User talk:Chumchum7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Re Jedwabne pogrom[edit]

I cannot get involved with articles/parties that are related to cases I am clerking. If you have evidence from that article related to the EEML case please post it on the case's evidence page. In the alternative, evidence can be emailed directly to the arbitration committee. If you are having problems with user conduct I suggest posting to the administrators' noticeboard. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt, courteous and informative reply. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

I support it in spirit but I don't think I will be active enough for a while to be a party to it. Good luck with it and the article, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and frankly I could use a Wikibreak myself. If you could just do what ever it takes to help get moderators involved, I will be very grateful and won't ask for more input than that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1st Armoured Division (Poland).
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

London Victory Parade[edit]

Thanks for the fix on the link. It's a pity that you didn't have time (or perhaps didn't have energy) to contribute on the discussion page about the proposed new section. Do you think that the new section ticks the right boxes when it comes to NPOV and RS? Varsovian (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is all about time, which I have very little of at the mo. I think you are going to have trouble from other editors with this section; because with respect, it reads like you are pushing your WP:POV and there is also a whiff of original research about it. See WP:OR. At least twice you have made Talk Page generalizations about Poles and their attitude to history - you need to be very careful about that, because it gives the impression that you have a prejudiced view about Poles yourself. I'm not going to debate this further, due to my time constraints. But good luck. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll leave the article for a few days and then come back to it to rewrite it to remove words which might suggest PoV pushing (although it is hard to have a PoV when it comes to black/white facts). As for OR, if reading the memoirs of General Anders is OR, I'm guilty! Varsovian (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Before you start re-writing, and if you haven't done so already, take a look at this great essay: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It address your point that "it is hard to have a PoV when it comes to black/white facts". The essay will also save you hours if not days of debating with whoever now piles in to the article. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence that of the two admins which you approached with regard to this issue, one just happens to be the only admin who has ever blocked me and the other is the only admin who has ever warned me about anything. What are the chances of that happening? Varsovian (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the link. I have read it but not for a while, will have another look over it tonight. Varsovian (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of surprising WP policies, that take many people a long time to get their heads round:-

Firstly, Wikipedia is very sceptical about the existence of "black/white facts" and doesn't agree that POV can be eliminated by fact. From Wikipedia:Describing points of view:- "Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

Secondly, Wikipedia does not even focus on the so-called "truth". From Wikipedia:Verifiability:- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

Both of these policies need to be read and understood. Many people don't realize that "fact" and "truth" are dirty words at Wikipedia... -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, could you please discuss changes you wish to make before you make them? That is what I did when I was thinking about introducing this new section. Varsovian (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a sandbox we can use to work up a section we both agree on? Varsovian (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I'm just about to take a WP:Wikibreak. In the meantime, perhaps take this up with some other editors. By the way, I'll tell you honestly your edits start to concern me and you might want to think about your behavioural profile a little, and how it could come across to other editors and Wikipedia moderators. You appear to have something to prove about Poles or the Polish character, which is fine in the real world, but very far away from the ethos of Wikipedia. What is it all about? You tried to interpret the Stephen Fry Auschwitz gaff as an accurate statement rather than an offensive mistake, you tried to re-open the 1st Armoured war crimes issue after it had been closed, you made a sweeping generalization about Poles' view of Chopin, you tried to disprove Kazimierz Świątek's Polish roots, you appear to have utilized a citation that downplayed the 303 Polish Squadron without having read that citation, and now this very insistent effort to disavow Polish grievances about the Victory Parade - to the point of pushing the original idea that the Poles weren't there because some had been forced conscripts in the Wermacht. Those are just the things I've noticed. You'll appreciate this could come across as a pattern of editing behaviour that seems to have very serious WP:NPOV issues. As I say, you are personally entitled to these views; but often, I get the impression you haven't thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines and you are allowing your views to interfere with your great potential as a Wikipedia editor. You have the energy, and I'm sure you can achieve the neutrality. I may ask a veteran moderator or administrator to take a look at this message, and he or she may become the editor to work with on the Victory Parade article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you think that you could perhaps take more care to not accuse me of being a racist? That is precisely what your comments about me being anti-Polish are. I could reply by pointing out that you also appear to have something to prove about Poles and that is why you change the first sentence of the relevant section of the London Victory Parade article to make a false statement about Poles being excluded and then use to support that statement a source which in reality says the exact opposite (i.e. that Poles were invited). I could also go into all the other accusations you level at me. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and not accuse you of having a NPOV problem that causes you to POV push the Polish POV. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy? Varsovian (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish British[edit]

