seriously, if you wanted to blow up an airplane with explosives, would you really plant the charge in the wing? and how? a jet's wing is pretty much sealed; you can't put anything in it without ripping it open unless you think of screwing it to the outside hoping that nobody would notice it. Wouldn't you rather put the bomb in the cabin or in the cargo hold?
I cannot recall a single case of aircraft bombing were the explosives was placed in the wings, yet the Smolensk conspirators allegedly managed to do it, and to time the explosion at precisely the moment when the Tupolev overflew a birch tree that then mysteriously broke in half, leaving fragments of the flap system magically embedded in it.
How can anyone normally intelligent consider such reconstruction credible? You really need to stop thinking for yourself and make an act of faith, to accept those ideas. Yes, the Russian investigation was flawed (although not totally flawed); yes, there are aspects of the crash not fully explained (wreckage removal etc), but do you really find explanations like the above one more convincing? Sometimes I just despair of the humankind. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, Im don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist. Im just reporting new facts. As most people in Poland, I simply DON'T KNOW what really happened in Smoleńsk. Personally/honestly, I don't think it was a "Russian plot" to kill Polish elite, but based on the current reports, I'm not convinced that they are telling us the truth. At this point, everything is just a hypothesis to me. Until the wreckage, black boxes etc. are returned to Poland and PROPER investigation is conducted (best international and totally independent) this tragedy will remain to be questioned. As you said yourself, MAK report is flawed, I would say its more than flawed, so is Polish governments cover up (their report) of its incompetence and mistakes in regards of handling the investigation. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it was a Russian plot? Then what do you think happened? What is, in your opinion, the most likely explanation of the crash of the Tupolev in Smolensk? I'm asking because the Law & Justice brigade seems hell-bent on proving that it was a plot (no doubt a Russian one), and you seem to give them a lot of credit, certainly more than they deserve, from an objective point of view. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know Deeday, I honestly don't know. If that was a plot I would rather suspect that it was carried out by the Poles themselves, former WSI communist agents. But this is my personal thought and its, of course, my conspiracy theory you could say. I personally think it was some kind of a freak accident but for sure it didn't happen as its presented to us right now. As it looks to me the Russians are covering up something or just using the whole situation for their own political gains and Polish former government people are covering up their own negligence in the matter. Note that almost a 100 prominent people died, including the president and there were no people in the government, military, intelligence services etc. responsible for it, not even one. A lower ranking scapegoat is being blamed of negligence, that's it. They gave the whole investigation to the Russians, they didn't even secure the return of the wreckage, black boxes, didn't conduct necropsy in Poland, they lied about so many things that the list can go on and on. Have you heard about such things ever in any other plane accident? Unbelievable. Now, why I'm giving so much credit to the Law and Justice investigators? These people worked without any help from the government whatsoever, they were slandered left and right and still came up with more credible conclusions that official Polish report. I was following it closely and many results really make a lot of sense. Take a closer look at their work you may be surprised. Now the explosions that they claimed happened.. who knows what exploded, maybe a gas tank, maybe a bomb.. as I said before until the wreckage and black boxes are returned to Poland and proper investigations is done, this accident will remain being questioned. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you consider the conclusions of the L&J commission more credible than the official report is beyond me. Explosions in fuel tanks are extremely rare in aviation, and they typically involve an internal short-circuit (TWA 800) or a lightning strike, of which there isn't any evidence. Is there even any evidence of soot or fire damage on the piece of wing that flew off? I can't see any, in the photos. Also, once you accept that there was a perfectly timed explosion in the wing, how do you explain a broken birch tree with pieces of a Tupolev wing stuck in it? You'll have to accept that the Russians fabricated the evidence (obviously in co-operation with the WSI agents), but when? Before the crash, knowing in advance exactly where the wing would have exploded, or after the crash, in full view of anyone around the crash site? and how? that tree is not cut, it's broken (and well up the trunk, not at the base). Look at it this way: what is the simplest and quickest way to break the top of a tree while leaving embedded in it parts of a flap system? well, take a Tupolev and bash its wing against it. Binienda's impact simulation looks far oversimplified; the model of the wing appears somehow realistic, but modelling the tree as a simple pole, with no branches and their associated mass and snagging effect is going to produce substantially different results from the real thing.

And before all that, why on Earth would ex-WSI agents want to take out the president and a planeload of state authorities? what would they have gained? did they want to do a coup and seize power or something? has any of that happened, in the last five years?

