User talk:Icewhiz

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Fringe tag

I suggest that you restore the tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Morvarid Karimi AfD

There is no page to comment on the Morvarid Karimi AfD article, only the closed discussion for the first nomination. I think you may need to re-nominate it for deletion rather than relisting it? Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene:, yes, would need to be a new AfD as the previous one was closed as no consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Not reliably sourced"

Hello Icewhiz, I took the liberty of reverting your change as there are multiple sources reporting this: one, two, three, four, five etc. etc. with actual photo evidence. It's preposterous to me to remove this paragraph claiming it's "not reliably sourced". If you have any doubts about this please raise this point on the Talk page. BeŻet (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The rules state: If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. You haven't reverted a change I made, you've removed a section that was a result of multiple edits, and thus yourself created an edit, not a revert. I've reverted your edit, I haven't restored a revert, hence no rules were broken. There are plenty of sources that describe what happened there, including TeleSUR, hence there are clearly grounds for further discussion here which I suggest you start on the Talk page instead of removing a whole section like this. BeŻet (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to what "reverting" means, but I will introduce my suggested change from the Talk page. BeŻet (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Such an introduction would still be a revert. If you want to introduce this - please stick to what actual RS say. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we expand it for a DYK?

I just started Shmuel Krakowski. I wonder if there's enough material to DYK him? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is source wise that it is Yad Vashem + an interview with him (+maybe possibly a book jacket). e.g. short English Yad Vashem obit, more detailed Hebrew Yad Vashem obit, and this Interview in Hebrew (Yad Vashem). So basically - we could translate the Yad Vashem page in Hebrew to English, but I'm not seeing at the moment better source material (there might be some - Hebrew is worse than English online - locating Hebrew sources from 1960-2000 online is actually rather spotty). He passed away in September 2018 - there might be a chance this will trigger publications in the next few months - in which case it would be better to base this off those publications. @Ehud Amir: created the Hebrew wiki page in September - I assume off of the Yad Vashem obit/profile - unless I'm missing something. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

If you need me to translate some material about Krakowski from Hebrew to English, or to inspect and revise a Google translation, I'll be glad to do so.Ehud Amir (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

blp Bartlett

hi I left a reply could you please clarify your position , thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, in this edit summary you wrote; "Nope. Result of AfD was a merge - not a partial merge. Project consensus in SHIPS does not override policy. Either this is spunout as a full list - or it is in here as a list" - could you point out which policy you are referring to? Thanks - wolf 13:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was a merge of a list (which would be notable standalone) to the main article. A merge means merge - names, dates, etc - wikifying a few names in the prose does not meet the definition of a merge.Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I get that is how you see it. It's just that you make this sound both very narrowly construed and absolutely mandatory. You also specifically used the word "policy" to support your comments (and ∴ your edits). I was just wondering which policy you were referring to. If you wouldn't mind telling me, I would sure appreciate it. Thanks again - wolf 19:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge means merge, as per, umm, WP:MERGETEXT, WP:MERGE.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the quick response, neither of those pages are, umm, policies. They aren't even guidelines. They are "information pages". Now, even though they're "unvetted" and only have "limited status", I'm sure they have some useful tips and advice. But I'm really only looking for the "policy" that you specifically mentioned in your comments. I would just like to give a read so I can better understand just what it is you are relying on to support your comments and edits, both on the Nevada page and here. I really don't want to take up any more of your time than is necessary, so if you could just tell me the name of that policy (or link it), I would, as I said earlier, really appreciate it. Thanks again - wolf 20:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I linked to an information page - yes not policy - but also higher in the totem pole than an essay. AfD consensus is expected to he followed, the notion that a prose mention of names was sufficient was rejected (this was the delete arguement). Merge outcomes (and this is really basic - again per WP:MERGE) refer to a cut and paste merge of all or some (e.g. avioding duplicates) of the content from the merge source to the merge target. Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sooo... there is no policy. Got it. Let's move on. I'm well aware of the WP:PG hierarchy, from policies, like wp:consensus to essays like WP:Don't lie, (btw, glad you mentioned the importance of acknowledging consensus, we'll get back to that later). I also know that sometimes editors will say "as per policy" when reverting, even though there isn't an actual policy supporting said revert. But, hey... this is really about the merge, right? So let's discuss that. The thing about the AfD consensus was that there wasn't really a consensus. Here are the closing admin's comments;

"Given that support for merge, delete and keep is about the same, we must conclude that there is consensus to not keep but also no consensus to delete. This leaves a merger as the most consensual outcome."

There were 8 contributors to that discussion, the !votes were;
"keep" (2), "keep or merge" (2),
"merge" (2) and "delete" (2).
Not exactly an landslide in any direction (or much of a turn-out). But, the closer went with "merge", (and if you read my comments, I wasn't against that), which means merging the content of that article, which consisted of 26 names and nothing else, into the Nevada article. I don't see anything that says the content must remain as a list (no exceptions!). Five of the names were already in the article's prose. Going by your research, I added the other 14 "notable" COs to the prose, and then removed the list, as per the consensus ar WT:SHIPS. (I said we'd get back to that). We can adhere to the consensus of the AfD, including adding the other non-notable names to the prose, which would mean all the content from the AfD article would now be added to the Nevada page, and therefore merged. With that, we could then remove the list (which would then be all duplicate content) and we would also be adhering to the consensus (well, partially at least) of the SHIPS Project, to add COs to the article body and avoid having lists of COs instead. Seems like a win-win scenario, no? I'd be happy to add the remaining names to the article prose right now so we can put this whole matter to rest and move on to other things. What do you say? - wolf 22:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The list also contains dates. And no, your suggestion above would not reflect the outcome of the AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, When I add the remaining Captain's names, I'll also add the dates for all 26 of them. Everything from the original article will then be merged to current one. Problem solved. - wolf 06:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If most of the content of the merge source is retained, and changes are merely formatting, I guess that would fall under merge broadly construed. Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Well good, I'm glad we worked it out. It was nice collaborating with you. Have a nice day. - wolf 09:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Birthright Israel

Your latest revert there might be construed as a WP:ARBPIA3 violation. For which I reported VanEman BTW Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#VanEman. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not quite see how - seeing this was reverted forst on 12 Oct, and I did not edit in 5days. However I self reverted.Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Because any revert can not be undone for 24 hours in ARBPIA3, not just your revert. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The "original authorship" applies to content added by an editor. If editor A add, editor B reverts, there is no restriction on editor C.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I always get so confused with these rules. In general, I hate the atmosphere of bureaucracy that started a few years ago. By the way, 24 hours passed. But first see the talkpage for a worthy suggestion. Debresser (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For kindness to inexperienced users, in posts like this: [1] E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

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

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Shocking

Take a look at the story in [2] (p. 208). I find this attempt to make profit from Holocaust shocking. Do you think we can describe this somewhere? I wonder if the term 'Holocaust profiteer' exists. Particularly shocking is the fact that this is not a war-time (or shortly after war-time) practice, this is something that's happening right now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually am not shocked - seems par the course for photo copyright. Are you aware of the travel agency cartel? [3] Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Icewhiz,

Thank you for getting in touch. You write on my Talk page:

RE this - I don't want to engage on this in the article - I don't want a high-drama conflict over this. However, the Nazi system of badges included marks for all non-German internees. You can take a look at the wiki article - Nazi concentration camp badge (or this book or this book on Buchenwald), which has some examples - Dutch Jews, Dutch, and French - and this is also of course off-wiki - e.g. Imperial War Museum - French political badge or this Nazi Dachau chart which explains the various markings - note the P for Pole on the bottom and T for Czech (Tschechisch in German). The Nazies were genocidal. They were also meticulous and highly bureaucratic (a bureaucracy that progressed throughout the war - e.g. the tattooed inmate numbers were a later "innovation") - the camp badge system was meant to assist camp guards. I think the article would be better organized if it were focused on those Nazi crimes that were motivated by Nazi racism towards Poles (and there are several such striking examples) - as opposed to Nazi depravity (or in the case of badges - hellish bureaucracy) - which was directed towards most people in Europe - but I leave this observation in your hands - I don't want the drama involved. Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That makes two of us: I don't want the drama either. This is why I very rarely get involved in sanctioning requests, and often swim away, which is always an option before going to WP:AE, etc. Drama is also why I have drawn down my involvement in this entire project: spending months seeing off a troll on a mission, and his mirrors, until they're eventually permbanned was not my idea of time well spent, when there are so many beautiful things to do in the real world. In this particular case,[4] whether your rationale has merit or not is superseded by how one needs to conduct oneself with consideration for other users, aka consensus. I believe that you have enough capacity for emotional intelligence to know how your edit is likely to be perceived by peers in an open forum: you deleted the illustration of a racist Nazi German concentration camp badge designating an ethnic Polish inmate, from an article about anti-Polish sentiment, on the grounds that it is "irrelevant". This is going to look very wrong to most users, let alone any drama. Please be mindful that it would only be made worse by the fact that peers can see your record of conflict in the subject area of Jewish issues (including those overlapping with Polish history), especially given that you are in the midst of an AE discussion in the area right now [5]. As far as I'm aware you have been sanctioned in these areas before; our community's intention behind these sanctions is not to play a game of who is in the wrong or in the right, who gets caught out and who doesn't, who lost or won a clever argument. It's for the sanctioned user to become more aware of those around them, and as a deterrent for others not to mimic the sanctioned behavior. As a friendly colleague, I'm asking you to step back from the brink and adjust, because I believe you can achieve great things. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not what I said in my edit summary - if you quote me - quote me in full. If there is anything sanction-able here it is inserting unsourced OR/SYNTH into the article - please cease repeatedly mentioning sanctions without basis (and in this instance - mentioning an unrelated discussion). In my TP post to you - I merely wished to provide you with sources on the nationality markings on camp badges (since your edit summary of Racist, genocidal regimes putting people labelled by ethnicity in concentration camps is a clear example of anti-ethnic sentiment. It would be Anti-Belgian, anti-English, anti-French, anti-Dutch, and anti-Norwegian sentiment too. As WP:ARBEE rulings are especially strict on Nazism, I recommend you take this up at a noticeboard to check wider consensus first - seemed to be uninformed regarding the marking of several other nationalities in the camps (all of which were marked by a nationality letter), and I will note - not a valid rationale for reversion, but rather a personal opinion) - do with this information as you may. HOWEVER - as I do not wish to invest additional time here, particularly due to the drama involved here (and in this case - for a minor SYNTH/OR problem - the information itself at least being factually correct though containing a misrepresentation via omission of context and being SYNTH due to lack of sourcing tying this to the article) - I have truly said my last word on the subject. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You also might want to think why Francophobia doesn't (and shouldn't) have an image like this, and Anti-Dutch sentiment doesn't (and shouldn't) have an image like this (a whole collection of different letter badges - can be seen here). However - up to you. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As I say, one should ask a wider forum of users to see what the consensus response would be to these questions. For what it's worth, my contribution to such a discussion would be that the reason why French and Dutch badges have not been added to equivalent pages is most likely because there were no racist Nazi German policies against the French and Dutch, unlike their alleged Untermensch such as Poles, which encountered planned genocide, as the verifiable sources show. In any case, the absence of pictures of these badges from French or Dutch pages doesn't by itself prove that consensus wouldn't accept them being there. Pictures indicating far more vague and far less sinister sentiments are already included after all. It's noticeable that by their nature all choices about illustrations, like infoboxes, tend to come from users rather than sources; so they're more reliant on perceptions of common sense and consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you base inclusion (for this, and other photographs) on sources making the connection - not personal assertion that it is "obvious" or "clear". Note that infoboxes are supposed to be cited - or clear summaries of the article (which is cited) - and photoes (and moreso captions - photos do have a self-work exemption for copyright reasons, captions are like any other article text) are not exempt from the usual sourcing / OR / SYNTH requirements. As for citing lack of consensus (where such lack of consensus is indicated by a single editor - the reverter) - this is not, by itself, an argument for reverting back in un-sourced OR. However, I am done with this at this time (I got involved in the wall of text between you and another editor on the talk page, and it seems it just went on from there becoming a bigger wall on the article talk page - and now here) - please keep this off my talk page. Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Proverb article