Re this edit summary: Very well. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Joseph_Conrad.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Article progress[edit]

I am not seeing any significant changes since I wrote the article. Btw, is there any reason you have not activated your wiki email? I may be able to send you some pdf materials if you have it active and want to expand that article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the first time I've even heard of wiki email - that's my reason for not having activating it, which I shall do now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chumchum7. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fast train to Warsaw[edit]

For some reason I thought that you were based in the UK. Drop me an email next time you're in Warsaw, let's see if we can't agree the parade article over a beer (my shout). Varsovian (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Language issue in crash[edit]

See "Air traffic control advice ignored by pilot" section. The language could not have been much of an issue. Polish government planes have been flying to Russia for years, including to Smolensk, and no complaints about communication difficulties between pilots and ground have been heard. Same crew flew the Tu-154 to Smolensk with Tusk on April 7 and there was no problem with communication then (though the weather was better, admittedly). Anyway, if the official investigation reveals this to be a problem, then we can say more about it, until then we don't need a separate section for this issue.Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

About your recent edit at Cold War[edit]

This one, specifically.

1. No, it's patently untrue that "'Citation needed' tags could be added to much of this article". After the lead, which does not need citations, pretty much every sentence is sourced.

2. Is what you added linked to the Cold War by the authors you used, or by yourself? If the former, good. If the latter, you're probably in breach of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We need source material of explicit relevance, not material linked to a particular subject ("Cold War") by a Wikipedian.

3. Would it be too much to ask for page numbers, Harvard citations, listing the new works in the bibliography, etc? There's a certain consistency of quality to that article, and it would be nice if users adding new material maintained that quality, instead of adding new stuff in whatever format they felt like. - Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for contributing to the progress of the London Victory Parade of 1946. I have been hoping to get more, at least medium-term, input there from an objective veteran editor or administrator such as yourself. Particularly over the last 6 weeks. Any chance you could spare some time ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't, as a rule, involve myself in others' disputes; it tends to work out badly. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm looking for outside, objective and experienced input. Let me know if you have any ideas about how to get this, medium term. 3O and RFC don't seem to help. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding London Victory Parade article[edit]

Info here [1] Varsovian (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chumchum7. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg[edit]

Alas his family seems to be pure Russian. (Zakrevskye) just in 1686. [2] His ancestor Закревский, Игнатий Платонович (Ignaty Platonovich Zakrevsky) was Russian attorney general of 1th Department of Governing Senate. [3] Polish Zakrzewscy was family from Wielkopolska and is no evidence that these two familes are linked in some way. Mathiasrex (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chumchum7. You have new messages at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page.
Message added 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I mention you...[edit]

here.radek (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made an AE filing on you here:[4]. Varsovian (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Zapadnaya Litsa[edit]

Dear Chumchum7, you persistently try to insert into the article a statement that the base was operational. All the sources I've seen so far state that few German ships got anchored in the bay and later left without accomplishing anything. There was no "base" to speak of, in other words. Would you mind giving here a short excerpt from the source that you quote? Does it describe what was the "base" actually constituted of (any construction?) and when did it actually become operational? Thank you in advance! Dimawik (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure I'll get it for you. In the meantime I added it with an inline citation at Zapadnaya Litsa just once, not persistently, and I want to make sure that by the use of the word "persistently" you're not alleging that I have engaged in puppetry or slow warring. For the record I don't engage in edit warring or puppetry, and I take such things extremely seriously. I don't think you have alleged that, but please clarify it for me. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not try to accuse you of edit warring. If my words have offended you, I hereby apologize. Dimawik (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and no problem. I'd never even visited that page before adding the citation, so it seemed that you had mistaken me for someone else. About the source, it states Molotov and Stalin agreed the use of the base in September 1939. It says there were German supply ships there. For different reasons, no U-boat ever arrived there, and correctly that isn't what our article says either. However Rees says one German ship left from Zapadnaya Litsa to participate in the German invasion of Norway, and U-boats always had the base as an option (which would have been factored in to German naval planning). To leave no room for doubt, we can always change "ships" to "supply ships" in our article - although we shouldn't imply that this was civilian use, because Rees is clear it was military and that U-boats had the option of using it. Here is the text:

Laurence Rees, World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West (2009) P.66-69:

"...this was, for the Soviets, one of the greatest secrets of the war... during the September 1939 meeting with Stalin and Molotov. The German Foreign Minister had asked if the Soviets could provide a base in Murmansk for the repair of U-boats and, in principle, this had been agreed. But from that moment the Soviet authorities were worried that the British - or anyone else - might discover that they were providing military assistance to the Nazis. ...the Soviets offered the nearby bay of Sapadnaja Liza [sic] instead... it was henceforth only to be known as 'Basis Nord' (Base North). The German supply ship Sachsenwald entered Base North on 1 December 1939, the first of several vessels to be stationed there. ... In mid-April 1940 the Germans were asked to move their base further along the coast to the even more remote Jokanga Bay [mouth of Iokanga River ]. Molotov told the German naval attaché in Moscow that the move was necessary because of Soviet fears that Allied aircraft... might identify the German ships. ...the German liaison officer, Auerbach, visited the new Base North for the first time on 20 May... Life was grim for the German sailors at Base North. In April 1940 Dr Kampf, doctor on the German supply ship Phoenicia, complained in his diary... The story of Base Nord... is important because its existence shows the schizophrenic attitude of the Soviets towards assisting the Germans. On the one hand, the Soviets undoubtedly provided the Germans with a military supply base; but on the other, ideologically the Nazis remained a possible enemy. So in effect they were allies, and yet they were potential belligerents."

Phew, that's it. We could add it to the footnote in the article. My fingers are tired so if you want more, please buy the book ;-) It is pretty thorough - Roosevelt and Churchill don't come out looking good at all. Oh and here http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/about/index.html is the DVD series -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Rees uses very good footnotes, which show he has sourced all this from Bundesarchiv Freiburg, Germany. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a long quote. Personally, I prefer the book Tobias R. Philbin. The lure of Neptune: German-Soviet naval collaboration and ambitions, 1919-1941, as it has an reasonably accessible online version (linked in the article) and is dedicated to the subject (chapter 5 pretty much deals exclusively with Basis Nord). The book contains a lot of German data, including the actual map of anchorages - that IMHO clearly support the fact that there were no land-based facilities, so the very word "base" is an exaggeration. It also contains quite a twisted plot of interactions between the low-level German and Soviet authorities. Germans at times were not sure if their ships were actually based or interned in Soviet waters; U-boat recon of the base location has been done with Soviet fleet unaware of it; U-boat was treating Soviet ships as potential attackers. There is no doubt that at the high-level cooperation was considered desirable at the time, but it sure looks like not enough time has passed before Germans got the other bases in the North for the spirit of cooperation to percolate through the ranks. These are the reasons why I prefer the word "planned" while describing the base. Dimawik (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

Hi Chumchum7, I'm not sure if you're aware, but due to the high profile of this article (which is among the most popular on Wikipedia and gets over 40,000 page views a day) it's normal procedure to discuss all significant proposed changes to the article's text on the talk page and only making them once there's a consensus there. As such, I've reverted the changes you've made to the article today and posted them on the article's talk page to start a discussion of them. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks very much for the information. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please discuss your changes on the article's talk page rather than edit war? Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly happened? You reverted my change, I then tweaked it for you, added more to the citation for you, and put it back, in an effort to work toward WP:CONS. Besides, we are having a discussion on the World War II talk page, where I've even stated I want to engage in re-wording the line with you. I have brought and have expanded on a citation, and have referred to further reading that I think you'll be interested in. I do it all with good will. This use of the term 'edit war' seems unfair. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It would have been best if you'd not put the material back in the article as there wasn't agreement on whether it should be included (my post stated that I disagree with including it). If it is included, it would be best to reach agreement on what the wording should be before adding it. There's a high likelihood that other editors will comment as well, so please slow down (I've copied your message on my talk page here to keep the exchange in the one place). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi ChumChum, I saw Nick-D was discussing me, so I think for fairnes sake you should hear also the other side of the story. There have indeed been a number of disagreements between me and him. It started when he was trying (unsuccessfully) to remove an article I had created; I even in good faith provided him with a copy of one of the main sources through an intermediary. And this leads to the key problem with his editing. Nick-D can be a good content provider (which gives him credits that he can collect at the milhist page), but his edits also exhibit a strong deletionist approach to topics he does not like, and he cherry picks these when he applies stringent policies that he does not apply to other topics, even within the same article. I think a good example are my observations at the end here. Nick-D had access to a source with valuable material on rape, but the only use he made of it was to delete material from articles, he never, to my knowledge, added material on rape from it to articles. I've also noted that he welcomes support from wherever he can get it, one of our early interactions was when he sided with what turned out to be a disruptive sock-puppeteer, Captain Obvious, on the Battle of Okinawa article. Cheers --Stor stark7 Speak 11:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Assistance[edit]

