Someone changed "senile" describing Petain's last years at Yeu with the following edit summary:
(→Imprisonment: The term 'senile' is an offensive and dismissive way to describe cognitive impairment.)
But I don't think the substitute wording means much to non-experts:
By the end of 1949, Pétain was suffering from severe cognitive impairment, with only occasional moments of lucidity.
I suppose this should go (if it warrants it) to the Pétain talk page, but I wondered if you or Mathglot or another of your lurkers might have a good idea of giving information without giving offence. "Senile" isn't offensive to me in this context (after all, the word is being pretty freely thrown around both candidates for the 2024 U.S. presidential election), but I could see how others might see it as offensive in the context of this article. And on this day, don't forget to remember where Marshal Pétain was on 11 November 1918. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't something I would want to be called or even be ;) But I don't think the word has been declared offensive, although it might be anyway to readers who have family members with the condition and might find it hurtful, I guess, but I'm not aware that it's all that derogatory.
Maybe we should consider rewording though? Because we can?
Some thoughts
Well. The statement is sourced (apparently) and he's a long-dead public figure, so no BLP concerns.
I'm pretty sure the statement is true -- I had to check to be sure I didn't write that text, and I know I have previously expressed the opinion that he was a Ronald Reagan and never really was the one running the country, it was all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons....But no. I didn't write it. Pretty sure I have read it though, and I've definitely thought it.
I didn't check the history, but I don't recognize the source. I don't suppose you have it, eh? but if indeed the statement is true, then he wasn't exactly an obscure figure, and we should be able to verify, using another source if need be. And since the wording has been challenged, we should probably do that regardless, as an exercise in due diligence if nothing else.
If a source specifies a name for his condition, great, that solves that problem by giving us better vocabulary, but I think it's unlikely he got a specific diagnosis in the late 1940s.
Alternately, do we lose much information if we do this:
By May, Pétain required constant nursing care, and often suffered from hallucinations, e.g. that he was commanding armies in battle, or that naked women were dancing around his room.[70] By the end of 1949, Pétain was suffering from severe cognitive impairment, with had only occasional moments of lucidity.
(?)
What do you think? I usually try not to be dismissive if I can manage that, but I don't think it's like the article had an egregious flaw that we overlooked or anything. But now that someone has pointed out the word maybe we should think about it Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
apparently it's unquestionable: he was replaced in 1942, but remained in office as a figurehead. [1]
@Piotrus: Some algorithm or other asked me if I was interested in this: this, probably because, as we discussed a while back, there are some mentions there of the painter you asked me about, the friend of the Polish poet. The mentions weren't real substantive but made me think he probably came up a lot in society pages about the salons. He might make an interesting mention in an article on Montmartre in the late 19th century, or as background for School of Paris or one of the articles about Impressionists. There is probably room for an article like that, or even one about emigres in Paris; the sheer density of artists, writers, playwrights and such is notable, should somebody feel like writing about it. Maybe I should start gathering sources Elinruby (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. And I still am toying with idea of translating his biography to French Wikipedia - maybe someone there will be able to expand it better. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the proofreading can happen. I actually spent a fair amount of time looking for him and am confident he isn't in the usual databases (BnF, Gallica, Persee, Scholar, etc) beyond the brief mentions discussed above, but there may be an art historian out there who has done a study of the period. French wikipedia is Like That sometimes. I think we would need to look at contemporary periodicals. Would there be anything on Polish wikipedia about artists in Paris? I know at least some of then School of Paris were Polish, but I am not clear on the absolute numbers. There were also Russians, Belarussians and Lithuanians, I know, and I didn't fact-check nationalities; I don't think I quite understood how the borders were then. Maybe still don't. Anyway, sure, I can also start some notes on sources for a broader topic.I am sure there are huge articles on many aspects of the impressionists but School of Paris is probably still start class. That and the emigres may take some digging, as there was antisemitism in the name, which was intended to be derogatory, and the French are still trying to come to terms with World War 2; the earlier homegrown xenophobia would be harder. Maybe track what was going on in those countries, in hmm the turn of the century? If t0hat's confusing don't worry, I am thinking out loud and it will be clearer once I start the timeline. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I answered this. There are no glaring errors in the translation but I would have worded some of it differently. And it seems that Montparnasse was the neighborhood of choice btw. Pinged you to a very rough sandbox list of School of Paris artists. A LOT of them were Polish if that is of interest. Your guy is earlier than that, though. I am trying to tie up some loose ends but will see if I can find more sources by includinf Limousin as a search term and if so me rewrite the article a little Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe Pétain was more than a military officer, but — unless "statesman" is generic and non-judgemental in Wikipedia (is Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Idi Amin a "statesman"?) — is there a better-focussed and less-loaded term for his rôle as Chef de l'État Français ? Or is any term needed when the lede sentence ends, "and became the head of the collaborationist regime of Vichy France" ?
Worthwhile question, but not here. Can you move this to Talk:Philippe Pétain? For the time being, I've reverted it, because whatever the right word is, 'statesman' is certainly not it. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
de facto leader? except see above, he apparently wasn't leading much as of 1942 (side musing: maybe that is why the policy on the black market change that year) The mental health issue is likely undue for the lede though. "Figurehead" is probably truest but still too different from conventional wisdom Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Figurehead" might absolve him from the anti-Semitic laws he signed within three or four months of taking office. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this went to the talk page. FWIW I took a look at the lede and see no issue with the way it is currently written. Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
right. To the extent that my opinion matters I don't think we should, and more importantly I think the mental illness may have only recently entered the historiography. The source I found for this was *medical* remember, even though RS as hell. Pretty sure there would be a huge outcry and the sources wouldn't be accepted. I am not sure there is enough there yet myself. Even if he was stark raving bonkers as of 1942 he still had some power and agency before that and chose to appease the Nazis. But it probably rules out calling him a caudillo, is where I was going, and that's a South and Central American term anyway. I should re-read the lede before opining further, but I am inclined just say nothing atm. Does what is there after Mathglot's revert seem correct to you? All this moral ambiguity might be undue in the lede. By the way, no objection to my comment moving with the thread. Elinruby (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
actually, if people want I will summarize the above on the Pétain talk page later today, might be less awkward Elinruby (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, and not surprisingly really, people in Paris didn't know how to react when occupying German soldiers very courteously would ask them for directions. It troubled Sartre a lot, and there's an interesting short discussion of this in the Jean-Paul Sartre article, in the middle of the § World War II section. This reaction or syndrome seems like a worthy subject of serious study, and I wonder if there has been any. I wonder if there are papers on different "levels" of collaboration, from these incidents at one end, to Pétain, Laval, Lafont, or Vallat at the other. Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interested. This is (or overlaps) the stuff I was talking about when I created that historiography section. Current writing about this seems very geared to daily life under the occupiers. According to my reading this approach was preceded by a period characterized by Vichy syndrome that followed the repudiation of the Gaullist narrative. Does that match up with what you have seen? We should probably do a written literature review, because reasons, and getting back to a related matter I've mentioned before, it would *REALLY* be cool if we could at least get the article category tree to distinguish between this and workplace collaboration software for enterprise remote workers. Elinruby (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've long been toying with the idea (massive though the resulting work might be) if it wouldn't be better in the relevant articles to talk about Cooperation with occupying powers, rather than Collaboration, which may once have been a neutral, objective term, but has been a term of of moral condemnation since the 1940's.