I hope the current revision addresses all your concerns of OR or NPOV. If it does not, please, list them for me - either here with a ping, or on my talk page, or in a new article section, listing each sentence you consider problematic. If there's any content missing you think should be included to balance the article, I trust you can add it yourself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In my view, the following are problems with the article, listed by order of rising severity:

1. OR - the title and quote are OR - they are not present in this form in available English translations. This is a minor issue - as it is quite close to various forms that are used.
2. OR / factually incorrect - "It was also used by non-Polish authors; for example in addition to Križanić and Krman, " - none of the cited authors "use this" - but rather they mention this as a Polish/Latin saying on the situation in Poland. (corrected).
3. Notability - the phrase itself (of which there are several variant forms - some of which are tied together via SYNTH/OR into the article as being synonymous), as opposed to "Paradisus Judaeorum" (which is discussed in the literature), is not independently notable. The lack of notability is actually demonstrated by the sourcing in the article - which for mentions of the full phrase relies on pre-20th century sources. We have an open RM on the title.
4. Neutrality - the article does not properly reflect that this is an antisemitic polemic which is saying that Jews (and in other forms - heretics at large - "paradisus haereticorum") are treated "too good". This is not a tangential issue - this is the main use of this saying, throughout the ages.

Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1 and 3. I do think that the full phrase is notable, as it has been discussed in a number of sources. You can take it to AfD if you think only the I/JP part is notable, but I think the fact that it was subject to an in-depth academic treatment by Kot (~20 pages), plus at least several paragraphs by other scholars, is sufficient to show it is notable.

2. Fair enough, I see you've corrected those issues yourself, and I don't intend to restore the prior wording of those parts.

3. I hope you can expand on those issues. The sources I see don't seem to lend themselves that easily to that type of critique, IMHO, but if you think they do, or found better sources, well, I believe expansion is the best way of solving such perceived undue coverage issues.

4 . I'd appreciate your thoughts on what would be a neutral hook. I think the one proposed by StarryGradnma seems quite neutral, don't you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point I'm mainly waiting for the RM to conclude. If this remains on the non-notable full saying - I will take this to AfD. As for StarryGradnma's hook - inclusion of a highly antisemitic saying on the main page (the title of the article - being the full phrase) - requires explicitly spelling this out. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added a quotation about the original text anti-Jewish meaning to the lead. Does it address your NPOV concerns? As for the notability, see my recent talk page post. We are dealing with three items: a poem, a proverb, and a two-word construct. I think the proverb, as the best known of the three, is the best to build the article around. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No - as it doesn't say anti-Jewish (or Semitic) in the lede. As for notability - I see how the two-word construct (Jewish/Hebrew paradise in various permutations) is notable - as it is discussed in a secondary manner with some depth. The full phrase, is in my view of the sources not notable - as I see it you have possibly 1-2 sources discussing the phrase in a secondary manner at a length that can be considered of some length - the rest of sources either being PRIMARY (e.g. 18th century collections of Latin sayings/poems) or brief 1-2 sentence mentions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the lead yourself. As the quote states that the poem was critical of Jews, I don't know what more do you want. As for notability, thank you for pointing out it is notable, as what you describe above meets minimum GNG requirements perfectly. PS. On second thought, I've added a link to antisemitism to the lead (anti-Jewish redirects there, I think we can agree that we don't need to link to the pipe, right?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Icewhiz,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Icewhiz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content from multiple ghetto articles

As I've shown in Sosnowiec Ghetto and Nowy Sącz Ghetto, the content you removed is actually not that hard to verify. I am afraid that quite a lot of content you removed from other Ghetto articles is also easy to verify. Could you double check the content you removed, at least cross-reference the names with YV online database and their The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations book? (I assume you'd concur those sources are reliable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed content that was not cited or cited to unreliable sources. I will also note that ghetto articles (or Wikipedia in general) is not a place to WP:COATRACK WP:UNDUE primary victim or righteous accounts that are not covered in a secondary manner by sources on the ghettos. In some of these, over 50% of the article was to such primary accounts which are not present in sources covering the ghetto itself in detail as a topic- e.g, the USHMM encyclopedia of camps.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Different sources focus on different aspects of this, fortunately, WP:NOTPAPER so we have room for various details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The USHMM encyclopedia prefers sometimes Russian/Belarus sources (Brześć Ghetto), so it doesn't know about ethnic Poles. Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism of Soviet partisans

See Talk:Soviet_partisans#Antisemitism. Right now this is a dimension totally missing from the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Arrow Cross Party

Please edit.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You have admitted you don't read pages regarding the Holocaust. Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What in particular needs attention?Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I have listed a number of problems on their Talk pages.Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that is regards to Hitler and Himmler there are a number of editors with better expertise than me and that the articles are well watched and edited (as far as Wikipedia goes, of course....) - it is also a careful balancing act (as a huge amount of material is available on both). However, the Arrow Cross Party seems in need of some editor TLC (as many less traversed WWII topics - in particular topics that modern nationalists are inspired from) - I placed it on my watchlist (to begin), and I may edit it. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The structure of Himmler is wrong, The Holocaust outside WWII, too short Holocaust and too long Germanisation, too little about economy (Monowitz added after my suggestion). Adolf Hitler - Nazi Germany describes the period before the war. So no expertise is visible.Xx236 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wannsee Conference. Is Encyclopedia Judaica of low quality?Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

jewishvirtuallibrary is generally lower quality than a mainstream academic book (it may be better for npov than a book by a fringey author, but generally lower). For lesser trodden topics it maay be ok, but for Wannsee there should be no lack of better sources. What is good with JVL is that it is all online.Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Laurence Rees is competent, but not academic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs)

But he is a recognized historian. I would personally - without looking in depth at the merits - prefer Rees in a published setting to JVL. It also doesn't really matter - as you don't need two citations to support the content - Diannaa didn't change the text, merely removed a citation - and you don't need more than one citation for content that is not controversial (and saying 8/15 had doctorates doesn't sound too touchy). Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Police Battalion 309 doesn't describe their crimes, so I have copied from Great Synagogue, Białystok.Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Economy of Nazi Germany - no Holocaust. Very strange.Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Holocaust per se was a major contributor to the economy of Nazi Germany (they did pilfer alot of Jewish property, but they also expanded quite a bit of resources to kill Jews and others). However, what I do find disturbing in the linked article is that while slave labour (which also includes Holocaust victims - but was much wider than just the Holocaust) gets a section - the very high mortality rate of the slave laborers is not covered. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare by Gotz Aly describes the economy of the Holocaust. Short version "The Holocaust, then, was not just a result of the ideology of anti-Semitism but also of the policies of plunder that won the regime the support of the vast majority of the German people".[6] Similar opinion [7].Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nazi pilfering of property is a bit "over sold" in my mind (yes - there are sources). I'm actually more concerned with mortality of slave labor as a whole - I guess I understand why it isn't in there - it seems difficult to get an estimate for this (other than it was high) and the numbers also include "work to death" schemes (in, out, or "grey zone" Holocaust) - I've looked and have been unable to find a good source (there's lots of stuff down in the weeds - estimates for specific locales, and particular anecdotes (e.g. V2 workers) - but I don't see a good source for this). Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Slave labor is very general. Some workers were accepted as members of family by German farmers. Some men were hanged because of Rassenschande. Some workers participated in underground activities and were killed or imprisoned. Newborn childen of female workers were killed (starved).

http://www.polska-niemcy-interakcje.pl/articles/show/34 Polish study

http://www.expolis.de/schlesien/texte/maas_pl.html Polish translation of a German text.

Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you write Renia Spiegel? [8], pl:Renia Spiegel, de:Renia Spiegel.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Richard C. Lukas page edits

Hi IceWhiz,

I saw your notes on the noticeboard, and I understand the COI issues--the editorial content versus factual. What concerned me was that someone had removed Lukas's award by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (B'nai Brith), which I put back in, as that showed that many Jewish historians did agree with--and appreciate--Lukas's work. Norman Davies's credentials had also been taken out, so I added those again as well. These parts are important because, as you may or may not know, Lukas's book, The Forgotten Holocaust, stirred up controversy among some Jewish historians, but not all other historians agree with the criticism. The book in no way seeks to take away from the Jewish experience of the Holocaust, but to focus on the Polish experience as well, and how Poles and Jews related to each other during WWII. To your point, I can have Dr. Lukas provide quotes and/or actual documentation from historians who disagree with Engel, instead of a blanket statement that they disagree with him. I'll take another look over the page to make sure it complies with the COI issues. Thanks for your feedback, and let me know if there is something else that needs to be adjusted. White Eagle 70 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)White Eagle 70

@White Eagle 70:, any information you add - also rewards - needs to be backed up by a WP:RS. Please also read WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE if needed in a manner pursuant to policy. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, please note that the facts on this page are backed up by reliable sources and published work. Also, it is correct to say that Lukas is the first American historian to write on this topic (the Polish experience of WWII), which is what made The Forgotten Holocaust groundbreaking. Before him, there were Polish historians who wrote about it. But it IS actually the first English language book of this kind. That is a true, factual statement. Thank you for the information about editing. White Eagle 70 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)White Eagle 70

Siedlce Ghetto

You remove but not write anything good about Polsih people. Even the Yizkor book seems to be unreliable, maybe antisemitic? Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I remove it since to was sourced to a WP:SPS Mark Paul - who is not reliable. If there is a reliable source - it can be restored. Note that most Yizkor books are regarded as WP:PRIMARY - being witness accounts (there are exceptions) - it is usually best to use secondary sources analyzing them and not the yizkor books themselves. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with sourcing on AIG

Hey Icewhiz! Hope you're doing well. I raised a question over at the AIG talk page but have yet to get a meaningful reply. I remembered you're part of WP:FINANCE and really helped me with sourcing issues for FASB. If you've got the time, could you take a look? My concern is that any sources I've found for the information are all future-facing and don't reflect the event actually occurring. If I could find a suitable source I'd suggest a rewrite, but in the absence of one, would it be appropriate to remove the content in question?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Just wanted to drop you a friendly note to see if you got my message over at Talk:American International Group. I know things can get a little hectic this time of year. I appreciate all the feedback you've given me, and I'm curious to hear your opinion.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I saw - but I disagree (I think it is relevant) with you and didn't want to repeat myself - letting other folk chime in there. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

There hasn't been a whole lot of activity over there. Do you think it'd be appropriate to open an WP:RFC? I'd also be interested in hearing from some others.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You could do that. Not sure you'd see a whole lot of participation, but it might garner some interest (possibly the Russia angle will drive up participation). Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing Israel-Arab conflict ban

I just want to ask why do you prohibit users who edit about the Israel-Arab conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixarkid101 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pixarkid101: It is not me. Please read WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 and the full case there to see Arbcom's reasoning.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Strange edit of yours

[9] There are Jews who are Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.I myself have partially Jewish(Ashkenazi ancestor from 18th century) background and I am an atheist.Let's not dicate our articles based on some religious hardliner beliefs.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I, concurrently, wrote on the article talk page, please respond there. There is no indication this individual (Christian at birth, one parent a convert) identified or presented himself as partially Jewish. We generally do not racially classify bios.Icewhiz (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please help to remove the picture of Birkenau camp misused by a denialist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_December_13#File:Toeben.jpg Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you really accept such pictures? http://www.toben.biz/ ?Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I actually found the link to toben.biz (which was in our article and I removed) as much more problematic. Also the infobox there was a big problem (as it did not present what he was known for). As for the photo itself - I think it is ironic (a convicted Holocaust denier photographed before a camp!) and if at all negative to Toben when presented in a neutral article. I am aware that Toben uses this as propaganda (in the course of his denial) - but our article is not doing so (and nor should it!). Presented outside of the context of advocating denial, I don't see how the photo itself advocates denial nor expertise - if at all it exhibits denial.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Blanket reverts

This is disruptive. Forget that you slyly put in "Israeli-held" instead of Syrian, in your zeal to protect Wikipedia from including links to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, your blanket revert also removed archive links to sources in the article. Kindly do not make such blanket reverts in the future. nableezy - 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Good morning. Please do avoid personal attacks.Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That edit was disruptive. There is no personal attack. Please avoid making disruptive edits in the future. nableezy - 10:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No - what is disruptive is nominating articles you do not like for AfD with no policy legs to stand on. Reverting challenged edits without discussion - as you have done in a number of articles is disruptive as well.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So, removing archive links to webpages, thats what exactly? Good editing? No policy grounds? WP:NOT is a policy, sorry. Im unaware of any challenged edits I have reverted without discussion. nableezy - 10:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Icewhiz,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it seems like you need to be reminded...

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

Template:Z33 — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

Since youve seemingly admitted to it, if you continue to follow my contributions for the sole aim of opposing my edits I will seek administrative redress. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I have not admitted to this. "correcting related problems on multiple articles" is correct use of editor history.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure buddy, this isnt an admission. Regardless, you do it again off to AE we go. nableezy - 16:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Changes on Iran page

Hi Icewhiz,

The heavily political paragraph on current Iranian government should not be in the introduction. See Spanish, or Italian wikipedia pages on the country. See English wikipedia pages on any other country. Political and government related topics are never discussed in the intro.

Rahdar Danesh (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Political issues are often discussed in intros when relevant - see 3rd and 4th paragraphs in North Korea. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Then that page needs to be edited as well. Extensive political arguments (and counterarguments) are not commonly present in intro. Finding 1 other example out of many does not prove a norm.

Rahdar Danesh (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

One of many. See Syria, Sudan, or (to break the run on S) Myanmar. The inclusion of such material in the lede is a per-country decision based on how sources cover the topic.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

For Sudan, Syria, and Myanmar there are brief description about the facts of the "civil wars", there is not any argument for or against the parties involved in the civil wars. Inclusion of political viewpoints is inappropriate in the intro, those should be discussed in the politics section.

Rahdar Danesh (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The human rights in Iran are not a political viewpoint, but rather documented sourced reality per secondary RSes. There is not hard and fast rule on this matter. The question of whether it is appropriate or inappropriate (or more to the point - DUE or UNDUE) - depends on the country and situation in question. Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph is not only about human rights, rather about a range of issues. The paragraph is clearly assuming a position against a political entity. It would make sense to limit such discussions (for or against governments) to the "government and politics" section. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Per what policy? Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Government and politics" need to be discussed under "government and politics" section to highlight neutrality. Comparison with other languages on the matter may show a cultural bias which is against WP:NPOV, see Anglo-American focus in NPOV/FAQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. Furthermore, it is common sense to discuss a topic under its appropriate title. "Agriculture" should be discussed under "agriculture". It it is not good writing/organization to put a full paragraph about it in the intro, other language pages on the same country and English pages on other countries can be used to understand the relevance and appropriate weight of a topic (such as politics) in the intro. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly they should be discussed in the body - that does not preclude a summary in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be against writing organization if you put everything in the intro. Over-emphasis on politics on one single country is against NPOV. Compare to other languages (for the same country) and compare other countries to see over-emphasis in the intro. Rahdar Danesh (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Other countries cover political and human rights in the lede. There might be some place for a trim - shorter summary form.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

SMS Vulcano

Hi, in case you didn't know, there may be a dispute between sources on the date of launch-the Polish-language Wikipedia page says 1844. Blythwood (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha - (I think) I was not aware of the plwiki entry (which keeps on surprising me (positively) in terms of quality and npov). A year (which can be a few months) might just be the difference between the launch date and entering service date. I am fairly sure that the source I am citing says 1843 - but there might be some source variance (I recall seeing other minor details varying somewhat - I tried to use the sources I trusted more (qualiyy and depth of coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Season Greetings

Merry Christmas Icewhiz


Hi Icewhiz, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
   –Scopecreep ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11.02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• apology. I thought the dates were for the mythical mistress, not the real king. editing while tired.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  No worries - the article was and is a mess - and you have improved it overall. :-).Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Question for help

May I please ask a question for help from an experienced user? How do I interlink from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard? Thank you--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Steamship Star of the West approaching Fort Sumter

You mean to a file uploaded to commons? The file will be available under the same name in Wikipedia. You can then use the following in Wikipedia to link to it:

[[File:Steamship Star of the West, with reinforcements for Major Anderson, approaching Fort Sumter.jpg|thumb|Steamship Star of the West approaching Fort Sumter]]

(see example above). Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I am trying to redirect some pages from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard because this page is not very accessible.--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

What specifically are you trying to redirect? Because that doesn't quote make sense to me (unless this is some policy page?). Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to make it easier for people to Upload Files.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to create an off-site redirect (to another Wiki).... I'm not sure how you do that. If you just want to link - well normal square brackets work (and there a way to create an interwiki link - not sure about commons). Probably best to ask someone versed in markup - I'm not really sure how to do what you want to do. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

icewhizz

you are operating in bad faith and propagandising wiki content and, imo, should be sanctioned. who do i complain to? Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for American politics

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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.  Bishonen | talk 22:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC).

Pamela Geller

Did you even read Simon223's edit summary before you made this revert, or read the two separate bits he had restored? Why remove both? I don't know if that was lack of care, or tendentiousness, but it wasn't good. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC).

I did. One bit was sourced to a blog (Atlas Shrugged - yes hers, but possibly UNDUE and FRIND concerns), when we have no lack of secondary sources covering her. The other bit was sourced to the SPLC, which we usually attribute. Geller should probably be described as right-wing or far-right - but this should be based on the way she is described in the majority of secondary sources (which per my check seem to focus on Islamophobia and not the right/left divide - e.g. this BBC profile does not contain far right - though it is highly critical of her (bigoted in the headline)).Icewhiz (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And I will note - language not supported by the cited SPLC source (which I checked now) - which seems like a rather big issue.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And, it would seem, that this misrepresentation of sources (the cited source dìd not say this) and BLP vio was rejected at an RfC - diff. If there was anything tendentiousness there - it was the misrepresentation followed by IDHT that lead to this RfC (with an obvious result). Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Help

Hi, sorry if I did something wrong. I opened the arbitration request as a genuine case.