This section on Polish wiki details Polish contribution in Battle of Berlin: [5] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Race for the Reichstag The 1945 Battle for Berlin By Tony, Le Tissier also gives some information about Polish involvement. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Some pictures and info[edit]

[6] Interestingly its from a scholarly publication so you can use part of the info to source Polish contribution and fights(it is in German and Polish, but I think it can be easily translated).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. Maybe also post this at the B of Berlin page? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Race to Berlin[edit]

Besides the work we have been discussing as to the "Battle of Berlin" article; some work needs to be done on the "Battle in Berlin" and "Race to Berlin" articles (I just became aware of the latter). For one, there needs to be consistency of info. provided. It all takes time, which I don't have a lot of right now. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Berlin[edit]

A discussion has being going on as to the "Result box" and the words used to describe the results of the battle. Most recently, the tread: "Dissolution of Third Reich?" As a contributor to the article (and talk page therein), you may want to weigh in on the matter, and I would invite you to do so. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your message. Like you, I was surprised to see our edits described as "highly offensive to Jewish people". I'm not sure that anything meaningful would come from WQA or any other noticeboard, so I'll just chalk it up to zealotry and ignorance. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your Poland-related contributions[edit]

Herb Polski.svg Hello and welcome Chumchum7! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like again to invite you to officially join our project! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Jedwabne pogrom. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Chumchum7. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A restriction may be lifted at London Victory Celebrations of 1946[edit]

Hello Chumchum7. At one time you were active on this article. In case you have an opinion on the matter, the previous editing restrictions (that applied to others, not to you) may possibly be lifted. See WP:AE#London Victory Celebrations of 1946. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

re: Map ideas[edit]

First thing, please ask there yourself, the more people use it, the more likely is people respond and act. Second: Poland-themed mapmakers I know of: Halibutt (inactive), Lonio17 (mostly inactive), Poeticbent (but he doesn't do that that much). I guess Matthiasrex from pl wiki, too. Probably Matthiasrex is your best bet, but try asking all of them and see what happens. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

world war 2 Belligerents order[edit]

There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page [7] which challenge previous consensus. Current change for WWII is ranking USA above United Kingdom, ranking France above China and adding the leaders of Romania and Hungary into Info box. I thought you should know, as you seem to be a regular editor of that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.38.217 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WW II PR[edit]

I've requested a PR for World War II, and thought you should know, as you seem to be a regular editor of that article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Chumchum7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Prešov
added links pointing to German, Hungarian and John Paget
Košice
added a link pointing to Principality of Transylvania
Slovakia
added a link pointing to Magyar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prešov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

PL Law section[edit]

Hello, thank you for your input, I'd like to say that the text related to Anna Grodzka can be considered noteworthy, however pls keep this item in proportion, since 2011, Grodzka's party does not have any seated lawmakers on the national or regional level. Also, Anna Grodzka did not play a significant role in any major legislation or party leadership. Finally, Grodzka's party has been heavily criticized for it's vulgar and outlandish behavior towards religious organizations, which damaged the party's reputation, as a serious political movement, with the electorate. --E-960 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The text with the latest revision is perfectly acceptable. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Final note, pls refrain from using provocative political terms/slogans such as 'appointees of a dictatorship' in your comments, unfortunately whether form the left or the right, I don't think it's helpful. --E-960 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

WWII section[edit]

Chumchum7, I'd like to point out one issue which you are overlooking, the WWII section in the Poland article is way longer then any reference to WWII in the Germany article, so as I mentioned before, how much detail can we squeeze in, and Germany was the country that initiated the conflict and murdered millions, yet it has less text on the topic? Pls use some moderation, and do not accuse other editors of trying to hold back information from being included. --E-960 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing Poland article warning[edit]

Chumchum7, please stop with this data dump, or I will request that you are blocked, the information you are adding, such Enigma machine, WWII intelligence, Polish/Jewish relations during the war, traffic deaths in Poland, Poland's public sector vs. other countries, unfriendly Polish tax system, and who is/was gay in Poland are beyond the scope of a high-level article such as this one. I will ask that you are temporarily restricted if you keep doing this. Again, I will remind you this is a high-level article, not meant to include every dumb detail about the country. --E-960 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Chumchum7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warsaw airlift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flyover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-Polish sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jedwabne pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish Communist Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jedwabne pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish I Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)