Cooperation is something that can be described objectively without implying difficult moral judgements: if you give directions, or coordinate train schedules, or translate something (either way), or issue ration cards or remove bombs, you would be cooperating with your occupiers — but we wouldn't have to guess why. There's a whole spectrum ranging roughly from non-opposition to non-resistance to appeasement to acquiescence to acceptance to grudging collaboration to willing collaboration to enthusiastic alliance to exceeding occupier's demands (e.g. sacrificing children when the Germans only ask for adults).
The motives (ranging from fear to joy), on the other hand, are an important question — much raised in trials after the Axis's fall (and later after the fall of East Germany) — that Wikipedia can discuss but about which it need not render judgement.
We've discussed this before in relation to the Baltic states — can a ministerial act be seen as collaboration with Germany or with Stalin, or with both, or with neither?
Of course, this is too big a question for just one User's talk page, but I'm interested in your thoughts. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw I don't know of a better place to discuss this. it doesn't relate to a specific page, and yes, these is a recurrent problem of definition in the topic, plus the issue of someone(s) misusing "collaborationist", the question of conscripts or gang-pressed prisoners, horizontal collaboration, the fact that sources call buying on the black market "collaboration", and editors want to limit its use to countries, as in our old Arbcom friends "Poland never collaborated with the Nazis" and "ok, the Blue Police were Polish but they were recruited at gunpoint", not to mention "anyone who was in a German unit of any type was a collaborationist", recently seem at AE and I could go on. One end of the spectrum would be appeasement as in A thony Eden, and there was also doing business with Nazis (IBM, Hollywood, art looting, Joseph Joanovici (sp?) And the rescue of Danish Jews with the help of Dr.q Best.,.) I started a bibliography in a sandbox, is all I can think to do. surely we aren't the first to notice this; surely some political scientist has attempted a taxonomy? Getting back to Sartre, what about a waiter at one of the five-star Paris restaurants the German officers frequented? Farmers whose crops were seized by Germans? Shakescene note that sources at Black market.in wartime France definitely use "collaboration". Other suggestions welcome. Elinruby (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thank you for your massive contribution to this article Regency of Algiers, it's much more pleasent to read this way, and regarding your last modifications in the "Soceity" section, i relied pretty much on one arabic secondary source only, as it presented an overview of the Algerian urban soceity, so i had to translate some parts and rewrite other parts, yet my english is still a bit rough, so i think that your contributions are much appreciated and more sources will be added if need in this section.
It is much better with Arabic sources and ideas than when I worked on it a while back.
What I meant by "vague" is that it is very difficult to find a source for something like--i forget what I took out -- "the city had many amenities" for example, especially in English, and the French felt strongly that they were bringing civilization and in the 18th century were.pretty sure that civilization looked like them.
I really liked the new stuff about the economy and idea the madrasas, except that were the sources for that French? It may be hard to not say they were low-quality because they didn't teach science yet not make them sound by hotbed s of religious zealotry, But go you, I am sure you can do it. I know you said the scholars were in Tlemcen (do I remember that right?) But...
I will talk about this more at the talk page, as I am getting tired and don't have specifics handy. But Muslims not selling alcohol seems unsurprising. Maybe talk about those coffeehouses instead. Were there any poets who hung out there? Or was it a military town only? No, right? The stuff about wheat from Russia was interesting, also the silkworms. What was the music like? All those slaves-- did they sell them? Make them do construction? See where I am going? Also you don't have to listen to me and are free to tell me to piss off, but I think you are better of with a vigorous but friendly edit from someone with a an interest and a little knowledge than an unfriendly edit from someone who is bored by gw topic. I'll take another pass in about a week how is that? I realize it's a work in progress but by the way, if you are using machine translation please don't. Unless there is really no other way. I guessed quite a bit, which is why i want you, who knows what happened, to make sure I didn't guess wrong. If you *can* translate from Arabic by hand, even to French, the results will be much better. But don't put French in the article! If you want go through French, ping me and we'll figure out where to put the French.
Don't worry, be happy and thanks for working on the article ;)
I've been chiselling away at "Château de La Ferté-Imbault" in a very disorganised way, but I think I'm beginning to see progress. There's still a lot more to do, of course.
One issue I've had is with the interlanguage link to fr:Duché d'Aerschot. English Wikipedia actually has a page "Duke of Aarschot" which contains less information than the French page, but when I try to add the French language link to the sidebar of that page, I encounter a problem: the English page is in the Wikidata category Duke of Aarschot, while the French page is in the category Duchy of Aarschot. I'm tempted to merge the categories, but I don't want to break anything. Any suggestions?
looking ... There is a difference in the category tree. But Let's start here: the original problem is that you want to ILL to fr:Duché d'Aerschot? Because it has the most information? it's weird, on the Fr side the hierarchy is:
Catégorie:Duc
Catégorie:Duc d'Aerschot
Duché d'Aerschot
Dans d’autres langues
Català
Nederlands
Русский
Українська
But in English
Category:Dukes of Belgium
Category:Dukes of Aarschot
Links to Catégorie:Duc d'Aerschot
Duke of Aarschot
This is a worthy thing to fix both are at the same hierarchy level under the Duke, but can't we just display text that isn't "Duke of Aarschot [fr]? Or do I still not understand the question?
Apparently I am overthinking again because Duché d'Aerschot [fr] works too but won't if you link "Duke of Aarschot" to *Duché d'Aerschot" in the side ar (or someone else does, then the links above will go to Duke of Aarschot, which is what you don't want, right? Let me let the cat in and look at the article history
My thinking was that since we have an English page "Duke of Aarschot", I should link to that, and anyone looking for more information could follow the link to the French article from the sidebar of that article ... except that the French article wasn't linked from the sidebar. It's not a big deal either way. I haven't any experience of editing Wikidata, and it's getting a bit late for me to start experimenting this evening, but the interlanguage link will do the job for now, and I can always expand "Duke of Aarschot" from "fr:Duché d'Aerschot" in the future.