Behind all the political wrangling, Russia's substandard investigation, Poland's embarrassing negligence (bodies mixed-up etc), in the end there is a disappointingly simple truth: all aircraft are in the hands of just one person, the pilot in command, and if that guy screws up at the wrong moment, then it's the end of the line for him and everybody else on board. The list of aircraft that dug a hole in the ground while attempting to land on instruments in marginal conditions is endless, especially within the general aviation, including business jets (this is a perfect example). In fact, the operations of a state aircraft like PLF 101 have more in common with bizjet operations than they have with airlines: passengers of high authority (inevitably putting a lot of pressure on pilots), operations from often unfamiliar airports, lack of airline-style Standard Operating Procedures etc. PLF 101 is just another one that sadly joined the list.

Also, hasn't L&J always had a grudge against everything communist and Russian? (granted, the Soviets did terrible things to the Poles, in the past) Then I would be rather suspicious when they come up with these Mission Impossible-style scenarios about communist plots to kill the Polish president. L&J also had a strong political interest in pushing these theories: to bash the evil Russians and, while in opposition, to bash the government and win lots of votes (which seems to have worked). I too would be (mildly) interested in having the wreckage and black boxes examined by independent experts (and I mean the UK AAIB, for example), but I'll be stunned if L&J deliver anything close to that: they will at most assemble a commission from trusted members of the Smolensk conference and produce a rehash of their initial report, I bet.

To demand full clarity about all the gaps in the story is one thing (and I could subscribe to that). To go off on a tangent and make up absurd theories of multiple, perfectly timed explosions with fake evidence manufactured on the spot is a completely different one, and it is just irresponsible. It just takes you further away from reality and into a world full of double agents, sci-fi weapons and secret plots. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GizzyCatBella. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kielce pogrom

Hello, and thank you for your recent edits to Kielce pogrom and other articles. Please note that Wikipedia's style manual recommends the use of "straight quotes" (see MOS:STRAIGHT). Changing a reference name from "Intermarium" to “Intermarium", as you did in several places, produces reference errors because the computer doesn't recognize the two names as the same.

Also, please familiarize yourself with MOS:LINK, the rules on what should be linked, especially WP:OVERLINK, the section on what should not be linked. Generally, we link a term on its first mention in an article and not on subsequent mentions. Linking it three times in one paragraph is never appropriate.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing image sizes

because the resulting layouts are very, very bad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with your evaluation. In my view, they look much better. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated references

When you see a reference of the form "<ref name=examplename />" (note the final /), it means that somewhere else in the article is a reference of the form "<ref name=examplename>Exampleauthor, Firstname (date) ''Example title''. New York: Publisher</ref>" Using "<ref name=examplename />" allows the reference to be used anywhere in the article, before or after the defining reference. It's a way of repeating references without having to fill them out in entirety. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks Ken GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert

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 Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Swarm ♠ 10:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Straight apostrophes not curly or angled...

Here you changed three straight apostrophes to angled apostrophes, which broke the formatting. See MOS:BOLD and MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it for me.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

no problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

WWII Collaboration article

Hi GizzyCatBella, I'd like to just make a note regarding objective assessment of sources in the WWII Collaboration article. I'm very concerned that the push to remove many of the references is passionate, but after a review of Wikipedia guidelines on reliable source those arguments hold no merit. It seems that any reference to the fact that Poles saved Jews is being removed. Also, other questionable and one sided recommendations are being advocated, which will create un-due weight. I’m not sure a compromise is the objective here, because if it was all references and estimates they present would have been respectfully acknowledged and shown to the reader. --E-960 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll contribute soon, I’m very busy now.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, just wanted to perhaps give an example of some of the questionable edits and the flawed reasoning behind them, such as this one posted by user François Robere: "Yehuda Bauer calls the claim that 60,000 Poles saved Jews a blunt lie". This statement has nothing to do with collaboration, also it is from an article clearly marked as "OPINION" in the newspaper. Also, I suspect that it was only added to discredit historian Gunnar S. Paulsson's statement that "During the Nazi occupation of Warsaw 70,000–90,000 Polish Gentiles aided Jews, while 3,000–4,000 were szmalcowniks." — a statement which discusses collaboration and compares the scale of it. Examples like this, and several others are really concerning because they come across as petty POV pushing. Again, thank you for you work on this topic. --E-960 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I’m aware of this. As soon as I’m able (maybe today) I’ll direct my time to address this and other issues. Nevertheless, I find the new version considerably good, simple to read and articulate the collaboration itself rather than other related things. The creator certainly put a lot of effort into it. His POV is noticeable but I believe he is honest when he declared that he was attempting to be fair. I think you should reconsider his variant with alternations of course. I’ll explain why on the relevant talk page later. I’m so sorry that I’m replying to you with a delay but I’m coping with some issues in real life. I promise I’ll donate more time to the article soon. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm very skeptical and hesitant, because his new version of the Poland section simply takes out the things he does not agree with, but retains all of his questionable additions. So, for example references form Israeli websites stay in, but those form Polish news sources were taken out, or minimizing the text on the Jewish Ghetto Police, while in contrast adding even more stuff on Polish collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, last point, also we need to consider issues of un-due weight within the article, after all it has sections about other countries, yet user François Robere wants to expand the Poland section even more, and create sub-section to it, this is all a bit too much in my view. --E-960 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Nazism are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

