User talk:Tatzref

Tatzref, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tatzref! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

may 2018

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.

Template:Z33 Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Tatzref, thank you for your valuable participation and helpful information. Much appreciated.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I heartily second the sentiment. I hope you will continue sharing your knowledge of the subject matter both here and in other venues, so that the truth may out. Nihil novi (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank your for your support. I am committed to entering information for which there are reliable sources. I do not believe in censoring or suppressing information for ideological reasons. Tatzref (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely, I'm not sure how to contact you. I would greatly appreciate your support regarding my proposed post under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944%E2%80%931946 This is the revised text that I propose to submit minus the footnotes: START A restitution law “On Abandoned Real Estates” was enacted on May 6, 1945 to permit dispossessed property owners, or their relatives and heirs, including those residing outside of Poland, to reclaim privately owned property. This simplified inheritance procedure remained in place until the end of 1948, with an expedited process (courts had to examine every motion within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed), minimal costs and relaxed formalities. Poles willingly served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. These procedures were well known. Jewish law firms outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Official records confirm that many thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed without any significant problems, for example, 291 applications in Zamość and 240 in Włodawa. Almost all of these properties were then sold to Poles. According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control [i.e., nationalized], proceeded more or less smoothly.” Given the lax criteria, there were cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims, which gave rise to concerns on the part of the courts and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland. Since buildings were often destroyed, properties were indebted, and property values were low because of the uncertain political situation (fear of nationalization), many Jews chose not to make applications for restitution.ENDTatzref (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

You seem quite well versed in Chodakiewicz / Mark Paul's work. Are you somehow connected?Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you present an example where such attack is carried out Icewhiz?? Otherwise please stop this of intimidations.GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

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) 03:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note this applies to talk-pages too, e.g. this edit making unsourced negative assertions on a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Corrected error in topic area in the alert, my apoligies.Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor tag

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. In particular this [1], but also a number of others.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history at Jedwabne pogrom 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.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Please note that it is Icewhiz who is involved in an edit war with me. Icewhiz is systemtically deleting virtually every text that I add.Tatzref (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"... and Icewhiz are topic-banned from the history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months for treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sandstein 20:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)"Tatzref (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank and a little advice

Tatzref, I would like to thank you for your valuable contributions once again, and at the same time, as a more endured user, I need to deliver you a little tip. I know that you are not guilty of such yet but just in case, since I noticed tricks launched already. Please try not to revert edits of others more than once or twice per 24h period, even if your edits are being reverted several times by the same challenging party. Instead, explain your objections on the related talk page. Excellent commentaries of yours are as worthy as an actual entry into the article. Also, comment only on the subject bypassing discussing the editor and never (never) personally attack others (labeling them as dull, etc.) Such faults might be immediately reported, and force lead to bans or blocks. Once again thank you and welcome to WikipediaGizzyCatBella (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely for your support. Since becoming a Wikipedia contributor about a week ago, Icewhiz has been systematically deleting all of my texts, even though they are referenced to reliable sources, for entirely spurious reasons. He has warned me not to undo what he has done. Can he do this? If not, why is it being tolerated? He has even issued a copyright violation notice because one of my texts was similar to a source that he is determined to delete (Mark Paul), yet at the same time he posts something where he cuts and pastes from a published book (Weinbaum, The Plunder of Jewish Property). After I deleted that post, it was restored. Why was no warning issued in his case? Since I am new I picked up Icewhiz's bad habits, not realizing that it's not the accepted practice. How was I to know, when he does it all the time and the editors don't take issue with it, stop him from doing so and report him. Tatzref (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, he should not have done this. His misconduct might look that it is being tolerated, but eventually, all this will catch up with him one day. But I'm more concerned with you as a new user. Please do not mimic the behavior of your opponents and stick to the rules. Stay calm, be careful with excessive reverting (1-2 times max per 24h) comment on a subject, discuss lots on related talk pages, don’t personally attack anyone (critical), relax and most importantly have fun editing..GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification and support. Icewhiz's inteference with my postings has been relentless since I joined and is not easing up. Rather than reverting (undoing) I will simply post the text again, if this allowed. I'm new to this and did not expect the onslaught of hostility/negativity and, apparently, rule breaking. I try to back to everything I write, but I also have to address his arguments head on, hence the appearance of "arguing".Tatzref (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

While reposting content, please keep in mind WP:3RR. A lot of new editors get themselves blocked because they forget about it or think this is not enforced Also check WP:BRD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Another perspective