I was confused, in part because I edit on a phone a whole lot and forget that sidebar is there on other platforms. But it's a link like any other, I've done those.
Just cautioning you while that linking Duke of Aarschot" from "fr:Duché d'Aerschot wouldn't *break* anything, I don't think, since they each have the Duke as a parent category except it will break your ILL. (but @Mathglot: knows more about categories than I do) but would if you do that you will have to work around the English page you don't like. It might be easiest to expand the English page, but that depends on how much is involved, how much time you have, and how many other associated pages need expansion or creation.
meanwhile: what else is in Duke of Aerschot besides the page? and it trips me out that the french put the Duchy under the Duke. But back to your answer, there isn't a rule that says you "should" link to the English article rather that the French, and a much better or longer French is a good reason to go the other way. But if the link goes in the sidebar the ILL will go the to the English article, and the system people frown on the fr:article title syntax you used above, because while it works it doesn't get tracked. But your call. Feel free to discuss anything else here if you like; always ready how overthink something. I'm just glad you're working on that article. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting stuff in this article in Le Monde Diplomatique (in English) about US plans for France post-war: When the US wanted to take over France. I knew about a lot of the antipathy between FDR and CDG, and I knew it was dicey whether France was going to be considered a 'Western Ally' post-war (and thus to be counted as among the victors, with all that meant, including, for example, getting a piece of Berlin) but I didn't know it went this far; and although I knew about FDR's overtures to Giraud and Darlan in No. Africa, I didn't know about the connection between those meetings and FDR's post-war plans for France, and that he was apparently thinking about it that early. I can think of half a dozen articles where bits of this may be relevant. Anyway, sorry to keep dumping ideas on you, but I'm stuck on a bunch of things, and just wanted to get this written down somewhere before I forget, so don't feel like you have to do anything with it. It's an interesting read, though, so enjoy it. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This totally went over my head; I assumed you were responding to someone else in that comment. This post was merely a link to an article with a bit of the history around the FDR-de Gaulle tension that I thought would interest you, and I hope it does. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It kinda was to someone else, but it two months ago, and it was never deliberately posted let alone to you.
My deepest apologies, because no. you did not deserve that. I was trying to get it our of the phone buffer when I was moving text earlier.
It's about some editor endlessly banging on about what a terrible editor I am, look at that page block, and ooh look at this too, and he was going to have somebody straighten me out unless Igave some respect his admonishments about a purportedly erroneous and/or malicious cn tag from 2020, ffs, on a hot button article, like it would even still be undealt-with in September 2023,
I finally had to template him. Three times before he stopped. It isn't inappropriate for you to object to it now you undeservedly saw it, so I am not going to remove what you said, but I wish you would, or at least the diff, lest it lead to more of that shit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know what this means, who "he" is, and I don't know what you mean by "objecting" to something. I'm mystified, as I'm not objecting to anything, and this discussion is strictly about linking an article from Le Monde diplomatique which I thought might be of interest to you; everything else has gone completley over my head, and I am clueless about what it means. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
((tq|This totally went over my head...etc}) is what I am apologizing for. But fine. I haven't read the article yet but I do have thoughts from past readings. Apparently the question of whether France was an Ally or just got rescued was apparently why de Gaulle was so insistent on joining up with the Alled Army and why he wanted that column to liberate Paris, ie French participation [don't you dare[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I also seem to remember reading that de Gaulle had a lot to do with the FFI jumping the gun here: Battle of Vercors. Didn't we have a conversation about what an idiot the Allies thought he was back when we were doing Liberation of France? Seems like we did; I was pretty shocked, national mythology getting debunked and all.
There was certainly a lot of disagreement in the US about how to handle de Gaulle and the role of France post-war, and what with FDR being head of his administration and the executive branch, I guess it makes sense to say "the US depicted <this-or-that>", as long as it's clear that there were major figures on the other side of that debate. Such as, for example, Eisenhower, who the article never mentions and had a more pragmatic view about CDG, which was essentially the prevailing one post-war, not FDR's view. One wonders how things might've turned out for France, had FDR lived another few years, but now were getting into fabulist history. Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
French elites supported the idea: they clung to the Vichy regime, which had restored privileges taken away by the pre-war republican government
Do you know what elites and what privileges they are talking about there? It almost sounds like the aristocracy, but surely they didn't have many privileges de jure by the Third Republic? Tax breaks maybe? Elinruby (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 2[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brazil in World War II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salvador and Nata.
Hi Elinruby :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 10:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around here for a long time, and not once has the Random article link in the left sidebar ever led me to anything really interesting, even though I keep trying, every few weeks or so. Until today, that is, when it landed me at Russian Volunteer Corps. I thought you might like to add this to your watchlist. Interesting article; I never heard of them before. So, tell me: what's your most interesting landing page from 'Random'? If you don't use it, try it in the top group of tools under 'Main page', or just click here. I clicked it myself, and it landed me at Jónsi, an Icelandic musician. Each time you click it, it will take you somwhere else; usually, entirely forgettable articles. But Russian Volunteer Corps is worth a read. Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i will look. I am off grid though and will be for the rest of the weekend. Not really in charge of the schedule either. May have time to read that article while eating lunch here. Don't really use Random Article but I was pretty much doing the same thing with WP:PNT until I gave up on it also. I think my reasons were different than yours though. Elinruby (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
interestingly, one of the articles I was thinking of mentioning was Harbin Russians. Elinruby (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has Bellingcat said anything about this? Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen them say anything directly about them, but in searching, I did find Bellingcat talking about another group I never heard of, a Russian "esoteric neo-Nazi" or "esoteric Hitlerist" group called "Wotanjugend". There's three mentions of them in Wikipedia articles but we don't have an article about them. Not clear if there's sufficient sourcing out there for them to be notable or not. If you search, you'll find a bunch of music results; that's not a different group, that's related to them. Related searches: 'Alexei Levkin', 'National Socialist Black Metal' (NSBM), 'M8L8TH', Hitler's Hammer. Mathglot (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My crude impression — from a couple of BBC and/or PBS news accounts way back — is that the Corps' leader does indeed call himself a fascist, but that his force is open to any Russian who's against Putin or for the Ukraine. I suppose that this might be roughly parallel to Vlasov's volunteers who were anti-Stalin but (I think) not necessarily either pro-Hitler or pro-German. See Mark Mazower's "Hitler's Empire" (Penguin).