collaboartion

What happened? I have to say that the last line of edits just messed up the entire Poland section, what was the point of moving some of the stuff into a separate Jewish section? In the process, any mention of Żagiew disappeared, and more stuff about Polish attitudes to Jews appeared. --E-960 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This entire part had been deleted by one of the editors, so I recovered it in the Jewish section. I know it shouldn't be there but with Fr. stance it is impossible to have anything stable. You have to either agree with his bizarre belief that each and every Pole was a collaborator and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews including criminal Home Army or else. The article is blocked now, Fr has been reported for edit warring, and it is a good thing because this article needs some "vacation." GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

After the article block is lifted, I'd like to restore the text to the restored to the March 3rd version, when the last steps from the ORIGINAL discussion were done (merged back the sub-sections and removed reference to 2018 law) [1], I hope I can get some backing on this. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll back you up but consider the elimination of some obvious stuff such as Home Army part etc. Polish section is excessively long, full of irrelevant material. I may give myself some break later because I'm a little spent debunking this ridiculous historical revisionism we are witnessing over the last two decades. Do you remember how it all started? I do very well. First bizarre accusation began to surface mostly in the Jewish press that Polish people were indifferent and didn't help enough. Then with the arrival of Gross, some Poles became associates in the killings. The latest appearance of Grabowski pushed this nonsense to all Poles as perpetrators lever that killed 200 thousand Jews by themselves. At this rate, we'll get to 6 million within 5-10 years and later that Hitler was Polish by 2050. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, is there anything, written by historians that contradicts Grabowski and is a reliable source? --E-960 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment

"1945 - 1979 victims -> 1980-1989 bystanders -> 1990-2009 partners -> 2010-2018 perpetrators"

I don't think this was a very helpful edit [2]. It seems to suggest that editors are trying to present the Polish nation as strictly "collaborators" (?). It seems off-topic for the discussion, really, and also could come across (perhaps unintentionally) as disapproval of fellow editors. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman These are my reflections, I've lived long enough to remember these developments, don't take it personally. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Article* Talk pages are designed to advance improvements to the article, not contain personal "reflections". The side conversations are best reserved for *User* Talk pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman Perhaps others will recognize this happening as well and can extract something meaningful from that comment? I'll migrate that to my talk page if you don't like it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if you moved it. It seems off topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany

I'm bit struck by the timing of the Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, I think this is a case of Content forkingand perhaps this article should be submitted for AfD, is anyone familiar with the process? --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind just figured out the process here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany --E-960 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a mistake. This article provides a ground for clarifying many matters in one place. Nihil novi (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes 3-8 show "cite errors". Do you know how these might be corrected? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't but I'll look into it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting 3 of the references. Nos. 7, 8, 9 still read "cite error", if you can find the time to work your magic on them. Nihil novi (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That now leaves only no. 55 "cite error".

Great job with this article. Can we remove that silly banner in the Jewish-collaboration section?

Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I ask you to revert, Tags should not be removed until there is consensus for removal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken, what "Germany" you are talking about? GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The Germany that Berlin sits in, the Berlin the text explicitly says "without Jewish help in administration and police work-the final rounding up of the Jews in Berlin..."...that Germany. The section bieng used it talking about Berlin, not Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also please read WP:WTRMT.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Witos

Polska Wikipedia nie podaje źródła. Nawet jeżeli ktoś chciał zrobić rząd, to Hitler był przeciwko, usunął też słowo "polskie" z nazwy GG.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert BLP

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.