I have edited in good faith even if poor. I have only just passed 100 edits so help rather than going straight after me would be helpful

Apologies again. I'll not bother editing anymore Alex Tiffin (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Help

Hi, sorry if I did something wrong. I opened the arbitration request as a genuine case.

I have edited in good faith even if poor. I have only just passed 100 edits so help rather than going straight after me would be helpful

Apologies again. I'll not bother editing anymore Alex Tiffin (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Which source?

Please answer.Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC) The book about post-war literature. Typical manipulation.Xx236 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I answered on the article tp.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I try to stay clear of MOS issues (I let the style aficionados duke it out, I do try to follow MOS to the best of my very limited ability but I probably make many mistakes and I (almost) never contest one style over another.... This is a hugely important part of the project for some editors - just not me). Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

John Radzilowski

Please explain the reason for seeking to delete this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AK Piast (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I explained in my nom - IMHO, failing WP:NPROF amd WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for leading me to a new tool to measure readable prose size - XTools

Icewhiz, thank you for making me learn something new. I was writing to you asking how you determined prose size for Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and listing how I thought it could be done, when I looked again at Wikipedia:Article size, and right there under the paragraph for readable prose was a link to the tool XTools. I tried it on the Israeli occupation article, on the Beatles article, and on a very long list article, and I was amazed at what it showed. The Beatles article took over a minute to chew through, but showed a readable prose under the 100,000 suggested split limit, while the very long list, the largest article in Wikipedia, showed a prose of 51 characters, which is how I interpreted what it meant to be readable prose vs. tables and lists. Mostly you don't care about this, I would imagine, so basically, this is a thanks for leading this horse to water. Mburrell (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Try installing User:Dr pda/prosesize (also there) - it lets you measure on revisions as well (and not just the current rev - which is all I managed with XTools). I think both have issues in some cases (e.g. in the occupation article it doesn't count the notes as prose - well since notes are usually refs or small notes.... not 50k+ of text.... and in some cases counting tables does make sense...) - but they work better than dumping into an external word counter (which is a fall back for exceptions).Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

ADL

The RFC you started has been finished could you implement its decision --Shrike (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:AE

Please check WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Israeli law in the West Bank settlements

On 2 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Israeli law in the West Bank settlements, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amnon Rubinstein coined the term "enclave law" to describe Israeli law in the West Bank settlements? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Israeli law in the West Bank settlements), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yiddish newspaper AFDs

Hi, I appreciate your finding sources for Maalos and Beleichtungen, but I just wanted to say that it's unlikely someone will take the time to fill in the references so the articles won't end up at AFD again. The creator of Maalos has already said that he doesn't have access to the internet; he just comes up with the sources and hopes someone else will write the article for him. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes - but it does have a crosswiki and is a useful stub - even if poorly sourced. I can throw refs in the articles for their existence. @תנא קמא: is a new editor, and yes - he has internet filter limitations. He does need to learn the ropes. But he also brings an important voice - how many editors whose mother tongue and main language is Yiddish, and edit Wikipedia, do you think we have? Close to zero - or I'd say one. The stuff he is creating is mostly notable - it just needs to be reffed better.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Well done for keeping cool and calm in Talk:Pamela Geller#Discussion. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Amen! I came here to give you exactly this award after reading at Talk:Ahed Tamimi the remarkable civility and coolheadedness with which you discussed the actual textual content of sources and steadfastly kept the conversation focused on achieving accurate, neutral coverage of things that have been published about the topic. Keep fighting the good fight! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Argument with R9tgokunks

Please see WP:ANI#Icewhiz and R9tgokunks. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

AFD (apology)

Hi Icewhiz. I just wanted to reassure you that I was not thinking of you at all when I mentioned the IP. But as I was rereading it I realized I ought to go back and CE to make clear that they proposed the deletion of the page. But then there was a pile-on of edit-conflicts while I was trying to fix it, so I gave up. Actually, I like the story about the lab computer that anyone could have edited from better, because I think it no great crime that the IP added some info to that page about the game. So no, I wasn't targeting you at all, and I'm sorry that my technical misuse of nominated when I should have said proposed may have felt like I was slinging mud at you. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries - it was clear to me you were referring to the PRODing IP - it just was not clear from the language (PROD being a proposal, not a nomination). I do think it is unlikely the same person is behind the IP today (which geolocates to a university) in relation to 2016 - shared use and user churn.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration advice

Hi! First of all, I want to thank you for your comments on my talk page.

I've now been unblocked, and I'd like to ask for your advice regarding the arbitration enforcement of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If I'm able to edit an Israel-related article (even though I've not yet reached 500 edits), should I assume that it's not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict unless I think the opposite is likely? VwM.Mwv (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: I just left a long list on your talk page. The short answer is no, you may not assume that. Many pages that are conflict related are not ECP protected (someone needs to request that - and existence of the blue ECP protection is spotty - particularly in new pages or less visited pages). The lack of presence of an ARBPIA header in the talk page also means nothing (users place that manually) - though if it is present - it is a strong indication editors think it is conflict related. I would generally assume, as a rule of thumb, that anything that mentions Israeli in conjunction with Arabs/Palestinians (in almost any context) or regional conflict - is conflict related. The 500/30 line is enforced harshly - and particularly so towards users who have already been at AE. So if it somehow remotely sounds related - assume it is related.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it! 👍 VwM.Mwv (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:VwM.Mwv Just to clarify you may not edit talk pages relating to the conflict too till you reach 500 edits as per sanction that was put by admin --Shrike (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

notifications

When you mention somebody, it is polite to notify them. nableezy - 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

When they are the subject of a discussion, generally I would agree, yes. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So start doing it please. nableezy - 17:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There a reason you continue to decline notifying me when you bring me up? Hell, you dont even mention my username to avoid that notification. nableezy - 01:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I was querying a user regarding their action - not yours.Icewhiz (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

About me. Anyway, the fifth or sixth admin you bring this up to might take your side on this finally, who knows. But try to give me the opportunity to respond please. nableezy - 03:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A solace, pehraps

As I commented on AE, I used to be much more active in conflict resolution (and conflicts...) long time ago. It was stressful, and I am very glad I was able to change my attitude and these days I find wiki much less stressful. We don't have to save the world. Things will work out. Relax. Take a WP:CUP of tea, and check out my mini-essays here: User:Piotrus/Morsels of wikiwisdom. I wrote them around the time I decided to change my attitude and retire from 'the fight'. I have to say I am much happier these days than back then. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Something about AGF if someone (say, myself) challenges content as a misrepresentation of a source / OR - AGF is to assume they are correct unless you have verified vs. The sources:

1. I do have access to sources (including Polish) - and when I make such a statement it is based on finding at least one bit that has not been verified.
2. My initial revert was based on such a finding - and I said "OR, misrepresentation of sources"
3. I also had a very strong hunch of possible copy pasting from a SPS - I had evidence to this effect - but I did not say so initially since this required more evidence for an assertion of fact.
4. I have subsequently spent quite a bit of time both verifying exactly what was copy pasted and what was paraphrased (in part, inaccurately vs. the SPS) - and after I did that, I asserted that as well.
5. I have also compiled additional inaccuracies (or assertions that do not appear in the cited sources) - all this at quite some investment of time.

BRD (as well as reducing conflict and tension here) - would be to reinstate challenged material only after you actually verified each bit you return. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW - I have for the most part (aside from touching one article that has been absent attention for years, and contained an issue that popped up on a text search) - been sticking to lower stress stuff - been doing lots of AfD work (a few of which popped a smile across my face - dealing with more arcane topic at semi-random is something I enjoy)..... I suggest you take a long hard look at User:Icewhiz/Illustration and consider what you would have done if you spotted this in the work of a student or colleague. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that deleting spam is low-stress enjoyable activity (outside of the realization how much of this garbage is out there). Regarding the sourcing, I will review it in more detail when I have more time, but as you might have noted I myself removed the sentence about 'Jewish fraud' (through not because there were sourcing issue, but because it is simply irrelevant - sure there was Jewish fraud, and proportionally more Polish fraud, because it is reasonable equal % of any ethnicity will commit fraud, so what? Undue, irrelevant, offtopic, coatrack, sigh). But it seems to me you are mostly suggesting plagiarism issue, rather than falsification of sources. And when it comes to the translation, well, determining what has been plagriarized and what is simply summarized is a major pain. I honestly doubt dealing with plagiarism through translation is anyone's good use of time, since it is just a variation of copyright paranoia. Technically, it may be a problem, realistically? I for one do not intend to spend my time on this particular issue, I'd rather hunt and nominate some more WP:CORPSPAM :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

While I challenged this on sourcing (misrepresentation of what was cited (and despite the ref-bombing - I checked much of it) + miss-attribution in that Mark Paul from which this was based on (+citation copied as is) was not cited as a source - Wikipedia:Plagiarism) - there are in fact severe WP:FRINGE / WP:NPOV / WP:V issues. this begins with the mundane (non-POV) fact that there were several decrees/laws (Feb(?IIRC) 1945, May 1945, March 1946) replacing one another. And continues with the assertions in the fragment being different from any mainstream English academic work in the field (as well as non-English works whom I am familiar with - e.g. the cited Klucze i kasa leads one to a different conclusion from reading it). While there are varying POVs on Polish restitution - what's currently in the article is simply outside of the ballpark. You can look at the multiple sources I sprinkled through my AE report, or perhaps at the rather short summary (two paragraphs) here:

"Although the decrees regarding the status of abandoned and allegedly ownerless property confiscated by the Germans, published in the beginning of 1945, did not mention Jewish property as a distinct category, Poles and Jews alike clearly understood that one of their primary goals was to prevent Jewish property from returning to Jewish hands.19" Under the emerging category of ‘abandoned property’ (mienie opuszczone) fell all assets belonging to Polish citizens and organisations that had been confiscated during the war by the German occupiers, and others properties whose owners were absent for different reasons. According to the new legalization, those properties, as well as properties belonging to German citizens and institutions, were to be automatically nationalized.20 The fact that in occupied Poland only Jewish property as such was officially confiscated by the Germans, along with the unprecedented extermination rate of Polish Jews, suggested that ‘abandoned property’ was in many ways tantamount to ‘Jewish property.’21

"The severe limitations placed on the possibility of reclaiming private property only further emphasized the extent to which the new legislation affected the status of Jewish property. In contrast to the pre-war law that allowed second-degree relatives the right to claim property, under the new, postwar regulations only the original owners or direct heirs could ask for restitution.22 In light the scale of the destruction of Polish Jewry, regaining Jewish family assets was to become an almost impossible task. Jewish leaders understood this problem very well and led the protests against the new legislation.23 Polish officials did not try to conceal that the change in the inheritance laws were aimed mainly at preventing the restitution of Jewish property.24 As the then Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945: ‘We will not permit some foreign Jews, for instance Argentinian Jews, to inherit property in Poland.’25 In internal discussions regarding the formulation of the new laws, some of the participants argued that their purpose was to prevent the concentration of too much wealth in the hand of ‘unproductive and parasite factors’ and to preclude the inheritance of property by ‘distant relatives in Argentina who engage in despicable jobs.’26"

From: Weizman, Yechiel. "Unsettled possession: the question of ownership of Jewish sites in Poland after the Holocaust from a local perspective." Jewish Culture and History 18.1 (2017): 34-53..