Historic Russian fascism (such as the Russian Fascist Party and the All-Russian Fascist Organization based in Putnam, Conn.) is a slightly different (though perhaps overlapping) subject; they did support a fascist future for Russia and were organized on fascist lines (with the inevitable bitter clashes between those competing to be Leader).
Welp, originally I was skeptical because I wasn't familiar with the sources, nor was I certain that this was a good enough reason to be skeptical. In no particular order I wondered about false flags and false false flags and the prevalent practice of militias in the area of identifying themselves with a cloth tied around an arm. Some better-known sources have since been added by people I recognize from other articles. I am certain that the meticulousness you two are known for +at least by me) could only benefit the topic area. Interesting that White Russians keep coming up.
I am only in for a minute and apparently my bibliography for the Arbcom request is throwing errors so I gotta fix that. Be aware that you will probably be accused of glorifying Nazis or whitewashing them or whatever if you investigate. Working on the part where doing that should require some relationship in the facts. I did find the sourcing mother lode for collaboration typologies, motivational analysis and the relationship to resistance but my notes are too verbatim to put up yet. Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Bryansk Oblast raid relies heavily on TASS, which is discouraged if not deprecated, just saying. I also see references to Azov, so what I said above goes triple, given the Russian propaganda and the fact that at some point the group did indeed call themselves Nazis. The above refers to Wotanjugend btw, which seems pretty separate from the one that collaborated with the Chinese. It should be noted that from some people anti-communist is synonymous with Nazi and reams and reams and reams have no doubt been written about this, but little of it in English. Those sources that do exist tend to be of the "call your senator and tell him" variety though. Also, if you are going to swim in those waters, the original writing often seems to have consistently been sourced to the first item in a Google search. I had to take the first sentence to RSN three times back in the day. I think the topic has improved a bit since Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, apart from the people who may have something in the topic watchlisted, there does seem to possibly exist an untold story; for example there is also Iron Wolf (character) and Iron Wolf (organization), which are topic-adjacent...maybe what's needed is a dab page, but even that would be pretty fraught. Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check out My very best wishes fighting the good fight in #Removal of ideology and its sources. He's a native Russian speaker who is probably being polite when he says he can't umderstand it. I could say more but I better not. In my opinon the topic might be notable if real but PoV is being pushed pretty hard either way and MVBW is probably the best person to deal with it.
Looks authoritative and all [3] until you realize it's quoting Wikipedia. Verbatim and cited all legit, but not a source Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're systemically removing reliable sources with the justification "do not meet sourcing standards", such as [5]. Can you clarify what "standard" you're enforcing here? "Not academic" isn't a sufficient rationale to remove a source in most circumstances. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr there's an Arbcom decision about the Holocaust in Poland, several years old. Most editors in the topic area already know about it. I can see why you would question it though; i did the fist time i heard about it Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link the decision please? VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but not right now.Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr there are seven cases about the Holocaust in Poland; I think the restriction is in [6]; if not it is currently being discussed in a request for amendment that would extend it to Lithuania. Let me know if that doesn't answer your question. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually that's the amended current version but should still answer your question Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just WP:APLRS. Neither the NBC News nor Gazeta Wyborcza sources should have been removed from articles based on that, as both are reputable institutions generally recognized as reliable. BTW going forward if you're going to cite a standard please do so up front rather than a handwaving at "sourcing standards". VQuakr (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: I believe you are mistaken, since I have previously tried that argument with respect to the Washington Post and the New York Times, which are certainly respectable. Conceivably the people I was talking to at the time were mistaken, but I don't think so. Consumer news publications are excluded; these wiki articles merely predate the decision. I think "respectable institution" -- note it does not say "respectable publication" -- is intended to mean Yad Vashem and the US Holocaust Museum. The intent of excluding news publications is that some editors use their verbatim quotes in an unbalanced manner. As for the second part of your remarks, perhaps, but the topic isn't usually patrolled by people unaware of the sourcing standards. I suggest you read the entire decision if you are unclear about this. As for your erronous reverts, the articles have been unbalanced this long, oh well. Status quo stonewalling is usually not worth fighting. I am giving you a day to read this before I delete. Elinruby (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were so vague I couldn't be sure what you were referring to even though I'm familiar with that ruling. NYT and WAPO would be fine as well; can you link to a RSN discussion that said otherwise? Maybe re-read WP:AGF, too. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: I just linked to a whole Arbcom decision that says otherwise. I tell you what though; I already asked for clarification of "respectable institution" in the modification request I am doing research for. I will reiterate my request that they get explicit about this since someone on my talk page refuses to drop the stick. It would probably be faster to just read the decisions you are misinterpreting though Elinruby (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: Actually some one has just asked about the New York Times and was toldBilledMammal academically focused is just as important as reputable publisher. So major universities' presses are examples of what passes. Beyond that I think it unhelpful to clarify in the abstract. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) so on second thought I decline to beat this dead horse at Arbcom on your behalf. You really should self revert, or at a minimum read the decisions, if you want to pursue this. Elsewhere, please, however. I feel I have been very patient about this Elinruby (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look more needling, how helpful. I'd be curious to know what you think "impatient" looks like if this is your idea of "patient." Yes, I can self-rv. If you dislike follow-up on your talk page, use an adequate edit summary instead of a handwave in the first place. Simple cause and effect there. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should really read the case. But as far as I am concerned you're somebody else's issue now. I gave you a link to the guy who drafted the last Holocaust in Poland decision, defining exactly the term you are confused about, and don't know what else to tell you if you're not convinced. And btw "go elsewhere" doesn't mean ping me three times with exactly the same question I already answered here. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced, I self-reverted already and continued discussion as directed by that AE. This is a collaborative project. If you remove sources citing (or in this case thinking of) a standard that states the next step is talk page discussion, it is a reasonable to assume that your participation in that talk page discussion will occur. You are the expert on why you thought those particular sources needed to be challenged. The questions posed on the article talk pages, which are specific to the sources and content being discussed, are different than the one posed here. "Go elsewhere" very much does mean to take it to the article talk page to invite your take there. WP:CIVIL is policy, BTW; not sure what's with the attitude but it would cost you nothing to be more pleasant. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. That was me being unpleasant was it? Ok well. (Clears throat). Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: added a convenience link for you since I went over there to check something else. Elinruby (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have my usual go-to sources for unusual, rare, or obsolete French words, but they don't do well with slang and popular expressions, verlan, hip-hop, all that sort of stuff. Well, I just ran into LingQ.com, and based on the words I decided to look up while watching a French film with tons of slang, it does really well. Here are a few:
Beauvau – Ministry of the Interior (which is on Beavau street)
