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)