So while I had challenged this as a misuse of a PRIMARY 1947 source (whose statement isn't wrong - just misleading - since there are two BIG IFs in the statement that precluded return of the vast majority of property (owner/direct descendant, and "state control" - which included state control of property confiscated by the Nazis)), OR / misrepresentation (not in source or counter to the source), and Wikipedia:Plagiarism (as demonstrated in User:Icewhiz/Illustration) - the problem lies also with the content which does not conform to mainstream coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

On a lighter note - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argos (dog) (closed just now as speedy keep now, so no canvassing concerns) - cracked a huge smile on my face yesterday - had fun looking into the research performed on the canine friend of Ulysses. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha. May I suggest copying those finds from AfD to a 'further reading' section in the article proper? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your mentee needs some serious mentoring

Because this isn't inflammatory at all... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

re: KPK

Interesting. I wonder if they'd be notable. It has been a while since I looked into far right orgs, TBH none has really become relevant to my editing since Vilnija ~10 years ago... which now that I look at may need some NPOVing again, sigh. PS. Ping User:K.e.coffman, who also may be interested in stubbing an entry in KPK. It is always nice if an outcome of some dispute leads to more content, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfonse Pogrom

I've expanded the article and I think it would make an interesting DYK. I'd appreciate it if could check it for possibly NPOV issues, and if you have any suggestions on which hooks, feel free to suggest them. PS. My current hook idea is "...that the Alfonse Pogrom, a riot involving mostly Jewish workers and underground in Warsaw, 1905, led to debates and reforms related to prostitution in Poland? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I would suggest, per NOENG, relying solely on English publications - in this case there are a good number of academic sources, in English, covering this in depth - since this was a unique event, involving the Bund (organized labor), as well as sexual slavery there really is no lack of academic English sources (as this is subject matter of interest). If we do this - then meeting V / NPOV will be easier. In terms of NPOV - "rioting" may be incorrect (the Russian police, who tried to organize a counter-pogrom described this in this manner - but I think good sources here differ a bit in usage - e.g. "series of attacks" - this was very organized). The connection to the Russian-wide 1905 revolution needa to be stressed (as it is in the sources). There are also issues with "pogrom" - it is probably the COMMONNAME (following the local presss) - but techically possibly inaccurate - I see some sources scare quoting this.Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

In terms of hook - I'd be careful with "riot" - and I think the current hook is boring or not hooky - though it will work. Bund organized labor is probably better than the socialist dialect of "workers". Perhaps a hook on the Bund member trying to save his sister. Or the Bund attacks leading the Russian police to try (and fail! Warsaw was well outside of the Russian "pogrom zone" - true during the Russian period and also during WWII (the major Jewish-Polish violence being well to the east)). This was a really interesting event - and a hooky hook might hook in many readers.Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

e.g. maybe hookier: ... that 3 days of violence in Warsaw ,known as the 1905 Alfonse Pogrom, were possibly sparked by a Bund activist trying to save his sister from sexual slavery? Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Same but shorter: .... that in 1905 three days of violence in Warsaw were possibly sparked by a Bund activist trying to save his sister from sexual slavery?Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Very disappointing

I am working hard, in a bipartisan manner, to fix a long running issue. If you wish to pick up the mantle, please go ahead. If not, please don’t stand in the way. I asked you for something very small, to avoid encouraging others to turn this into a partisan-style vote. Why did you choose to take an adversarial position on this?

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The title you suggested is not close to being factual (or neutral). I actually agreed with much of what you had to suggest (e.g. a common prefix). This discussion might have gotten off to a better start had a "pre discussion" involving more than two editors been aired in a relevant WikiProject or on the page. As it is - you are laying down a concrete proposal - instead of trying to take "baby steps" towards building consensus. As someone who actually agrees with some of what you are trying to accomplish, achieving one at a time, might be more productive -

1. Consensus on how many sub-articles (frankly - I would leave the present parent/two subs - and open this up later).
2. Consensus the different sub-articles (if there is more than 1) - should have a common prefix.
3. And after 1&2 - consensus on the prefix and suffixes.

A friendly suggestion. And you might get my support for much of it. So far - you're dickering with me over how I format my response (which was rather standard) - instead of discussing substance. Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is factual: the key facts about the war are that it was primarily in 1948, was in a place then known as Palestine, and during the war Israel was created. Personally I think that the correct terminology is 1948 Palestine war, but I was/am willing to compromise on being too purist if it will help reach a solution here.

I did have a pre-pre-discussion here: Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#Start_of_the_war?. It wasn’t advertised.

My post today is intended to be a widely participative pre-discussion. That is exactly why I find your “vote” so unhelpful. It risks turning a pre-discussion into a vote. You might think I could have made my post more flexible, but that is simply a judgement call as to what might catalyze the most interaction and thought.

As to your advice above, I think it is very sensible. I was planning to start with a simple merge debate until I read the merge debate in the archives from many years ago, which was a mess. Sure, consensus may be very different today, but I found it hard to believe there will be consensus for merging. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having the sub-articles, as I think you are implying as well.

So I propose that, after the current discussion has run its course, to skip your first step, and go straight to your second.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes - merging is a whole big can of worms (and alot of editing) - keep it separate. I would propose (after you get a whole lot of responses every which way) - "can we agree on X, X Y, X Z? X, Y, and Z TBD if we agree on this principle."Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Technical

Re: [10]. Visual explorer cite will format the book ref nicely, I use visual mode often for handling or refs, much better than manual tempalate filling. But for books, I in fact use https://reftag.appspot.com as for some reason our VE book cite won't recognize page numbers, which reftag will (just make sure to copy the page link, not the search link, from GBooks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I type this in via hand (or copy paste part of it - e.g. the title, authors) and edit in source mode - it is easier for me to work without an additional tool for this. Hard to teach old dogs new tricks. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Polish Center for Holocaust Research

Ymblanter put in PC protection; I went ahead and blocked that range for a bit: it has an extensive block record for POV edit warring. Ymblanter, maybe semi-protection is warranted for this, and if you're any good at rangeblocking, feel free to expand it if edits are coming from just outside of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a week semi, since disruption continued. If it resumes after a week, we will need a long-term semi.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, @Drmies: - it does seem to me wider than jist this article. The 64-bit IP from around NJ has been active on Naliboki massacre (which in far right media is used as a trope) - though recently the same edits have been picked up there by a Polish 32-bit. Also in November on Koniuchy massacre (similar trope - in both cases real events, the trope is over emphasizing Jewish participation in Soviet forces and using these as a counter-example to any Polish wrongdoing - someone analyzed this in a phd I can drag up). Also Katyń Memorial (Jersey City), Steven Fulop - and a few more I do not remember (A few months ago I had the feeling they were following edits and would come up to revert once or twice. Other than that - they stick to an article and edit-war over the same content for years - at a low pace - e.g. in Naliboki they are trying to insert (as a source for "Jewish") a photograph from lamoth musuem which just shows a bunch of partisans in the forest - not addressing the specific event - see Feb 2019, March 2018, Feb 2018. They are very persistent on some articles they pick - I can scratch my brain for more if that helps?Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected the Naliboki article (indefinitely--I don't see the point in us returning periodically to mop up every time some neo-Nazi comes by). I looked at the others but they seem to be OK so far. That mayor, Fulop, if that gets vandalized again, please report at RFPP or tell me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Not neo-nazis - Polish nationalists are quite distinct - and very much hate Nazis (and communists). Naliboki village is a sad story - a few months after the Soviets killed many of the menfolk (many of whom were in the Home Army in parallel to heing in a Nazi sanctioned self defense unit) - the Nazis destroyed the village and killed most of the inhabitants as a reprisal for a Polish attack.Icewhiz (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Derek DeGrate article

Hi. thanks for your feedback on the Derek DeGrate article. The article does actually have independent resources in its references. The article was not written to "praise" the subject but to provide insight on musicianship and achievements. Kingtd1 (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I only deletion-sorted it (so that others may comment) - the subject matter is outside my expertise, so I did not comment other than place it in relevant listings. If you want to make a case for retention - then commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek DeGrate is the correct venue. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Eric Walberg

Ever heard of him? Looks like a non-notable Middle East expert, new page, created by the experienced editor who created Death of Mohammad Habali , not by an SPA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a fringey writer. Liked the bouncing bunny in Tehran on his twitter though. Suspect not notable, though hard to assess while on my tablet. Might have a notability shot via AUTHOR if the books are reviewed.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, tho I really did mean, Have you ever heard of him? It seemed odd for such an experienced editor to create a page with so little sourcing. The book reviews I found are, with one exception, in FRINGEy places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• He seems to interview on RT and Iranian media - and used for quotes there. That might be the prompt here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Intimate Violence