Template:Z33 Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

AE

Please see report at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating editing restrictions as reported here on the page Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

"Leszek Pietrzak" deleted.

The article was deleted on 4 May 2018. It might be resuscitated if more evidence can be secured and cited for his notability and that of his publications. Nihil novi (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll look for more today.GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Żebrowski

Thanks for the links. I've wondered, myself, why Polish historians don't work up the history—and publish decent English-language editions.(Nihil)

They are starting to publish in English. I spoke just recently to the IPN people in Warsaw and visited Polonia House, they are all well aware of the need to publish English-language editions. I also had a long conversation with a British historian living in Poland who was just shaking his head while talking about the things that are happening now... It just takes time but it's coming.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What is "lg. page"? Nihil novi (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant language by "lg".GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

More crazy tags

I'm not sure the latest tags just added by users Icewhiz and François Robere here [3], [4] are correct and perhaps should be removed, again these two guys just keep going at it, spamming the entire article with tags. --E-960 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

AE

You've been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

There was a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul regarding this iUniverse book by Kurek. I respectfully request you self revert this edit, as I do not wish to escalate this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see consensus being reached thereof excluding Kurek and Paul as valid sources.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. I suggest you read the discussion again. You are also entering factually false information - Poland was not the only country with a death penalty for helping Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Historians

Re: [5], "controversial" and "controversial in Poland" are different things. And what's with "Jewish historians"? Did you mean Israeli historians? Or the historians of Jewish descent? If the latter, it sounded a bit off. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant Israeli and of the Jewish descent, mostly from the US. It is obvious that these are the most involved groups of historians that are concerned. Same applies to the Polish historians, what is controversial in Poland is not controversial in Israel and vice versa. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that historians of a particular ethnic background cannot be objective when it comes to this topic. I think it's the wrong way to look at it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Some historians are biased, even when they are honestly attempting to be neutral. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

True; but suggesting that their bias is based on ethnicity sounds a bit racist. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. No, sounding racist was not my intention for sure. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:EMAIL

You may want to enable the option of other editors being able to send you email. Public discussions are of course the best, but there may be circumstances when people want to send you an 'eyes only' communique. Just a thought. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll set up this tomorrow.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Mark-Paul is one of the greatest Polish-Canadian historian dedicated to this particular topic"

Re: [6] - Then how come we know so little about him? Where was he educated? Does he have a PhD? Where does he teach? Are there scholarly reviews of his works, published in peer-reviewed publications? --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Some think he is a monk. IDK but his work is really detailed and cited by many historians. Respected institutions reference him as well (see references in the actual talk page) so we, a bunch of amateurs can’t just wipe him out. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not sufficient. "His work is really detailed" and "cited" is not how WP:IRS works. What matters is whether he was professionally published (he was not) and whether his works were well received in peer-reviewed publications (it was not). --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No... not cited by "many historians". Saul Friedlander's The Years of Extermination is cited by many historians (294 times for that work alone on Google Scholar). Rossino's work Hitler Strikes Poland is cited 137 times in Google Scholar. Gross' Neighbors is cited 724 times on google scholar.

In contrast Mark Paul's Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Clergy is cited once on Google Scholar. Paul's Traditional Jewish Attitudes Towards Poles is cited once in Google Scholar.

Or we can look at World Cat and the holdings in libraries. Friedlander's book is held in 1452 libraries in World Cat. Rossino's Hitler Strikes Poland is held by 717 libraries in World Cat. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners is held by 2733 libraries in World Cat.

However Paul's Wartime Rescue is held by 7 libraries, and his Neighbors on the Eve is held by two libraries in World Cat. Paul's work is not having much impact on the scholarly community, which is a strong argument for it being fringe. And coupled with it being basically self-published... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In GizzyCatBella's defense, in the strictly technical sense Mark Paul may indeed be "one of the greatest Polish-Canadian historian dedicated to Polish-Jewish relations in wwii" - strictly due to such Polish-Canadian historians dedicated to this topic being scarce. Certainly Jan Grabowski is a more significant historian that fits this specification, however I am not sure there are others (and if there are - there are not many). Had this stmt been on historians, Polish historians, or Canadian historians, or not dedicated to the topic - then it would have been false. That being said, being one of the few of an intersection of an intersection is not an indication of much.Icewhiz (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul's thesis

Since I did not get an explanation on the Talk page, I'd like to repost here. Here's what Paul wrote:

There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting (...) in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag.

Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10).

This is from pg 10 of Paul's Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust [7]. I interpret this as follows:

• In the Soviet zone of occupation, "Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting [ethnic Poles]", thus participating in the destruction of the Polish state.
• "Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany..."
• Ergo, Jews in the Soviet zone of occupation engaged in "de facto collaboration" with Nazi Germany in 1939-1941.

Is that a conclusion that seems reasonable given Paul's statements? Please help me understand the thinkng here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Jan Karski, decorated by Yad Vashem and an honorary citizen of Israel “The Situation of the Jews on Territories Occupied by the USSR”

  The Jews here feel at home, not just because they are not humiliated or persecuted, but because their smartness and adaptability has won them a certain measure of political and economic advantage.
  The Jews are entering the political cells. They have taken over the majority of political and administrative positions, and are playing an important role in the labor unions, in the schools, and above all in commerce, both legal and illegal [loansharking and profiteering, illegal trade, contraband, foreign currency exchange, liquor, immoral pursuits, pimping and procurement] …
  Polish opinion considers that Jewish attitudes to the Bolsheviks are favourable. It is universally believed that the Jews betrayed Poland and the Poles, that they are all communists at heart, and that they went over to the Bolsheviks with flags waving. Indeed, in most towns, the Jews did welcome the Bolsheviks with bouquets, with speeches and with declarations of allegiance and so on.
  One should make certain distinctions, however. Obviously the Jewish communists have reacted enthusiastically to the Bolsheviks. … The Jewish proletariat, petty traders and artisans, whose position has seen a structural improvement, and who formerly had to bear the indifference or the excesses of the Polish element, have reacted positively, too. That is hardly surprising.
  But what is worse, Jews are denouncing Poles [especially students and politicians] (to the secret police), are directing the work of the (communist) militia from behind the scenes, are unjustly denigrating conditions in Poland before the war. Unfortunately, one must say that these incidents are very frequent, [and more common than incidents which demonstrate loyalty toward Poles or sentiment toward Poland].

Tatzref (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies from August 1939 to June 1941. They acted in concert to destroy the Polish state and its leadership, and to persecute Poles. Collaborating with one of these states in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other.Tatzref (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Kindly cease with the personal attacks, and do please self-revert this IDHT edit

Regarding this revert, you've:

1. Yet again mangled my not too long username, in what appears to be a personal attack. you've already been warned about this at AE. Please stop this.
2. Please note that there is no such notion as a "stable version" on English Wikipedia.
3. You entered a citation which doesn't support the text in the paragraph.
4. Finally, and most importantly at all, you acted against a clear consensus at BLP/n - see here (while there was some dickering on whether this is a BLP situation, there was a clear consensus to exclude) - this was clearly linked in the edit summary.

Do kindly self-revert this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, do you really want to get blocked over something as silly as not spelling a username properly? Icewhiz, for the purposes of edit warring and discretionary sanctions, admins do look if specific content has been in the article for a while. If it has, it's generally regarded as "stable" and removal should be discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN I’m not misspelling Icewhiz’ nickname on purpose, English is my second language, maybe that’s why I keep making this mistakes. I was very careful spelling the name as you can see and I have nothing evil in mind. This is an honest misspell/mistake but noted and I'll be extra careful.GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussed, certainly (and in this case - much discussed for a SPS) - however citing in your reversion reason that your rationale is that it is stable (while re-inserting a fringe, self-published book, with possible BLP/BDP issues) - is not a valid edit rationale. One is expected to have a policy based rationale for inclusion of material, other than it escaping notice of editors for some time.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I inserted various extra referenced to back up all the names, why not do that instead of removing the whole paragraph that was there for years????GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You are adding refs to support each name - but they do not support this letter (at least the ones I checked, do not mention the letter - though if one of them does, please remove the Poray SPS), and there is no reason to quote this letter - it serves no constructive purpose. If I may be constructive - if there are sources detailing the activities of some of these people beyond a brief mention - then create a "key personnel" section and describe what each one did.

