User talk:Szmenderowiecki

Welcome!

Hi Szmenderowiecki! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Thedefender35 19:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikileaks RfC

Hi, did you intend to refactor my comment (which I had changed earlier[1]) here? Or was it an accident? JBchrch (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: It was an accident. I was trying to reformulate the RfC (which I hope is much better right now), and while I was trying to take into account all new comments that were being made during my preparation for the edit (I was warned about edit conflicts several times, so I included new comments that were made in the meantime), I probably inadvertently took the old version of the post instead of your corrected one. I did not mean to directly change anyone's vote, including yours. Sorry for the inconvenience. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries Szmenderowiecki, just try to be careful about that. It's indeed not easy making vast changed to the noticeboards. JBchrch (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Till your reached 500 edits you are not allowed to participate in I/P discussions on various boards.I will strike your comments. --Shrike (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN not calling the lab origin a conspiracy theory

I don't appreciate the PA at the rfc either. That Hong Kong business correspondent? She wrote this headline for the Times in February 2020: “Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins.”

“Scientists,” the slug reads, “have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it’s the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.”

“Republican who floated virus conspiracy says ‘common sense has been my guide,'” the weekend editor at The Guardian dismissively explained.

“A GOP senator,” our award-winning Saudi investigator declared, “keeps pushing a thoroughly debunked theory that the Wuhan coronavirus is a leaked Chinese biological weapon gone wrong.”

“Sen. Tom Cotton Flogs Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Dismissed by Actual Scientists,” the editor of The Daily Beast howled.

“Tom Cotton’s veiled threats really aren’t helping,” Maddow’s blogger chimed in.

“Don’t Listen To Sen. Tom Cotton About Coronavirus,” our “media disinformation” boy piped up.

“Tom Cotton and the virus conspiracy theory,” the three-decades veteran of an Arkansas weekly blogged, citing a Vanity Fair write-up that maintained far more nuance than the grizzled blogger.

“Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) repeated a fringe theory,” the young Post staffer confidently led, “suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.” That “theory,” her headline definitively states, “was already debunked.”

“Senator Tom Cotton Ramps Up Anti-China Rhetoric,” Forbes’ “Under 30 community lead” righteously wrote.

“Tom Cotton,” CNN’s Chris Cillizza authoritatively declared, “is playing a dangerous game with his coronavirus speculation.” 2601:46:C801:B1F0:DCB9:7D2F:45A6:B333 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Keilar: Proof one of Trump's biggest lies didn't pass the smell test

New Day CNN's Brianna Keilar rolls the tape one year after peaceful protesters in Washington, DC, were tear gassed so former President Trump could walk to a church and display a Bible. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/06/01/tear-gas-washington-dc-protesters-trump-roll-the-tape-newday-vpx.cnn

The report says protests "were mostly peaceful during the day," but that officers reported that some protesters threw projectiles, such as bricks, rocks, caustic liquids, frozen water bottles, glass bottles, lit flares, rental scooters, and fireworks, at law enforcement officials. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/police-did-not-clear-d-c-s-lafayette-park-protestors-n1270126

and FTR that Hirsch fantasy piece about Trump's finances is 80percent proven false with the illegally leaked tax returns. Not true? Please show me where this Russian money is on the tax returns. That article predates the leaked returns and is proven mostly false with the tax return leak. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:C5E9:F45E:9426:59D2 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Community sanctions notice on covid-related topics

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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 Doug Weller talk 09:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Jan Żaryn, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thank you for the information.

I don't believe that I would want to get the page to DYK for now, though. The optics of an DYK nominee with a POV template in the body aren't very good; there is a moderate risk of edit warring occurring due to the article, as the discussion on the talk page is heated, and I don't believe DYK reviewers want any of that; and, most importantly, I struggle to find a good hook for that (probably his being fired from IPN for his comments on Wałęsa?) If you want to co-participate in it, no problem, but personally I fear that the nomination will only waste other users' time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, It's fine with me, I mostly wanted to alert you to the DYK process in the expectation some of your future contributions may be more eligible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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 Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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 - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For writing up Jan Żaryn, while fending off harassment. Good work! VikingDrummer (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute for Legacy of Polish National Thought has been accepted

Institute for Legacy of Polish National Thought, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

BLPN/ANI review

Long, so collapsible.