Why don't you read? http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140102719170 Xx236 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually have read bits of it + their journal articles prior to it being published (on the same topic, went into the book). They are an interesting read. I created a small bio for Jeffrey Kopstein after using one of the journal articles (I picked up that habit from Piotrus - if I see an author that passes NAUTHOR / NPROF - I create a small stub/start article if we do not have one).Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Your Edit on Jewish Bolshevism

Hey,

Noticed you undid my recent revision. I wanted to check with you whether you felt that it was correct to note "that four out of the six members of the first Bolshevik Executive Committee were Jewish" while removing the second bit. Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,TorontonianOnlines (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and not from a RS. You are citing a piece in Occidental Observer (republished in unz.com). Major red flags given nature of source.Icewhiz (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought that the reference was from a book, merely republished on UNZ, no? TorontonianOnlines (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In this case, clearly no.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me be more precise. The work that I was referencing is: "Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture: Anti-Semitism, Assimilation, Affirmation," as published by Brandeis University Press. Here's a link. How exactly is this not a reliable source? TorontonianOnlines (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edit misrepresented the source, as the source merely quoted Ball to illustrate aspects of Ball's own writing.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay I can concede that the source may not be perfect. However, the racial composition of the party is not a matter of opinion. See also: "The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement", in Slavonic and East European Review, 40 (1961-1962): 167, reprinted in Essential Papers on Jews and the Left, ed. Ezra Mendelsohn, New York University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-8147-5571-2, p.321. & Jonathan Frankel's "Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, 1862-1917" published by the Cambridge University Press. Clearly, it is an indisputable fact that the Jews had a disproportionate representation in both the leadership of the Bolshevik party and the Russian Communist movement as a whole. On Wikipedia itself, it already has a great page on Arkadi Kremer which cites him as "a Russian socialist leader known as the 'Father of the Bund' (the General Jewish Workers' Union in Lithuania, Poland and Russia). This organisation was instrumental in the development of Russian Marxism, the Jewish labour movement and Jewish nationalism." Also take a look at Central Committee elected by the 7th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). TorontonianOnlines (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia, following most or all reputable sources, generally does not diverge into "racial composition" discourse. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is a fact that the majority of the Bolshevik leadership were Jews, then how is it can be alleged that stating this is an "anti-Semitic canard." If Wikipedia does not discuss "racial composition" then that entire article should be removed. You can't have it both ways. The article as it stands, alleges that it is false that the Jews were disproportionately represented in the Bolshevik party. That is not accurate as numerous sources demonstrate both on and off the encyclopedia. Either the article needs to be corrected (in order to accurately reflect the historical reality) or needs to be removed (if racial composition discourse does not belong on Wikipedia). Moreover, nearly every biographical article on any individual discusses their ethnicity on the site. Furthermore, the articles that I have referred you to make note of the Jewish ethnic background of mentioned individuals. As a side note, I feel it would make sense to take this discussion to the article talk page? TorontonianOnlines (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The majority of sources treat this as a false claim, though one dating back many years. Making this claim usually requires various acrobatics - for instance asserting that Vladimir Lenin was "Jewish" based on one grandfather being a Christian who converted from Judaism. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Lenin is commonly regarded as Russian AFAIK. It was a revelation when it came out that he was part-Jewish but that's by-the-by. Let's see what's confirmed for sure going down the list of the elected members of the Central Committee (1918), according to the existing Wiki articles 7th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Leon Trotsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Grigori Sokolnikov, Mikhail Lashevich, and that's just from a cursory examination and relying solely on Wikipedia itself as a source. Even as is, 5/15 is not insignificant. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It depends on which particular grouping of Bolsheviks (e.g. where on the rank structure, which event) you take, and furthermore one must take into account that Jews constituted a large percentage of the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes (from which the revolutionaries came) themselves in Western Russia.Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, there would be fewer of them following Stalin's purges. However, the early days of the Bolshevik party and its precursor in the face of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party were definitely heavily involved with the Jewish community. Do you have any data on that? I would be curious to take a look. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the General Jewish Labour Bund was, for a time, part of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. The Jewish community, at the time, was rather sizable in (then) Western Russia (Pale of Settlement. Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. Do you not feel that that connection may be worth noting? I have looked at the talk page of the Jewish Bolshevism article one more time and it appears to me that there is little that can be done to fix it. The process seems doomed because of the following circularity:

A: Article presently claims that it's an anti-Semitic canard to say that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Bolshevik party.

B: To look into the actual ethnic backgrounds of the early Bolshevik party leaders is inappropriate on Wikipedia (partially due to OR and partially because the Jewish Bolshevism article is about the 'canard' and not about the potential historical reality of Jewish overrepresentation in the leadership of the early Bolshevik party).

C: Therefore, the Jewish Bolshevism wiki article continues to allege that the disproportionate number of Jews in the leadership of the early Bolshevik party is only a conspiracy/'canard.'

I hope that you have found our conversation diplomatic and interesting. I truly hope that I have succeeded in conveying to you the point that I am trying to make. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As sources generally treat this as an antisemitic canard, so do we. While I suppose research into the "racial composition of the party" is of interest to some, we generally follow Wikipedia:No original research on Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the civil discussion. Have a good night. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

CIS RfC

Hey, we've interacted before and I've always appreciated your editorial point-of-view, especially on issues of anti-semitism. Was hoping to get your thoughts on my response to you at the CIS RfC you recently commented on. I can elaborate more here but my point is that I was worried the anti-semitism charge was being misconstrued in that instance without sufficient backing from RS. That's not really a jab on the SPLC or its hate group designations more broadly--this is a more targeted issue. Would definitely appreciate your thoughts. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Commented there.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The anti-semitic and white nationalists charge is more of a "guilt by association thing" - the more significant (in my eyes) is the SPLC condemmning publications (as nativist) by CIS. The guilt by association being supporting evidence, possibly strongly so.Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, I appreciate your explanation. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

What is wrong with the information that I added? Please give me detailed explanation so I could fix it.

Bluffer8 (talk) 3:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Poor source, badly written, and a from a source with a rather extreme POV.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not made that up. There are plenty of sources since this topic was widely commented and described by the biggest media in Poland like Polish Television:

https://www.tvp.info/41683047/gontarczyk-zarzuca-naukowa-mistyfikacje-publikacji-na-temat-historii-zydow

including national news program called Wiadomości:

https://wiadomosci.tvp.pl/41695049/kolejne-klamstwa-na-temat-polski-i-polakow

the biggest radio in Poland - Polish Radio:

https://www.polskieradio.pl/321/1222/Artykul/2275685,Piotr-Gontarczyk-zarzuca-publikacji-Centrum-Badan-nad-Zaglada-Zydow-naukowa-mistyfikacje

https://polskieradio24.pl/130/4503/Artykul/2277079,Naukowa-mistyfikacja-%E2%80%93-publicysci-o-badaniach-nad-Holokaustem

well known newspapers like Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat and others:

https://wiadomosci.dziennik.pl/historia/aktualnosci/artykuly/593189,dalej-jest-noc-holokaust-zydzi-ipn-afera.html

https://dorzeczy.pl/historia/96376/Zydowskich-policjantow-z-getta-zamienili-na-polskich-Odkrycie-historyka-poraza.html

https://www.wsieciprawdy.pl/sieci-naukowa-mistyfikacja-pnews-3949.html

or even Google News:

https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWpiaHJyR2tvQU1FY2pLUXVUcElOMEpLQUFQAQ?hl=pl&gl=PL&ceid=PL%3Apl

What would you say if I change (or add) the sources, moderate and temper the content of my section and fix the grammar? Would it be OK? The material I would like to add is honest, respected and professional opinion of professional historian. This opinion is not more controversial than what is already published in the article about Jan Grabowski, so why to hide it and censor?

Bluffer8 (talk) 1:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Media ìn Poland is not a RS on the topic, since 2018, as due to the Holocaust law Polish journalists are unable to publish material on the complicity of the Polish nation or state. "In February 2018, parliament passed a law criminalizing claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to three years. Following an international outcry, the government softened the law, making it a civil offense punishable by fine but not incarceration."Freedom house 2019.Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Bluffer8, don't listen or be intimidated by the above nonsense. If Icewhiz really wants to argue that Polish sources are wholesale unreliable he can always go to WP:RSN and make that argument. But he won't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you VM. Polish media, despite recent changea, is still usually reliable for most topics. It is not reliable on the narrow topic of WWII history (since 2018) due to the Polish government placing restrictions on allowed discourse.Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's actually not. WP:RSN <--- Here. Go there. Try it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you to show a source is reliable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Lol, no. ONUS my ANUS. It is NOT up to me to show that an entire country's sources should not be disqualified from being RS just because ... because you said so? It kind of is ONUS on you to explain why you are trying to ban sources on essentially ethnic grounds, even though this time you've made up an excuse for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We generally disqualify media from certain countries - e.g. Russian media - due to state control or repression. In this particular instance, the problem with Polish media, to the legal situation created by the Polish government, is limited to a narrow topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, we actually don't. But whatever. RSN. The idea that it's me that has to go to RSN and ask "gee whiz guys, are Polish source reliable or are they wholesale unreliable" is absurd. You can try to pull this stunt if you want to. But you know you'll be laughed out of there. So you won't. Stop bluffing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said Polish sources were "wholesale unreliable". I was very specific - Polish media sources, from 2018 onward, are unreliable on the topic of Holocaust history as Polish legislation - the "Holocaust law" - prohibits publication of mainstream views regarding Polish Holocaust complicity. This is quite similar to the situation in Russia in regards to limitations there on publications on WWII history.[11][12] Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources on the Polish law and its effects on discourse, abound: Holmgren, Beth. "Holocaust History and Jewish Heritage Preservation: Scholars and Stewards Working in PiS-Ruled Poland." Shofar 37.1 (2019): 96-107., "But international public opinion has rightly seen the museum takeover and the new law as shameful attempts to rewrite history. Much of Polish opinion, which is critical of the government, shares this view. Gebert, Konstanty. "Projecting Poland and its past: Poland wants you to talk about the “Polocaust”." Index on Censorship 47.1 (2018): 35-37., Belavusau, Uladzislau, and Anna Wójcik. "La criminalisation de l’expression historique en Pologne: la loi mémorielle de 2018 (Criminalizing Historical Expression in Poland: Memory Law of 2018)." Archives de politique criminelle 40 (2018): 175-188.. "This act, which met with harsh international criticism, was once again revised end of June 2018. These revisions are part of a broader strategy by the current national-conservative government led by Law and Justice (PiS3) party, which aims to impose nationally as well as internationally a specific vision, how Polish history shall be publicly presented and commemorated, first of all with regard to World War II and the socialist period.. Hackmann, Jörg. "Defending the “Good Name” of the Polish Nation: Politics of History as a Battlefield in Poland, 2015–18." Journal of Genocide Research 20.4 (2018): 587-606.. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's still ridiculous nonsense. Try WP:RSN. You want to make a blanket declaration on non-reliability unilaterally? No. Try WP:RSN. You won't because you know your position on this is silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Censorship/repression of journalists is a grave RS concern. However, as I believe we should be following using higher-quality (preferably academic, and per WP:NOENG - in English when available) sources - I don't quite see the point in launching a RSN discussion on the matter. WP:ONUS to show a source is reliable isn't on me regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