Problematic topics on Wikipedia tend to suffer from an onslaught of editors who have their own WP:AGENDAS. Some use poor quality sources to make WP:FRINGE claims; others argue based on their own "original research". Others yet go as far as creating multiple WP:SOCKPUPPET accounts, to give the impression of WP:CONSENSUS (so when a new editor appears out of the blue and dives right in to a contentious discussion it raises some alarms, which is why Icewhiz tagged some of your comments with "this editor has had little or no activity outside this topic area"). In most cases you should assume good faith - other editors are not your enemies, and most make a genuine attempt to contribute. You would do best to learn from some of the more experienced editors, including those you disagree with, if only so you can become a more effective editor within this complicated system. One last thing you should keep in mind: You will be wrong on occasion; know to accept it, modify your beliefs, and move on. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

Wikipedia has all kinds of formatting tools; unfortunately they're all manual. I've reformatted a recent message of yours - check it out. Also see Wikipedia:Indentation, Newline and Template:Quote. François Robere (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Tatzref (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

One of those formatting tools and such is posting in a new line. This requires either a line break of indentation. See what I did (that's a WP:DIFF, btw)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

KPK Toronto[edit source]

Hi, I noticed that you occasionally add materials cited to KPK Toronto, i.e. here, and I wonder if you are in any way affiliated with this organisation, or any other related advocacy group. If you could let me know, that would be great. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Hi, you appear to continue to promote KPK's materials such as here. Could you please answer my question? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Hi, I would appreciate an answer still. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: It is the right of editors to be anonymous. At the same time, of course, WP:COI recommends disclosure. Since COI is generally written to deal with paid-for advocacy, disclosing one's associations with non-profits is more in the grey zone, particularly the closer it takes us to one's views that are often seen as private. As I said several times, should be, for example, demand from everyone editing a page related to religion to disclose their believes, church membership, donations, etc.? Should priests be required to self-identify? Etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I’ve not asked Tatzref to identify himself; merely whether there’s a WP:COI. It’s a fairly straightforward question. K.e.coffman(talk) 00:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC) COI concerns[edit source] Hi Tatzref, I would appreciate an answer. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946

Please move the removed text into the body of the article.Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I followed this advice, which is also posted in the article. I created a new section called "population movements" to include all the statistical information. But it was deleted by someone יניב הורון who keeps deleting my posts. They also deleted reliably sourced information about Jewish migration from Israel to Poland, some of which had been posted by another person and had been there for some time. This is very disturbing.Tatzref (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of the Jews in Poland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring ??

Since joining Wikipedia almost every article contribution I have made -- all of them reliably sourced -- has been subjected to serial deletions by in tandem strikes.Tatzref (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Currently there is an attempted "lynching" going on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GizzyCatBella over valid objections about their propriety: [Just to make it clear: I filed this SPI request for the reasons cited, and nothing else. This isn't some sort of "gaming" or "battleground mentality", at least not on my end. ...]Tatzref (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland, part 2

Please read WP:ONUS, as well as WP:PROPORTION. You need to build consensus on the talk page to include the content you want to add. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland, part 3

Read WP:ONUS. Either demonstrate consensus to include the material, or it stays out. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Three editors have contributed to the text on medieval Jewish traders that you removed, including the slave trade activities and conflict with the Church both of which have an extensive scholarship. Onus does not mean unanimity.Tatzref (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Information about trafficking of Jewish women is mainstream and already found in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwi_Migdal "Zwi Migdal (Yiddish: צבי מגדל‎, IPA: [ˈtsvɪ mɪɡˈdal]) was an organized crime group created by Jews from Warsaw, involved in the trafficking of Jewish women from the shtetls of Central Europe for sexual slavery and forced prostitution." https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%93%D7%9C There is a large and growing scholarship on the 1905 pimp pogrom: Scott Ury, Barricades and Banners: The Revolution of 1905 and the Transformation of Warsaw Jewry (Stanford University Press, 2012), 126–129; Antony Polonsky, The Jews in Poland and Russia, vol. 2: 1881 to 1914 (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010)Tatzref (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Your recent editing history at History of the Jews in Poland 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.
Discuss this on the talk page or leave it out. Waiting a few days does not give you the right to restart trying to insert this material without discussion. Meters (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I see there had been some discussion on the talk page; however, I do not see a consensus to include your material. It is edit warring to continue to restore your preferred version of the material in the face of multiple editors undoing you and contesting the material on the talk page. Meters (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)