Complaint

The article in question has been a subject of a rather heated discussion on what constitutes material inclusive which could be included in a BLP and which does not pass muster. These seem to be two sides, represented by u|Volunteer Marek (VM), u|GizzyCatBella and u|Lembit Staan on the one hand, and me, u|François Robere, u|Mhorg and u|CPCEnjoyer on the other. The article has already been subject of an apparent edit war (see history in late April and early this month), with the same change (being a translation of a "Criticism section" from Polish wiki, not ideal but mostly OK for inclusion in general) being reverted by VM six times, three of which in a 12-hour span. After that, an RfC on Jan Żaryn was started by a user which was later found to be a sock (discussion deleted, log), but he reposted content from the François Robere's proposal, which is in the archive, so for this one, I have no objections, the RfC was OK). Having determined that the proposal will stall until the article gets more scope on that person, I decided to do some expansion, noting that the content For various reasons, which I mostly dispute, however, I have seen wholesale deletion of article content for what I see are (mostly) spurious reasons and mere guises to delete content they don't like. To be clear, there has been some productive discussion, which means not all is lost, but I start to lose patience after further deliberation becomes more inflammatory and edit-war-provoking and less about moving forward. Please evaluate the following evidence and break the impasse. 1. Editors from the side of deletion misrepresent policy as regards consensus. They have tried to claim that since I (or other users) have not obtained their consensus before adding some info to the article, it is to be deleted until consensus is established. (first edit referencing an archived discussion on criticism section where only VM seemed to be a lone dissenter for most of the time, and it involved 3 active people). However, that interpretation goes contrary to WP:BOLD and is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP; this also is almost exactly the phrasing of "Please do not make [any more] changes without my/their/our approval", which is indicative of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (particularly as concerns VM). Such behaviour even has its own essay on Wikipedia. Some more context to that will be provided in the following points. 2. Editors have engaged in wholesale, and, in my view, mostly unjustified deletion of content. The users have raised several objections, but not everywhere and in such a way that they can hardly be interpreted as serious. a. Reliability estimation against general consensus. GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek seemingly have a grudge against oko.press, which they said was unreliable in the discussion on RSN, but were in a minority. As the page says oko.press has "rough consensus for reliability in a February 2021 discussion". Despite my (and other users) pointing to that and proposing that they start an RSN discussion if they want to relitigate it, the discussion was not started but they still insisted on deleting oko.press-sourced claims as late as 15 June. I will return to that comment. I also find troubling VM's comment about dismissing, without proof, the majority of Italian newspapers as yellow journalism. b. Behaviour violations. Named editors have cast aspersions on the behalf of users of opposite viewpoints (see: comment to revert, accusations of advocacy); have accused me (and probably other editors) of "dirt-digging"/"POV-pushing" without presenting evidence of my (or anyone else's) "frequently misrepresenting" sources (a frequently made accusation by opponents which I further explain below); overreached in their powers regulating the RfC (NB the user has only reminded me of 500/30 policy when I started to disagree with him (and even then he couldn't enforce it); and equating non-EC user's post in a 500/30 article to vandalism is far-fetched), made unproductive and snark comments against other users. c. Mass deletions. While a revert itself is OK - not everyone is an ideal editor, I find the massive and repetitive deletion of claims/sources as disruptive. By Lembit Staan's own admission, applicable to VM too, both delete huge swaths of text and dismiss WP:PRESERVE, even as BLP does not explicitly, nor implicitly, overrule that guideline. They deleted whole paragraphs in a span of 3 minutes (see History, 7 June 5:00-5:03 and 10 June 3:54-3:57), during which no person is conceivably able to make a thorough and well-guided analysis of content to decide whether it should be axed out. The most egregious examples, though, were here (deletion of whole paragraphs with a vague "yeah, the sourcing is too weak" even as the sources cited two scholars' opinions and had 3 sources to each claim); here (claiming being "false" and wasting my and their time on proving "falsehood" of the fragment even as the supporting quote and its translation (source could be found by diff of revert) was given from the very beginning), and here. Volunteer Marek was repetitiously claiming that either the added info is a BLPVIO, OR or misrepresented, though given his explanation that Semper fidelis is still appropriate to be used in the contexts of being "always faithful to Poland" even as the motto was no longer used for 70 years at the time and Lviv/Lwów is no longer Polish, and GizzyCatBella's assertion that it is not notable (despite being covered by two academic (!) sources), it might simply seem they want that info out because it might make the article's subject look bad (ditto for comments on Judas's beating in Pruchnik), widespread coverage of the events (including in academia) notwithstanding. One of the most recent edits about a largely irrelevant addition for the article's subject of description of for what Żaryn's parents became recognised by Yad Vashem, prove my point; this edit would make no concern were it made in the article of Jan's parents. Also, they have claimed that I was making original research on the materials cited. It might have happened, but at least there was a dissection of the sources and some discussion, after which the section was reformulated. However, justifying deletions by making OR themselves or trying to argue the reliable sources to be wrong based on personal perceptions is a no-go. I therefore believe there is substantial evidence that at least part of the reverts were made to conceal statements that the editors saw as controversial or potentially damning (however well sourced, agreed upon in RS/academia or pertinent to the article as e.g. views on foreign policy), not as legitimate, good-faith reverts, given behaviour that is repetitious, often made with no good explanation for the deletes (or with explanations that don't withstand even mild scrutiny). It is also reminded that any revert made must be clear of why it was made, not just throwing vague "NPOV" or "V" or "OR" or whatever, as this is an insufficient explanation; or especially repeatedly claiming about poor sourcing and OR without clarification even if a blitheringly obvious conclusion comes otherwise (WP:YOUCANSEARCH). 3. Allegations of tendentious editing/addition of undue material. I have repeatedly been accused of making tendentious edits on the article's subject, so far that I was accused of conspiring to add more "defamatory" material and of making an attack page. Actually, my reason of expansion was exactly for the page not to be or sound like one, as I have noted in my RfC vote (though I did agree that the Polish version of criticism was pretty OK as it stood). The users have repeatedly deleted information I have provided as if it was violating neutral point of view. In fact, I have only reported sources in WP:proportion to what I was aware was his coverage in reliable sources, with a particular focus on scholarly resources, and all of these were unanimous as far as my query went. The users in question have contributed NO additional material to his biography (other than the Szeligi house, which has nothing to do with Jan Żaryn personally at all), and instead mostly (apart from the productive discussions I've noted above) moaned about supposed BLPVIOs, UNDUEs etc., which more looked like WP:SEALIONing because they usually didn't offer any solution but to delete, nor did they offer any of their resources to show that indeed, there were RS sources casting him in positive light, even if I haven't found any in RS (because I haven't indeed). Finding more information (in proportion to the other side's coverage) is a way more productive way of rectifying any potential NPOV concerns than simply deleting ad nauseam. As a good illustration for that, they correctly found what I meant to write basing on the sources, which I couldn't formulate well (overexaggeration of szmalcownik claims about Jews, which is a point Libionka made in the work cited in the same sentence), but instead of correcting that, they chose to delete the whole sentence altogether. 4. It is not to say that my edits were perfect, though I tried my best. Some corrections by these users have not been contested as I saw them as an improvement to the article. Some of explanations of other edits, such as the one here However, there were many more reverts (including the more expansive ones) of questionable or outright negative value. Remedies. 1. Request uninvolved experienced editors and administrators to analyse edits in article and talk space starting from 5 June and decide which of the information is good enough and notable for inclusion, which edits have been justified and which are not good enough for the article (or are salvageable but should be rephrased). I ask for voluntary withdrawal of both sides of the content conflict from editing the article and talk namespace for the duration of the uninvolved editors' analysis. 2. Remind the said users of their obligation of clearly explaining the problems they have with every edit before shifting burden of proof on other editors (see footnote 3 of WP:ONUS). Warn of not misusing the revert process to constrain users' ability to edit boldly and of doing so as a guise to delete content they don't like; with article/interaction bans applied should this pattern, or general incivility towards opposing users, persist. 2a. Remind users in particular that any contentious content is to be first fixed, and only with no fixes possible, deleted. Instant deletion should only be made when necessary, and the rule of thumb is to improve, not delete. See WP:PARTR. 3. Analyse and make appropriate steps on Volunteer Marek's attempt to enforce the 500/30 rule despite no permission and no impartiality in the process of doing so and not following appropriate steps, as outlined in WP:AC/DS, before doing so.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ummm, the big piece of info that you somehow manage to omit is the fact that THERE Was indeed sock puppetry by Icewhiz on the article. Like you provide this diff [2] of me “casting aspersions” or whatever, except... that account was indeed a sock puppet of Icewhiz, as confirmed by SPI, so my comment was 100% correct. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You may want to explain that to whoever is going to check that complaint, however, reading it plainly, it sounds very much like an accusation that whoever argues to include oko.press is an Icewhiz sock, and it's not exactly what I'd consider civil behaviour.