" I don't quite see the point ..." Riiiigggghhhhtttt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

For someone who has requested that "one more time - you are NOT welcome on my talk page. Do not post here again" - you're awful chatty on mine. Regardless, I believe this particular discussion on censorship in Poland and Russia, both countries enforcing their particular narratives on WWII via law, and implication of such Polish and Russian censorship/repression on WP:RS status of media in said countries has run its course over here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that Polish sources are not valid because you have found some criticism of Polish media and ruling PIS party? It is easy to find criticism of any media any party, even those from the left side. I do not understand your remarks about the law that was a suggestion and has not been applied - it seems off topic. And by the way - one of the sources I gave (Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat) is owned by Axel Springer SE and Riniger - German and Swiss companies. So once again - please tell me what you think about my suggestion about adding sources and moderate content of the new section. Bluffer8 (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

All these sources, even those critical of PiS, fall under reach of the "Holocaust law" and thus are unable to report freely on the subject of Polish Holocaust complicity.Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Icewhiz,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with adding information to article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bluffer8 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

COI

The Steven Strauss article has a problem with COI. The article seems to be created by its own subject. After removing WP:OR and promotional material, the subject of the article appears to be editing it with two different new accounts (one an IP). I don't have much time to deal with this at the moment. As you are on the COI noticeboard this week, I don't know how I can continue to discuss it with him on talkpage, when he ignores it. Or if I should report the self-editingon the COI noticeboard? I assume I should revert the edits made by the editor with COI, and try to explain the policy again on the talkpage? Thanks! Avaya1 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Avaya1: - be careful with the COI allegations absent evidence (e.g. you should say "may have COI"). COIN would be the best place to raise this. Another issue here is that they turned the BLP article (on an academic) into an ARBPIA page. New editors aren't allowed to edit this topic per WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition - I reverted them + asked at RfPP for the page to be placed under ECP. There's definitely way too much content there based on a single op-ed by the subject - I would presume that if he is notable - he is more notable for more than just this op-ed. Name is difficult to WP:BEFORE - but I would also suggest checking if he passes our notability threshold (if not - AfD) - but you need to do a through BEFORE for that. Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Have you read the full history of the article and the talkpage? The talkpage has been edited by what may be the subject of the article, in a manic way, after I made the initial changes, so it looks a bit confusing now.

The article seems to be written and created by Strauss as a CV/self-promotional piece. I came and edited it to remove that content and to add a few sentences about Israel (the latter is the unimportant issue here). Then subject of the article may have created a new account, and now an IP, and wrote a lot on the talkpage, as well as continued to edit the article. The subject can discuss the article on the talkpage, however, they should not continue to edit the article after they were informed about this. They need to wait for other editors to make those changes (not continue to edit the article which is about themselves). The problem is only the continued editing of the article.

Removing the Israel related content is not the issue. I agree it might not be notable enough to include. The issue is that the subject of the article should not edit their own article (or ignore this, and create new accounts to continue editing their article). How the article is edited after that is surely another matter, but it should not be edited by the subject of the article.

I believe the subject is notable. The idea that it is not notable comes from editor who may be the subject of the article. The issue here is simply one of self-editing an article about yourself, and continuing after being informed about the guidelines against this. They should refrain from editing the article themselves, and discuss any changes they want to the article on the talkpage only. Avaya1 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I raised the notability issue since it wasn't clear to me - if you think he is notable - that's that. (If he wasn't - then AfD is often a good solution to promotional non-notable or borderline-notable articles). The self-editing - at COI/N, or possibly AN/I. Also if he's editing as 2 accounts and an IP (and you have proof to that effect) - that could be seen as socking - WP:SPI would be the venue for that. I didn't read the entire talk page (I did peek - saw it was one big mess) - I did respond to the article being an ARBPIA article at the instant I was looking at it (following the IPs edits - half of it was devoted to one recent Israel related op-ed - an odd proportion given the subject is notable for other fields). Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also - you didn't leave a warning on the IP and editor's talk page - I did so now (a generic user warning on COI - informing of the policy - but nothing beyond informing). Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. The talkpage was empty before I touched the article. After I saw Strauss may have written his own article, I edited the article to remove some of the self-promotional content and added a few sentences about Israel (the latter may or may not be good edits by me - it's not relevant). Within hours, a new editor registered (who is likely the subject of the article, like the editor who created the article), and wrote many paragraphs of comments on the talkpage, against the edits. That's the reason the talkpage appears to be a mess - it was empty before. I replied twice to him, and he has answered on the talkpage multiple times (which is fine), and changed the subsection titles (which is confusing). I never raised notability concerns with the article (I believe the subject is more than notable enough for an article). This has been raised only by the new editor who appears to be (like the old editor) the subject of the article.

It would be great if you, or another editor, could carefully go over the whole history of the article, and look at how it was a few weeks ago. I tried to remove self-promoting content, which was based on primary sources. Whether my edits are correct or not, I think it's inappropriate for the subject of the article to register a new account and IP, and use that to continue editing their own article, which they had created. In the COI guideline, it says they should only discuss the article on the talkpage? I've tried to explain that to him on the talkpage. I admit my edits may be imperfect and need to be corrected. But they should be corrected by an editor without COI.

The COI editing is also not a problem, if it's done by people who are unaware of the policy. But after they've been made aware of the COI policy, that's when they should stop editing the article. Avaya1 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally yes - if you have a COI (auto-bio or any other COI - e.g. working for pay (another bag of worms) or relation to the subject) - you're supposed to not edit the article directly (with the exception of possibly fixing spelling mistakes - and even then... best not) - and stick to talk only (+ clearly indicated your COI). I haven't examined the article in depth yet (I did watchlist it) - however sometimes it isn't the same person - e.g. you can have someone create the article initially for PROMO reasons, and subsequently an interested party (e.g. the subject themselves, a relative, colleague, anyone) might step in later if the article changes or if there are developments. Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz Thank you for the notification so I know this conversation is happening. It might expedite things if you look at the Strauss page before Avaya1's deletions, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Strauss&oldid=884476592 I assume you are an experienced enough editor to spot a promo page.

Addendum just to be clear - I am not claiming the page pre-Avaya1 was well written, indeed I was trying to rewrite it. I am claiming it had a lot of perfectly reputable high quality secondary source material re Strauss, that should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.new.around.here (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW User:NYC.Geek is the editor Avaya1 has decided is Strauss or works for Strauss, I am supposed to be the sockpuppet, Icewhiz will you put the formal COI notice on Geek's page?

Avaya1 claimed he deleted material that was peacockery, promotional material, self-promotion, from primary sources and mainly non-encyclopedic. When I looked I found the material he deleted was (IMO) mainly normal wiki content (at least as I understand that concept, I may not). Note, we can have a separate debate if the article was well written, I am just saying the content passed normal standards (I think) - it was Strauss being interviewed on national CNN, etc - cited in newspapers on his areas on expertise. It also included a bibliography of strauss's publications with a link to a list of his OpEd writings. I don't understand how Wiki can establish notability without this info.

Avaya1 I think it would greatly expedite everything, if you could provide your proof that Strauss is Geek (or paid Geek, or whatever)

I am looping in Quisqualis, Avaya1 and were discussing these same issues in the teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse and having multiple conversation is confusing

Avaya1 is the one who added the stuff about Israel, I agree that is not what Strauss is known for, and I tried to delete it from the page - and still can't understand why it was added. I am concerned because IMO what Avaya1 added is not accurate he keeps claiming that Strauss opposes US military aid to Israel - IMO that is not an accurate summary of what Strauss said in the OpEd (and even if it was, Strauss appears to be a domestic economic development expert, it is not clear why his views on this topic are notable)

My apologies for being "manic", I was trying to work thru the issues. I will try to do better on talk pages in the future.

Does Wiki have some process for getting some additional editors to look at a page? What are the next steps?

BTW Just to be transparent, my main goal was better understanding wikipedia, so this process is extremely helpful for me. Thank you for your patience.

I.new.around.here (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest both of you focua on secondary coverage of Strauss and not specific opeds.Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, good advice. However, unless anyone objects, my first steps will be to eliminate from the page a few statements that were recently added, that do not appear to be supported by the sources cited. I.new.around.here (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen what's happened to the article? - the COI and sockpuppet editing seems to be continuing. How should I proceed to report this? Avaya1 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Notify the user(s) you report. Be careful with youe language - state your suspicion, but do not state it as fact.Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Avaya1 has again added back the stuff on Strauss's opinions on Israel. It is not what Strauss is notable for, no secondary source on the page references Strauss on Israel.