I understood taf in context, but wouldn't have sworn I knew it. The others, I never heard before. Thought you might be interested. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/me squints: pécho isn't a french spelling, which is not to say that french can't import words, but it doesn't usually. Is that a verb or an action or... ils ont fait pécho? Not really doubting it, but no, not familiar with it. Beauvau is more than plausible. "Taf" could simply be from tache (should be accent circonflexe) esp in the south. If it's a noun. Looking to see if there is an etymology. Elinruby (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pécho is native, not imported (the way toubib and kif-kif are imported). A lot of it (but not all) is from verlan, and lots of words in verlan are not particularly French-spelling archetypes (meuf,keum, relou, zarbi, etc.) I'm almost certain that pécho is double slang: first, from the regular slang word chopé, and then verlanized into pécho. As far as taf, one unreliable source says it's an acronym (from: travail à faire), but that sounds too much like a folk etymology, and I'm not sure I believe it. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should add French Wiktionary to my list; they also had pécho, and I never thought they would, and it confirmed my theory. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I find that impressive also. Not that you need me to, but I can attest that chopé does mean all those things, and verlan seems plausible. I want to finish Henri Lafont, wah, I liked that first narrator. Aziz? Anyway so pécho, this thing is a verb that doesn't conjugate? Invariable? Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, yet; only just learned that one in one context, but I'm sure it will come up again. If you have Netflix, you can amuse yourself with some good writing and acting in the Netflix original comedy series "En place" (Represent), while learning tons of slang at the same time; see the YT trailer. Enjoy! Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morning @Elinruby: How things. Happy New Year. Whats your plans? Plans within plans. scope_creepTalk 09:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morning. I found a.bunch of sources on historiography of collaboration but some of them are disputed or contentious. This very second trying to determine the reliability of the Polish IPN, but I fundamentally don't care and i want to get out of the topic before i go from objective to jaded. I want to do something French. Countesses comes to mind, but i had pretty much decided to get at least one of the books. There's still the law project but for something less dry, i really enjoyed the 1940s underworld. Maybe something rhere ? Maybe the escape lines, even the Rednl Orchestra really. Elinruby (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: by the way I like that Complicated Complicity source you sent me; I used it in Lithuania. Trying to disengage from that though; it's a mug's game to try to fix it. I've managed to convey that there is more.than one source on each side, gonna call that a win I guess Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked and the Upano Valley sites are about 500 min away but if i am understanding the scale they sound related although not identical. Elinruby (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, exciting find! Look forward to see what research and excavation turns up in the coming years, plenty more discoveries to come, I'm sure. Thanks for sharing, Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elinruby: I'm not going to back to the Gonzalo Lira article. It is just another Rabelais gig. I've taken it off my watchlist and won't be replying to any comments. scope_creepTalk 01:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok but progress was made before the edit warring broke out. i already told you that I think it was Russian propaganda when it was created and now it is a tenet in the beliefs of certain editors.
JSwift49 seems relatively sane and i may get a little further with him, not sure. Still considering taking Dream Focus
to ANI.
Hello, good day could you help me give a more neutral composition and writing to Dhruv Sharma article and achieve compliance with Wikipedia standards? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhruv_Sharma_(singer) 57ntaledane9 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with and left a wee note. scope_creepTalk 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Scope creep. I am up to my ahoulder blades in concentration camps sourced to Jewish Virtual Library and genealogy sites. Are you or Mathglot interested in helping with that? I'm trying to find alternate sources to help keep the inevitable firestorm at bay. I know less than nothing about Indian pop music, and before I started tediously correcting the capitalization I'd want to be certain the singer is notable in the first place. I need to get back to the sources that contradict and disparage one another in the Holocaust in the Baltics articles.Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Elinruby. I missed this. I seem to make a comment and then leave. If your do if your still doing it. I will be more attentive in the future. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: sorry, you do what? Want to help remove Jewish virtual library? Do source verification? You're a brave man if so either way, but there's a huge amount to be done if so; notably articles on the Polish and Lithuanian Holocaust need to use academic sources per Arbcom. We should talk a little before about the background before you get started but for an intro the "On and on and on" is about one such foray and is now part of an AE complaint titled "SMcCandlish". One big problem off the top of my head is the source misrepresentation at Holocaust in Lithuania, see my edit summaries in the history. I stopped there to figure out Wikiblame but while I gotten it installed I haven't read the manual. When I say fallacy of composition I mean that "some antisemitic Lithuanians carried out pogroms" became "Lithuanians participated in the Holocaust" which became "all Lithuanians were Nazi collaborators". It's a lot more granular than that, and depending on how you define collaboration it is also possible to say that all French collaborated or they starved. Shrug. Let me know. Going to be gone until about 9pm my time Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: ah you were specifically talking about concentration camps. Most of them were in Poland, but there is plenty of that too. More later Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your entry at the Arb motion. I had a conversation with SMcCandlish back in the day, a couple of years after I arrived. I wanted to use European dates and all those MOS cronies wouldn't let me. I told them I was going to ignore it and they said somebody else is coming to talk and it was SMcCandlish. He said you can't do this, and you can't do that. A stern conversation. So I never took up the issue of European dates formats and never got to use them. When I read the initial version of the essay he wrote, it was more of the same. Keep of the Grass. Its all about control. I actually like SMcCandlish as he is forthright and direct, but the MOS control does my head in. He's turning what should be dynamic standard into a static standard. And that whole essay should be deleted. On the other stuff. I've not looked at the Holocaust in Lithuania. I see it is a GA article, done almost 15 years. Standard have changed since them. Ping me on it, when you start planning. It doesn't seem to have a lot of content. The Norwegian article has a ton of well-ref'd content, which may be good. I've been removing the "Jewish virtual library" everywhere I go. Count me in for more removal. If there is lot of articles, as in 10's to 100's it might worth creating a wikiproject or something so we can track it and work away on it and ad-hoc basis. I've got three articles that are ad-hoc. It's impossible to work on complex article all the time, so a nice simple article like this Cothenius Medal is really easy work on. Source verification I don't mind doing. One article at a time. Long and difficult work but over weeks and weeks a bit at a time. The comment above, was just in case you were still working on the Dhruv Sharma article and needed help. scope_creepTalk 23:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. No. I never touch pop culture, haven't the patience for edit warriors over whether something is emo or folk or whatever. I have no idea where the editor got my name. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this was when I was trying to explain the sourcing requirements at RSN, so probably there. Are you working on this? More later. Elinruby (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was. How is that person even notable? Also, Elinruby, it's emo-folk, you know. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I know, right? I am also pretty certain that despite the urge to scream into my pillow I took the time to politely tell them that names are capitalized in English. Speakers of languages that don't use the Roman alphabet often have trouble with capitalization and punctuation, so I wasn't particularly fussed about this, but since I did take the time to point the error out, it's a bit annoying that the article still says "rapunzel", which is the name of a sing also and even more so should be capitalized, mumble, especially since it's allegedly notable. Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm now I feel the need to pull the old Beatsie Boy CD off the shelf: "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair, / So I can climb up and get into your underwear". Drmies (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Could use a little love, and surely there are collaborators here. Not that France needs more material and strictly speaking this all happened on territory that Germany had annexed, but the skulls wound up at a French school of medicine. Anyway, discuss? Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elin, thanks for the ping; Erick Soares3, very important topic; thank you for starting this. I've already made a few minor improvements. English is very efficient in its ability to pile up nouns and adjectives without the use of prepositional phrases to connect them as in Romance languages, leading to the much more concise 2022 Brazilian attempted coup plot. I look forward to contributing more to this article. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot @Elinruby Thanks! There's already a proposal to move the original article into “2022-2023 Brazilian attempted coup plot” (Tentativa de golpe de Estado no Brasil em 2022-2023), but I had only seen it after having published the English version. I would be good to check into the non-Portuguese language sources for anything useful for the article. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Operation Tempus Veritatis" started yesterday brought back this subject into public view - and this page may turn into the main way how the international public will be aware of what is happening. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fine-tuning some English, feel free to check or correct my work. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby and Mathglot: If you guys are interested on Brazil's history, you may like to see the stuff at Template:Government of João Goulart; the biography of Paulo de Mello Bastos (I had to read several old newspapers online to create his bio); and more recently, VLS-1 V01, VLS-1 V02 (I made them in the same way as Bastos's bio) and VLS-1 V03 (this one I had to expand). Since @Mathglot has a good-to-advanced knowledge of German, French and Spanish, those might be some good translation options, at least as stubs (especially in Bastos's case). Cheers, Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erick Soares3: that should be on List of scandals in Brazil at a minimum and probably also Corruption in Brazil. Deserves more prominence for sure; interesting that one of the suspects lives in the same building as Bolsonaro but I am not sure what conclusion to draw from that.
By the way, is this a good source? [8] If this is true, I am making popcorn. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That's a good source. That's going to happen in the 22th, and Moraes even denied Bolsonaro's attempt to change his subpoema date. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the historical stuff, there's the VASP Flight 375 (zero sources and is easier to translate it from scratch), that even became a movie. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinruby, the CBC has done a documentary about legal personhood and the Magpie River. Don’t know if you could access it by a streaming service or YouTube? Here’s a link to a CBC article about the documentary: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7100728Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am interested and will look into it Elinruby (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"would then split up into various factions that could then be more easily handed"
which I'd think would be 'handled'.
Seeing these puzzlers, I'd love to see the text closely re-read by a subject matter specialist such as you, looking for any other oddities. I think the article would be improved. Shenme (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took me three reads to see that I didn't change the second "Britain" to "Czechoslovakia" as I intended. I'll fix that. Or you can, if you are already there and would like to. I did a big push to clean up some horrendous WW2 stuff about that time and apparently was moving too fast there.
The 2017 thing would not have been me but I suspect you are right about that. I don't mind revisiting this article, as I have been meaning to use this man elsewhere as an example of an ambitious nationalist; thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll see what I can do about handed/handled and whatever else.
Possibly Scope creep could be convinced to lend a hand also.
I remember the article now; I am sure it can be further improved, because it was terrible. Does it still go on at enormous length about gymnastics? User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, did you mean to create Stuff Norwegians say in a sandbox? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: yes, is there a problem with that title? It's a machine translation (attributed) from the Norwegian Wikipedia. Since it's a highly sensitive topic (and certified CT) I wanted to examine the sourcing and otherwise work on it a bit to see if it is worth adding to the English article, which doesn't cover these aspects. Elinruby (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: I am not adamant about the title; it can be renamed if need be. It's just what came to mind. LMK Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in main article space at the moment, but is not ready for publication yet. Would you like to move that to Draft:Stuff Norwegians say, or perhaps to User:Elinruby/Stuff Norwegians say? Wikishovel (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: ah I now understand why you are asking. I meant to put it in my own sandbox. My mistake; it's been several months since I did this. Fixing that now.Elinruby (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikishovel I have confused myself; please check to see whether it is in the right place now? It looks to me like it is, but you're right, it isn't an article (and wasn't intended to be one) and should be in a sandbox. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: Thanks, that is why I asked. I tried to do that, but got an error message. But I guess by the time I checked the page you had already fixed. Note to self: remember spaces.
Anyway, yeah, It's from the Norwegian Holocaust in Lithuania but there may be enough stuff for a subarticle; someone pointed out on the talk page that the Norwegian article was a lot more extensive (and the current en-wiki article shamefully doesn't say much about the Jewish experience of the Holocaust!) Anyway, thus the desire to take examine the sourcing in chunks and be sure this is the content I want to have a DUE argument over. Appreciate the help with my brain bubble Elinruby (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it to User:Elinruby/The Holocaust in Lithuania (from no-wiki) to avoid confusion with an article about colloquialisms in Norway, which is what I thought it was about until I looked at it. Feel free to move it again as you have a lot of latitude in your user space, but under the old name there was no connection at all with Holocaust issues and you might even forget what it was about under the old title if you switch to something else for a few months. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Djenina spelling led to an image on Commons, which we are using at Regency of Algiers, and to fr:Palais de la Jénina, which has an Arabic version of similar length. I find a number of mentions in books, a few sentences each; Google is mostly showing me writing from an aesthetic point of view, deploring the mistreatment of the building including the "bourgeois" colonial structures surrounding it, but that may be a response to my past reading interests. It was badly damaged in the 1716 earthquake; that ref also indicates there may be sources for Dar al Sultan. And that makes me wonder about Commons:Category:Dey Palace in Algiers. Have at it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our Palace of the Dey article appears correct in stating that that was the successor palace, so someone should probably group the couple of images of Jenina Palace in their own Commons subcategory. I found the new URL for El Watan and note multiple usable articles on the restoration projects, but nothing indexed on the lost palace. You're welcome; this has been a lot more fun than checking AN for new brickbats. Now off to use the last daylight. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: copying this to a section I opened at Talk:Regency of Algiers, which I am trying to help through a GA nomination. If you are so moved you would be welcome as fresh eyes. There are a couple of subject matter experts involved, but the primary author reads English better than he writes it so I am trying to help with that part. One or the other of them is probably the most likely to do something constructive with this; one suggested that it would be better to have one article about the whole complex. Just an invitation if you are interested Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Unfortunately I'm not able to help you at this time and may or may not be in a position to help you any time soon. As such I suggest you seek assistance from someone else. Sorry, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Since I was given permission to talk about it I think that question has been resolved, but thank you for the answer. I hope all is well with you. I did see the notice on your page but you came to mind as someone I trust. Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(@Carlp941: also involved.) I got pinged to a discussion at ANI that is now closed. To summarize why (I think) I was pinged there: Yes, I went to some lengths to get ArbCom to extend to Nazis-in-Poland and/or Eastern-Europe WP:CTOP to cover a bit more. And that proposal was accepted (albeit in a complicated form). This means that the subject youse guys were fighting in is now subject to more behavioral scrutiny, with more block- or topic-ban-leaning admins. So, this means you need to take a more measured approach to dispute in that subject. Focus on content (in the article, and in claims in the talk page) not on the editor who wrote it. I'm not Mr. Perfect when it comes to such matters, so I don't have sagacious wisdom to impart, but most of what's at WP:HOTHEADS will probably be useful. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Heh. Thank you for proving my point. I don't want to beat on you given your recent capitalization travails but really, you should have read both ANI threads before commenting. A couple of things:
I was in that Arcom request supporting the change. I pinged you because I was taken to ANI for pointing out the attendant referencing restriction. Seriously.