Anyway, you have read it, I hope you have prepared your points (I might be wrong in some cases, which you are free to rectify), but to break the impasse, I consider the filing necessary, and also to clarify some points that are in my view clearly contentious or violations. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you seem to purposefully exclude a key piece of info - extensive sock puppetry on the article - will suggest to readers that you’re not filing this with WP:CLEANHANDS. Same for all the... “inaccuracies” in your write up and incorrect accusations. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(for example I most certainly did not dismiss Italian journalism as “yellow journalism” nor did I revert three times in 12 hour period. You might want to take out all the falsehoods before you file this, though I’m not sure how much you gonna have left at that point). Volunteer Marek 16:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is another shameless misrepresentation in your write up. You write here (deletion of whole paragraphs with a vague "yeah, the sourcing is too weak" even as the sources cited two scholars' opinions and had 3 sources to each claim) and you support this with a diff which is actually three or four different edits (why the diff says “intermediate revisions”). The edit where I said in edit summary that sourcing is week was actually this one [3]. The sourcing there is just Newsweek and Wyborcza, NOT “two scholars opinions and 3 sources to each claim”. So you accuse me of one thing and then present a diff that’s about something completely different. I’m sorry but that’s simply dishonest. Your whole write up is full of sneaky manipulations such as these. Of course you’re free to file whatever you want though. Volunteer Marek 16:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(and this is not even getting into the fact that these sources are being misrepresented - for example in the Newsweek piece Leociak is not referring to Zaryn but to PiS. That was a 100% legit removal.) Volunteer Marek 16:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)