“The letter” (utterly uncontroversial account by the way) is referenced to Ana P. book that matches all the names individually sourced now, her book is NOT a “fringe” work as you insist on representing it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Archives

Don’t edit archives, as they are a record of what was said before it was archived. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

ok

Golden Harvest (book)

Your reference isn't conclusive.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

This diff misrepresents both sources (besides entering information contradicted by other sources). Headlines are not RS in general (they are crafted to get attention in news media - the body is what counts). For starters - the source is Wacław Holewiński (in an interview to Polskieradio) who is a journalist (and not a historian) - and he says "Najwyższy rangą dowódca w polskim podziemiu pochodzenia żydowskiego" - Jewish origin, not Jew. Second - this - is not the IPN, but the IPN's media roundup reporting on what Nasz Dziennik wrote (though the author Anna Zechenter might be associated with the IPN - not sure). IPN's summary of Nasz Dziennik is - Katowany przez polską oraz sowiecką bezpiekę na początku 1945 roku i pytany, dlaczego jako Żyd służył w „faszystowskich” Narodowych Siłach Zbrojnych, major Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga powtarzał do śmierci, że nie jest Żydem, ale Polakiem żydowskiego pochodzenia. Nie było w całym podziemiu niepodległościowym innego Polaka żydowskiego pochodzenia, który doszedłby do tak wysokiej rangi – ani w AK, ani w BCh, ani w mniejszych formacjach - Ostwind-Zuzga repeated to the death he was not a Jew, but a Pole of Jewish origin. Please self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Anna Zechenter works for Departmental Public Education Office of the Institute of National Remembrance in Kraków.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

OK - but she wrote in Nasz Dziennik that Ostwind was not a Jew, but a Pole of Jewish origin.Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect; please stop. Look again at the precise description under the photo. [8]

• ”The hero of the publishing is Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga, major of the National Armed Forces. A Jew, a legionnaire, a policeman, a soldier accused of fascism of the National Armed Forces." GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wacław Holewiński - he is being interviewed and is the source for the article - said "Najwyższy rangą dowódca w polskim podziemiu pochodzenia żydowskiego" - Jewish origin. You are basing this contentious edit on an image caption?Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

YOU ACCUSED ME (unjustly) of misrepresentation of sources. That’s what the source says. What makes someone a Jew? Perhaps we should debate this.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No - the interviewee says something different - Jewish origin - basing this off of an image caption is quite shaky. Zechenter also says something different. We generally do not refer to former Jews who convert to a different religion as Jews (though we do often note their Jewish roots - certainly relevant for WWII - given German racial policy and possibly Polish attitudes - however this individual hid his family background (which dated back a while - he escaped from home in 1915, aged 16, to join Legiony Polskie)).Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So if he was a Christian born Pole converted to Judaism it would make him “a Jew of Polish origin”? Something is wrong here.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A Christian convert to Judaism would typically be referred to as a Jew and we would probably note that they were Jewish converts (unless not relevant to the article) - e.g. Ivanka Trump. We probably wouldn't write "a Jew of Polish origin" - we would probably spell it out in full (somewhere), and then refer to the individual as Jewish (when relevant).Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So why these authors refer to him as a Jew? I need to reaserch that. Give me some time to do that please. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Introducing factual errors to articles

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Żegota. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. (Icewhiz)

([9])

DRN on AK

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

AE

You've been reported.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Your are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland. You are invited to appeal this sanction in six months showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas.

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

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

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 20:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Potential ArbCom request

Hi Gizzy. Please take a look at this. I'm appalled at the personal attacks and unbacked accusations made against you by User:Sandstein. I wrote up a brief description of the situation, with the possibility of asking ArbCom to look at it, since it involves a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and by extensions discretionary sanctions in the topic area. Of course the complicating factor is that this is against an admin who is also active in enforcing discretionary sanctions (which to my mind, makes this even worse). However, since the attack was made against you specifically I thought I'd consult with you on how to proceed. If you want me to I will go ahead and file a request. If you have objections please make me aware of them.

Because some bad-faithed or vindictive individual may take your response to this message as a violation of your new topic ban (though really it should qualify under WP:BANEX) you should probably respond by email rather than on Wikipedia. I am writing on your talk page in the interest of full transparency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

Please what is happening in the article History of the Jews in Poland and the Lwow pogrom (1918). There is an concerted attack going on.Tatzref (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I can’t comment on the issue, I’m currently topic banned from all Poland/WW2 related articles. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)