The thread was essentially laughed off the board. Massive kudos are due to Star Mississippi and P-Makoto for actually clicking the freaking links to discover to that the "wikihounding" consisted of required notifications and the alleged hotheadedness consisted of saying no really we are supposed to use academic sources, why are you reverting?
I pinged you because I was being told that I was in bad faith applying to Lithuania what was about Poland. I didn't want to bug the arbs because they are (cough) kinda busy right now, see thread above.
That thread could easily have turned into the kind of massive trainwreck that prompted you to make the Arbcom request, for all the wrong reasons, but still. You did do a good thing, and thank you for not making it personal or I could easily have been blocked for pointing out out that that editor's name had been dragged through the mud at ANI for (checks notes) removing unsupported statements from the lede. Which was only policy, the last time I checked. But the pitchforks were out.
May I suggest a careful read of the Marcelus 1RR appeal thread at AN? In it I demonstrate that his smug report, which triggered that thread and Arcom request, contained some (trying to chose my words carefully) striking discrepancies from what was actually said at a previous AE he referenced.
I supported your Arbcom request because that shouldn't happen to someone for thinking that calling someone a war criminal, especially a Resistance leader, should require some evidence let alone a mention in the article body. None was ever ever ever provided at that ANI case, which remains open, btw. I did ask many times. I said at Arbcom that I would look into the facts and I have. There's an argument, a good one, that the article subject was a Vichy-style collaborator, but it is still not clear to me that he even had the authority to be a war criminal, although my mind is open on the subject.
But the word of an driveby editor with a handful of edits was accepted without question by the ANI OP on the subject, because of course Lithuanians are war criminals. My request for evidence was ignored, I was berated for derailing the indef, and the target of the thread felt a need to change his name.
Confirmation bias is a thing. Memory wars over internalized propaganda are a thing. Please read the links next time, k? Just saying. I will probably ask for a reword of the both-sides close to the ANI thread where I pinged you to prevent further perpetuation, since as we saw in the Cukrakalnis ANI thread, some people like to point at that kind of stuff and say looklook just recently the editor had to apologize, when in fact in this case I didn't have to apologize, I did, as is the tradition among my people if it looks likely to help a situation. Also, I didn't apologize for my behaviour, I apologized for laughing at his.
I always suspected he was getting bad advice but I didn't realize until quite late in the thread that he only had 400 edits and a good chunk of them were in that ANI thread. That sheds a different light on reporting me for a contentious topic alert.
Mumble.
BTW, I will look at your suggested reading. I am not saying it never has applied. But not this time and not in the way you assumed it did. (Why is this on my talk page??) I realize that it was well-intentioned advice based on what you thought happened because of your preconceptions, which I think you should examine. But no doubt there is something I can learn from it; I will give that some thought and a careful read. These situations arise quite frequently in reference verification. Elinruby (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the complaint (and the revised one) x 3 and I still have no idea what they perceived your wrong action to be. This is part of the problem with AN/ANI. It's too easy to bring a user there, without even making a case. I'm the queen of b0rked diffs so I clicked around to be sure they hadn't sent the one before or after the one they meant. No. There's no admin who is going to look through a prolific editor's history/interactions to try and identify what you (in this case -- not that I think you did anything) did wrong. It's exhausting all around. StarMississippi 02:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I...should not comment too extensively since we are not at a noticeboard. But I think Carl was championing someone else's sense of outraged lèse majesté. I suggested the article was not perfect and how dare I.
(That blank section is what happens if you put a notification template in a window that already has a title btw, I think it was you wondering about that.)
Anyway--since the Arbcom motion mentioned above I have been trying to clean up some of the PoV pushing on both sides in Lithuania (not related to any of the editors at Double genocide theory that I can see) but it's slow going due to language issues and the sheer amount of documentation required.
I have identified four or five instances of outright source misrepresentation at The Holocaust in Lithuania (a Good Article!!!) and paused to figure out Wikiblame, with which I am generally unconcerned. And I'm not out of the lede yet.