Avaya1. has also deleted from the page all the secondary sources CBS, CNBC, CNN, etc that quote Strauss. Avaya1 also deleted that Strauss is an academic, added back claims that are not supported (number of year Strauss worked at Mck) - see Strauss talk page for a discussiom of these issues. I.new.around.here (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The subject writes for a major national newspaper, and has secondary source coverage. The issue with the article is COI. The COI issue should be addressed first. Avaya1 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Historyk IPN

Hello,

Sorry for the previous edit from the account "Historyk IPN", I just have read the information regarding organisation account, here I have added the links again according to the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzysztof Kapłon at IPN (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment & Query

Yes I am a person employed by IPN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzysztof Kapłon at IPN (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Jonas Noreika

On 20 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonas Noreika, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jonas Noreika is commemorated on plaques and street signs in Lithuania, despite his active participation in the Holocaust? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Noreika. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jonas Noreika), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Copying my warning, eh? There is one edit warrior on that article - vs. multiple users - and is not me.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please strike out your baseless accusation of disrupting.

I'm serious. I'm not going to tolerate any personal attacks of any form. Especially if it is a baseless slander. I'm too old and I have too much self-respect to allow that to happen. Please strike out you groundless accusations of me disrupting our project as you wrote here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Dmowski&diff=889108342&oldid=889017775&diffmode=visual Again, please strike out your baseless accusation that offended me deeply. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a quotation+page number when a page number has been provided in the well formatted citation (not a "disordered confused source" as you asserted) + a hyperlink has been provided to the page available online.... Is not constructive. As is challenging material readily available in a cursory search in dozens of academic sources. Care to explain why you were looking at my sandbox the other day (+twinkle roll backed it)? Blanking out my question at your talk page struck me as rather rude. Please also explain how you decided to edit today an article I had just edited?Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I really don't want to escalate this any further. I'm asking you again to strike out your baseless acusation. All I did was asking for a quote I could not find from the source. I feel deeply offended by your comment, so please respect that and strike it out. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As you feel so strongly about this - I struck. However, please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS(3) in relation to cn tagging the obvious (and sourced by other sources in the paragraph) and then asking for a quotation and page number - when the page number had been provided, and the source was linked and available online - I spent some time chasing down these rather obviously available requests. Please explain why you were viewing my sandbox (leading to an accidental rollback) and then showed up in this article today? Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. And as for your sandbox, it was an accident. For Dmowski, I have him on my watch list.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You have not edited the article (or its talk) prior to 23 March 2019. That the rollback of my sandbox was an accident (no longer a hack I see) - does not explain your poking around there to begin with.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please respect the "in use" tag.

On Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party I placed an "in use" tag. This requests other editors to wait until I have finished preparing a long and complicated (but non-controversial) edit, so that it doesn't get messed up by intervening edits.

As it happens, I've encountered an unexpected difficulty, so I'm about to remove the tag, but the principle remains. Surely it isn't hard to wait a little while? Or to actually look at the top of the page?

--NSH001 (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. You didn't actually do any edits, and I started looking at the article prior to you placing the tag. If your edit involves a change to the citation style (to your preferred Harvard style, which generally is less preferred on Wikipedia) - then please note that is quite controversial. Given the mass editing to the article over the past week - you should probably wait until the article is stable prior to making a mass change (even if non-controversial) - the whole thing is liable to get caught up in a revert given that the article is in flux.Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong on every point. I don't "own" the article, in fact I don't recall making any changes to it at all - not surprising, as I normally avoid articles which, because of the way the rules on so-called "reliable sources" work are fundamentally wrong, and with little hope of putting them right (though if anybody can do that, it's Nishidani). No, my role here is providing technical support to Nishidani, and he, as the main author, has the right to use the style he prefers. The fact that I didn't make any edits is just pure chance - something came up that I can't be sure of fixing before I have to leave for a hospital appointment (I might have prostate cancer, so I have other things to think about besides Wikipedia). And no, I am not going to cater for editors who are too lazy to make correct edits, rather than reverting without thought. Please - it's just basic politeness and civility to respect an "in use" tag. --NSH001 (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the hospital appointment. As for content here - see WP:CITEVAR - neither you nor Nishidani (who is far from the main author on this article) should unilaterally change an article's citation style. As for the tag - I was looking at the article (given the recent massive changes - at the article and prior revisions) - prior to you placing it - and was working on my edits. Your "in use" tag popped up in the middle of my own work which predated it. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(a) They are not 'massive changes'. They are part of doing what serious editors do, not hang round to tweak or revert what snippets are added, but go systematically through a messy, incomplete text and elaborate where necessary, synthesis where bloat has developed, and replace newspaper reportage where possible with solid academic long term overviews of the topic. The lead you restored was farcical: 'mainstream Jewish groups have expressed concern but leftists defend the party' is totally falsifying and inept, for when the former protest that their fate is Britain is in peril, this is not a 'concern' and it cannot be counterpoised by identifying several distinct groups who dissent from the majority as 'leftists'. POV pushing, understatement etc. Also, you asserted that Lerman, an acknowledged expert, is writing a blog, when his piece, a sober technical analysis of the controversy. appeared on a website run by a notable foundation, no different in substance from the Hudson Institute you cited with approval elsewhere some days ago.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall citing Hudson. All mainstream Jewish organizations in the UK have spoken up about the antisemitism situation in Labour - this has been covered worldwide. I suggest you take this discussion to the article talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

May I put the Antisemitism in the Labour Party lede in chronological order?

Hi,

As this is a multiyear, ongoing saga, I think such an approach would make things clearer for readers. It wouldn't involve other changes to the content. Thanks, Jontel (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jontel:, @Nishidani: - you don't need my permission, you know. :-). I think Nishidani organized it out of chrono order (apologize if wrong). I think his reorganized first paragraph summary/highlight should stand as is (with some fixes to the final sentence). but the subsequent 4 paragraphs should probably be ordered - it is only the short paragraph starting with "Corbyn himself was criticised in 2018 for his 2012 Facebook comment" which is out of chrono - and it might be worth while tacking that onto one of the other paragraphs in chrono order. Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2019 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Template:Z33 Jonathunder (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

D Gums

Doesn't say which article. D Gums (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You haven't edited all that many articles as of now, and the warning is general. Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, do you want to insert that template at the talks of the other Edit War parties? The tango takes two I believe. D Gums (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe you were reverted by three separate editors (so not quite a tango - maybe this kinda dance), and WP:3RRNO may apply to their reverts. Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Haaa. Very droll!!!. D Gums (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well all right. I am not going to edit war, but I'll tell you what I will do in about THREE WEEKS TIME. I'm gonna embarrass you by showing you [13] this edit again!! And no I have nothing to do with Sky Bet or any bookmaker. D Gums (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Never implied that you did. Just provided a source showing this is not such a sure thing (however, if you disagree, you can always put your money where your mouth is - in the UK). I suggest you refrain from such additions to Wikipedia articles until you have a WP:RS reporting on Leeds clinching promotion - I'm sure that once this happens, there will be no lack of reporting. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I blocked him for his use of the word Yid which he clearly knew was in the context antisemitic, him not being a Tottenham fan. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Salomon Morel

Salomon Morel - thanks for your edits on the article. I have a few doubts though about the correctness of the information that you put. Looks like you are attempting to hide nationality of the Salomon Morel from the article. You are making great effort to hide the nationality of SM. Nationality is one thing and citizenship is the other. In Wikipedia article people are referred to by their nationality, not citizenships because you can have multiple citizenships. If you believe that I am wrong about nationality of SM do let me know. Wikipedia is not a battleground for political activist - hope we agree on that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcheeks (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating nationality and ethnicity - "Jewish" is generally not a nationality. Morel was a Polish national, he served in the security apparatus of the Polish state. His Jewish background (I'm not sure we have any sources stating he was a practicing Jew as an adult) is very clearly stated in the lead - version - second sentence - "He later immigrated to Israel and acquired Israeli citizenship on account of his Jewish background". Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter whether he was a practising Jew or not. No background of a Holocaust victims is checked to prove that there were practising Jews. His name is not Polish and so isn't his surname. That's your first clue. He was only Polish by citizenship. Other than that what definition of Jew are you likely to accept? Because you are aware that the definition you have taken for Morel will deprive of Jewish nationality overwhelming majority of Holocaust victims. They will merely became Poles of Jewish background. Do you see a problem now? So, all in all, the challenge for you is to have a single consistent definition for Jews during WW2. Both when Jews were victims and when they were perpetrators committing genocide on Germans. Otherwise, with the definition of Jew that you are pushing here, Holocaust victims were Poles that merely were of "Jewish background". That's the core issue here. So, you may have more experience in Wikipedia but you can't change the truth which ultimately is the highest value for editors. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcheeks (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

He chose to live and serve in the Polish People's Republic. He rose to the rank of colonel I believe, and received a number of decorations. Do inform me, what is the truth here? Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

yeah but

It's Ok to create pages to right great social wrongs and serve an off-wiki agenda when the corporate culture tends to favor that agenda. Which only fuels the fury of our critics who claim our encyclopedic neutrality only matters if we are opposing an off-wiki social agenda not in keeping with corporate culture. She isn't bloody notable. Thanks for taking the heat on this. DlohCierekim 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll note that my "deletion nomination threshold" for women in STEM (and all the more so for African-American women in STEM) is higher than what I apply for men - not because I think this should be the case (I personally don't !vote that way - I'm color/gender blind in my !voting) - but because I recognize that borderline cases are more likely to be kept at AfD (if on the right side of the RGW divide). In this particular case - it simply wasn't close to any standard of notability. I also, personally, think that creating pages for non-notable people on the right side of the RGW divide is harmful RGW-wise - as instead of showcasing very accomplished individuals - we end up with RGW-wrong people appearing (due to deletion thresholds) more accomplished than RGW-right people. In this particular case, in my opinion, increasing quantity (e.g. shooting for a higher percentage of X-class bios) over quality actually reinforces the stereotype one is aiming to counter via RGW.Icewhiz (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI

You were badmouthed here. Not sure what you wanna make of it -- I've called Andrew out, but I highly doubt he'll retract or apologize: I've never seen him back down or admit fault in such matters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Those pages really do not pass our notability threshold - I am all for women bios when they pass notability or even if they are a borderline GNG or PROF case - but not for bios very far from PROF and with a local news item + a smattering of PR from their employer (so not close to SIGCOV). I have had worse hurled at me (including on the now deleyed Pehlps' talk - not by Andrew) - I think I will let that just stand there.Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#Icewhiz nableezy - 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)