User talk:Paul Siebert

≤

Welcome! Hello, Paul Siebert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul

Hope you're ok mate, cheers and Godspeed, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul, thx, you really gave me (& everyone else) a moral boost. Prayed for your health and return. All else is vanity (Ecc. 1:2-3). Take the time you need, don't work too hard, mate, look out for your 6. Glad you're back. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Eli, you misunderstood me: I am totally fine, I am not sick, and never been sick. I have to work hard due to COVID, so my involvement in Wikipedia will be minimal during next several months.

Thank you, and all the best

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In spite of the misunderstanding, Paul, I'm glad your ok! Cheers! Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Paul Siebert: Paul, I realise it's been a while, but not sure how to finalise R/C subheading in Talk:World War II? I thought I smashed it, but if you see thread, no one seems to care; rather, they seem transfixed on nonsensical minutia (see User:Bigeez/sandbox). Am I doing something wrong? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure why you decided you need to get an explicit permission from other users to introduce the R&C section into the article. That is not how Wikipedia works. You have done an huge work, you created a piece of a well sourced text, you made good faith efforts to discuss it with other users and did your best to address their comments and criticism. Nothing in our policy and guidelines prevents you from adding this text to the article. I myself can do that for you in a close future, but you can do it by yourself too. There is a non-zero probability that that your edit will be reverted, but that is ok, that is how Wikipedia works. This revert would not mean a veto, that would be just the second part of the BRD cycle, and if your addition will be reverted, that may give a start to the next round of discussion at the talk page. Sooner or later, your changes, mutatis mutandis, will be added.

Frankly, I myself see some problems with your text, but that does not mean anything. If you want, I can explain what, in my opinion, should be changed before adding it to the article. However, I would prefer to do that a little bit later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Paul, thank you for your vote of confidence! I was unsure of the proper procedure. It's daunting at times to read some of these comments, some of which are frankly, very abrasive and uncalled for and not at all proper. If you see my sandbox' talk page, please describe the points, I'll correct it until it's perfect. I'll feel better about submitting it. I know it's not perfect, yet I've whittled it down quite a bit already thanks to some editors. But, then some became thirsty for arguing and went off on some stroll down the Nile! Regards, and cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Casting aspersions

You made some remarks with the phrase “evil Russians” pointedly addressed at me. Readers might infer that you are wp:casting aspersions by accusing me of some kind of racism. Please remove or strike these comments. —Michael Z. 14:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be clear from the context that "Evil Russians" is a short form of "Evil Russian colonizers", whom I already mentioned in the previous paragraph of the same post (see the same diff). "Russian colonizers" cannot be a racist statement in any context (independently on the adjective before it), because it refers not to the ethnic group as whole, but only to the imperial administration of the Russian empire (in that sense, it is similar to "Russian war criminals", which is a pretty correct statement, because refers just to some concrete representatives of an ethnic group, not to Russians as whole).

I believe other Wikipedia users are as smart as you and I: we both do not infer I am accusing you of any kind of racism, so it would be disrespectful to expect other users may interpret that my post otherwise. Other people are as smart as you, so if you don't see any racism in that statement, why others should see it?

Nevertheless, I agree that "evil Russians" was not completely accurate, and, if taken out of the context, may create a false impression of aggression to some specific ethnic group or nation. I'll fix it and supplement with a needed commentary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv

You have said that Kiev is more common but at Talk:Kyiv/sources it was proven that Kyiv is much more common. You have that said Kiev is old east slavonic and not russian, but admin has found Kiev is russian and place it in that category at Talk:Kiev. 96.56.82.42 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems you totally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as "admin" during content disputes. The only difference between admins and autoconfirmed users is that the former have an access to some tools, which are needed to perform technical tasks to maintain Wikipedia. Thus, they can block users who violate Wikipedia policy, they can protect some article, etc. However, admins are not allowed to use these tools in the topics they are editing. That means, when some admin joins a content dispute with me, they immediately became just an ordinary user in this topic. That means, that admin cannot block be, cannot protect the article they edit, etc. If an admin violates this rule, they may be desysopped. Therefore, admin's opinion has the same weight as mine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

mkucr

I will respond after work on Friday. This has been a busy week. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I email you