Thanks again for being Someone Who Clicks. Maybe that's good name for a barnstar-awarding campaign. Might help with admin burnout, which I have already mentioned elsewhere as a real problem. For admins of course but also for editors just Trying To Do The Right Thing. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate both of your input here and Elinruby is basically right! I was too defensive about the article in its previous state. Also my name isn't Carl! I know my username implies that, but it is not the case! I'd appreciate just having being referred to by my username. Carlp941 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to remember the numbers in future. I also have a username that lends itself to misinterpretation so I sympathize. I have questions about some stuff, but that can wait until everyone who was mentioned has had a chance to read this section and this venue is a little more private. If you wandered into that minefield as a relative newbie I don't want to castigate you but we should talk a bit. Btw I didn't see your last few posts at the talk page until after the ANI closed. I only skimmed but yes both contested history and memory politics enter into it. There are at least five narratives about the Holocaust in Lithuania, with variations on each. Double genocide is a semi-valid criticism of one early version of one narrative by those who ascribe to another narrative. But we can get into that later. Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for respecting my request! I won't take slip ups personally. You are welcome to ping me on my talk page wheb you wanna check in about the closed ANI. Also, let's get into the content of that page later, as it stands now it is "a good start" - basically the text matches and summarizes the sources well... but clearly not much else. We can collaborate on how to get it in agreement with the ArbCom decision once the stupid flare I sent out with the ANI dies down. Again, apologies for my defensiveness. I'll ping ya in the article talk page in a couple days or so, if that's alright? Carlp941 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on your talk page, because you were the one that pinged me. The general point I was making was that the level of sarcasm and fingerpointing and to-the-editor commentary from both sides (and still continuing in your reponse above) is sufficient that, in a CTOP area, it might trigger sanctions at some point, even if you are technically in the right. It's wise to be aware of WP:CIVILPOV and WP:POVRAILROAD. There are topics in which various parties with a PoV to advance will game-play over a long period of time and trigger more neutral-minded opposition into blowing their stacks, whereupon those editors get T-banned or blocked or whatever, and the PoV-pushers end up with freer rein. Not a good outcome. You are correct, though, that I have not studied the background of this dispute in any great detail; maybe there is such PoV-pushing happening here, maybe not; maybe you've been poked to the brink of explosion, maybe not. Since the thread was already closed at ANI, I wasn't going to dig into it, and my only purpose here was to recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach, to avoid an eventual hammering from community or administrative directions. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
talk about not getting it and doubling down on not getting it even more
@SMcCandlish: The only thing I was exploding with at ANI was the urge to ROFL.
more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach?? Say what? You are aware, are you not, that the entire thing was retracted, including the strange idea that I was somehow upset?
It's wise to be aware of WP:CIVILPOV and WP:POVRAILROAD.: Sure...I spent several hours attempting to discuss with someone (not he OP) who was stonewalling.
sarcasm and fingerpointing: above. Do tell. In this thread? I am telling you that you completely misunderstood something, and that you did so is a fact.
I wasn't going to dig into it: That would have been completely fine. I certainly didn't ping you for your grasp of Lithuanian history. I was looking for confirmation that Lithuania falls under Antisemitism in Poland and its referencing requirements.
I honestly don't see any factual basis for your opinion of the ANI thread where I pinged you. But since you have expressed the opinion that that thread, repudiated in its entirety by its OP, is cause enough to lecture me on civility, allow me to repeat that I for one think it is important to maintain a grasp of the facts in Wikipedia discussions.
I am sorry if it strikes you as uncivil that I think that verifiability applies to you and your conduct at noticeboards just like anyone else's. It is simply a fact that you were happy to point fingers yourself on the basis of statements that you apparently did not verify since they were untrue.
I wouldn't even bother trying to explain this to you if you hadn't done exactly that all over again here.
Dig into something or don't, but don't make remarks about others unless you are sure of your facts.
Seems pretty basic to me. I tried to be polite about it, but really, you were way out of line. Elinruby (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping people to discussions if you're unwilling to listen to anything they say. I have accused you of nothing whatsoever; I have simply advised (to you and everyone else involved in the subject) to use a calmer approach in CTOP areas. There is nothing unusual, condemining, or off-base about such advice, which is probably the same that anyone would give. For whatever reason, you seem to have interpreted every word of this as some kind of attack on your person, but it is not one. I have no idea why you've had this reaction, and I have no control over it, so I'm simply going to disengage. I'm quite unhappy that you made blatantly false accusations at AE like "SMcCandlish has been assuming bad faith at my user page." I have done absolutely nothing of the source, and you should strike that nonsense. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor introduction, and maybe some language help, too[edit]
Hi, Elinruby. I recently have had occasion to interact with editor Blindlynx at a completely unrelated topic, and they appear to have some really interesting background and interests in E. European subjects, including such topics as Maidan Revolution, for example. Blindlynx appears to be a really good editor, and on top of that, is a native speaker of Ukrainian. Elinruby, meet Blindlynx. Blindlynx, meet Elinruby. You guys will have plenty to talk about, I'm sure! Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!, thanks for the introduction! I'd be happy to help with language questions, though ironically I've been busy with translation so haven't been editing as much the last few weeks. What areas have you had uki language questions in? —blindlynx 15:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually source verification. Most recently Revolution of Dignity, because when they had it on the front page (on this day) they said the shooters were unknown. But it was in the article and even in the lede. Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cool! let me know —blindlynx 20:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just bumping this thread as a reminder, because I think there will be synergy here. Just a reminder; no need to respond if there's nothing active now. Mathglot (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Currently trying to get done with Feudal land use in Algiers before somebody picks that article.for its review. I agree that this sounds interesting. Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Per WP:MENTION, pings do not work if the edit alters "[..] any text outside your own comment". It needs to be a new comment entirely.
Thought you might like to know. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85: Yes, that is quite pertinent, thank you. I thought that it was the signature that fired the template? Troutman thanked me so I guess he must have been subscribed, then, but since I can't type to save my soul, this will no doubt arise again. Thank you. And thanks also for your other pertinent comments in that thread. 20:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85:Elinruby (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the documentation is misleading (as in, maybe altering doesn't include deleting lines?). Also supposedly successful mentions show somewhere? (WP:MENTION#Successful_mentions).
Honestly none of this is something I can even check as an IP (we don't get notified). So, sorry if it was wrong, I thought that was how it worked.
I'd like to test but there is half-finished work in the main sandbox, gimme a sec. I will post here once I move it. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's harder to test than I thought. I'm pretty sure it needs to be under a section, and to replicate what you did I would have to make the system not recognize my signature as moved (yours wasn't) - but I think my signature is too big for that. Sorry. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to be away for another hour, but the test ping I did was <this one> (at WT:Sandbox, I mispoke), which seems to have been a "deleted line added line" edit, like yours.
I'm slightly confused about what this tells us. The link works but I was not notified. Does that tell us anything? Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are looking at a log? If it would provide information I guess I could ping Mathglot or vice versa but I would like to have his opinion of that first. Take your time, I need to get to something else also. Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you weren't pinged then the documentation is correct. It doesn't ping when you alter any existing text (which includes deleting other text).
Yeah, it hit its six months. I think this is something a confused NPPer did at one point but I wanted to see what it was. I can stick it in a sandbox if it's in your way somehow.Elinruby (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey while I have your attention I found an extensive open-access discussion of land tenure and OUP and put the link in the Agriculture section of the talk page Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dragut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bonifacio.