Hi user Paul Siebert, I'm a professor of history in Southern California, and I am writing a conference paper on Wikipedia edit wars relating to Polish-Jewish relations, the arbitration of which you were involved in in June 2019. I was particularly struck by a comment you made on this pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Preliminary_statements (sorry, there is probably a more correct way to link to that), and I would really appreciate to hear more of your thoughts on this. I was wondering if I could email you a couple of questions. I am uncomfortable writing my email address here for obvious reasons. Is there any way to email you through Wikipedia? I looked this option up and saw that it is supposed to appear in the Tools menu on the left, but I don't see it. Once again I apologize, my knowledge of Wikipedia tools is fairly rudimentary. Thanks in advance and all the best.Chapmansh (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Chapmansh.

I temporarily enabled email communication, so you may email me. Usually, my email is disabled to avoid a possibility of off-Wiki communication. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Mkucr edit

I changed one of your recent edits (this one). The sentences prior to your edit had been:

"Several different terms are used to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants[1][a][b][c][d] and according to Professor Anton Weiss-Wendt there is no consensus in the field of comparative genocide studies on a definition of "genocide".[e] The following terminology has been used by individual authors to describe mass killings of unarmed civilians by communist governments, individually or as a whole:"

you then made them to be:

"According to Anton Weiss-Wendt, any attempts to develop a universally accepted terminology describing mass killings of non-combatants was a complete failure[1][a] The following terminology has been used by individual authors to describe mass killings of unarmed civilians by communist governments, individually or as a whole:"

and I just now edited them to be:

"According to Anton Weiss-Wendt, the field of comparative genocide studies has very "little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe."[1][a] Several different terms are used to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants.[2][b][c][d][e] The following terminology has been used by individual authors to describe mass killings of unarmed civilians by communist governments, individually or as a whole:"

I explained why in the edit summary, but I want to elaborate here because I think this has come up in previous discussions between us:

1) the excerpt from the Anton Weiss-Wendt source says, in part, "If we are talking numbers, comparative genocide studies are indeed a success. Upon closer examination, however, genocide scholarship is ridden with contradictions. There is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe. Considering that scholars have always put stress on prevention of genocide, comparative genocide studies have been a failure." The "failure" mentioned by Anton Weiss-Wendt refers to the "prevention of genocide" consideration, not the lack of consensus on defining principles from the previous sentence. It could be argued that the lack of consensus is also a failure, but that is not how the source phrases it. Quoting him directly seems like the safest way to go.

2) I restored the other sentence with the five citations because they are important to understanding the details on this lack of consensus. Your prior edit had removed the sentence citing the sources/excerpts but had left the excerpts themselves in place, which caused red error messages to appear near the bottom of the page. However, rather than adding it back as the first sentence, I added it back as the second sentence. Hopefully that is more acceptable to you. I think it also helps transition to the third sentence. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Paul Siebert. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Chapmansh (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyivan

Hi. I can’t tell if this edit summary is genuinely naïve or intentionally demeaning. It would seem remarkable that you have been so invested in the subject yet unaware of this spelling. Anyway, FYI, Kyivan is derived from Kyiv, adjective “of or relating to Kyiv,” and common noun “native or inhabitant of Kyiv.” It’s been used in English for at least 45 years. It is used in writing about Kyiv in modern and historical contexts. In recent years its usage in wp:reliable sources has a significant share when compared to the alternate spelling Kievan.

• Google Scholar finds there are at least 2,550 scholarly works using this English word. It also suggests, at the bottom of the page, sixteen co-occurences as related searches, including Kyivan rus, Kyivan metropolitanate, Kyivan Ukraine, Kyivan Russia, etcetera.
• Google Books search for English-language sources finds 405 results.
• Wikipedia has 584 articles and redirects that use this term.

We should consistently use Kiev/Kievan or Kyiv/Kyivan within articles. Mixing spellings could be confusing for the reader. Kyivan appears ten times in Kyiv.

I have reverted your edit. If you want to contest the use of the word and remove other uses of it that are present in the article, please start a discussion on talk:Kyiv. —Michael Z. 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)