This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bigeez. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Doundoulakis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arc (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.)
Hello, Bigeez. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Just noting that I've reverted this edit on Talk:World War II. I'm not sure why you're re-opening 2 sections that were closed in April, but if you wish to make a new edit request, please start a new section, detailing your proposed edits and providing any necessary sources. NiciVampireHeart13:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul Siebert (talk), and Nick-D (talk),
I had always thought that the topic of collaboration would be wretchedly difficult to pen, knowing the complexity of it all. The prior dressing-down we witnessed from some only confirmed my expectations. Since I found my metier in library science, and as any good archivist/librarian can attest, knowledge and reference are key. At my fingertips, or at least at arms reach, I have immeasurable access to the finest libraries around the globe. It was only necessary to find a few of the good ones, abstaining from reading anything too lengthy. I left out the Holocaust website, though, not from any lack of content, truthfulness or accuracy, but from a few one-sided, rough-around-the-edges and partial participants errantly taking issue with its impartiality. Better not to rock the boat. I would try my hand here, practising, prior to placing it formally on the Talk:World War II page, considering the past mistrust. Nonetheless, I thank you both for your guidance and faith in completing the task. I believe it was more than I had bargained for, yet, in the long run, I believe readers would be the better for it. I know you both have said keep it short as possible. However, I wished for it to be quite clear from the get-go. I know the whittling-down of the article will come at your discretion since you both alone have the privilege to do so. Please direct me toward what needs to be removed, revamped, re-edited, rewritten, added or deleted. We haven’t finished yet. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The collaboration material is obviously too long for the World War II article, but might be useful as a separate article - is that the intent here? Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D, I wished for you and Paul Paul Siebert (talk) to see what's necessary for the World War II site. If you wished it to be included in Collaboration with the Axis Powers then so be it. I was hoping for both of you to see it prior to posting it on Talk:World War II since there is no need to set anyone's teeth on edge, ... along with any ritual humiliation. I believe it's important. However, edit it in any way you and Paul Siebert (talk) see fit; or instruct me, and I'll resubmit with edits. Cheers, God save the Queen, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Interstellarity (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Please do not clutter this page with revised text: use sandbox pages. You discussed the shooting on Wikipedia with Interstellarity and PamD. Why did you feel it necessary to use email to talk to me?
Regarding the reason I deleted: copyvio and release under a freedom of information request are two very different things. You give no evidence that the copyvio source is available under a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or compatible licence.
As to the article, I agree with PamD that the subject is of dubious notability. PamD tried four different titles - I will suggest another: dismissal of Robert Rialmo! The article seems to be far more about that aspect than about the shooting itself. Also the article is probably four times longer than the subject justifies.
Hello Roger --RHaworth (talk), I hope you don't feel this reply impertinent in any way, but I was referred to your site by Interstellarity (talk), and hence, on your site, recommended three methods of contacting you, one of which is by email. Since I am fairly new to Wikipedia, I didn't wish for the "ritual humiliation" by more advanced users, and thought perhaps, you might steer me in the proper direction. Below is Interstellarity's repsonse to me, which I thought very cogent and proper:
@Bigeez: The best person to contact regarding this matter is the deleting administrator who is RHaworth. You can contact him on his talk page and he will be able to help you. Interstellarity (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Roger, I wrote to you and said I received a response from the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, and the response was what I had written: it is FOIA all the time and I will forward to your email:
This document is posted publicly to our website – no special permission is needed to review or access it.
Thank you, Roger, what a wonderful suggestion; I am in your debt. Why I did not think of this earlier is beyond me! If I may, I will open another article under "The dismissal of Robert Rialmo."
Roger, forgive me for all the confusion. Of course, I will quote it, shorten it, etc., ... but this is part of a learning curve for me. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Why are you repeating the sentence containing "no special permission" to me? Do you really think that that sentence can be interpreted as permission to publish the text under a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or compatible licence? Please reply. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 12:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Roger --RHaworth (talk), I am only hoping to quote the source correctly, with proper references and quotations, in the subsequent article, the "Dismissal of Robert Rialmo" that you quite cogently recommended. Thank you tremendously. I thought to show you that the FOIA for the case is out there, nothing more. I did not originally quote it correctly, so that's corrected. Is this the response you seek? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Roger --RHaworth (talk), acknowledged, and to quote it even though it is FOIA available to anyone in the US and not repeat verbatim unless quoted. Guidelines are different in UK for public domain from Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, as in those guidelines. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, Bigeez! Thanks for your comments on the talk page of the Laquan McDonald article. Here are few tips for you. (1) On an article talk page, when addressing another editor, you can used the {{User}} template -- or, alternatively, the {{Reply to}} template -- instead of copying and pasting their signature. That's considered preferable from a style standpoint, and either template has the added benefit of notifying the user. (2) The four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) are just for signing your talk page posts. I can see you're already using them that way, but my point is that you can leave them out of your edit summaries. (3) There's a bunch of good information at Wikipedia:Tutorial. If you have some time, and you haven't already done so, you can read through that. (4) If you want to reply to this message, you can do so here. That's optional, but you could practice using the "Reply to" template, which would send me a notification, assuming that you also sign your post during the same edit. — Mudwater (Talk)17:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello — Mudwater (Talk)! Merci beacoup! You are very kind to help me out. I have just looked through the Wikipedia Wikipedia:tutorial yet I'm still not sure when to use the signature with the four tildes (the #3 above), so that is why I just do it anyway, everywhere. If i don't need to sign on editing replies (the #3 avove), but then how will one know it is me who is editing? Do you mean the "Edit Summary" below, before I click "publish"? Also, I hope my use of the template is correct? It seems I cannot get these templates to work right, any way to correct what am I doing? See {{Mudwater}}{{Reply to}}? I used the talk-back template once or twice before, but could not get accustomed to it, and seemed too imposing, so I never used it again. But, oh no ... mia culpa about copying other editors' signatures. I hope I didn't offend anyone by copying their signatures! This is all very new to me, and so much to remember (I am in your debt for withholding the ritual humiliation by other advanced editors ;))! Regarding the talk page on L.M., for me it all started with contesting its title. You see, I believe titles are everything, and I thought the "Murder" title of L.M. a little repugnant and anomalous. Others are quite satisfied with it; not much I can do about that. But, I keep reminding myself of PM Churchill saying "Logic always trumps consensus." On the appeasement of Czechoslovakia, he was right. I began collecting and analysing information last year regarding the shooting of Quintonio LeGrier and Bettie Jones. This is another contentious article, but quite big in Chicago and worldwide as well, and fatefully linked to the "Murder of L.M." I didn't want to seem patronisingly harsh to other article editors, yet when I saw that my article linked to "Murder of L.M.," instead of "Shooting of L.M.... ," I became curious as to why the change and requested another discussion. In fact, another Wiki administrator thought my title "Shooting of Robert Rialmo" would be better rewritten as the "Dismissal of Robert Rialmo." Ca ne fait rien. With best personal regards, cheers, Eli ;) Bigeez (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The four tildes should be used to sign your posts on talk pages -- either article talk pages or user talk pages. You're already doing that, so please keep doing it. But, yes, by "edit summary" I do mean the Edit Summary box you see when editing, above the Publish Changes button. You can see edit summaries in various places, like the History page of each article, or your watch list. Those don't need the tildes. As far as the templates, each template's page describes how to use it. See for example Template:User. As that page explains, if you wanted to mention me, and cause me to get a notification, you would type in this (without the "code" or "nowiki" tags): {{User|Mudwater}} I hope this helps. — Mudwater (Talk)21:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
Hello, I'm Bacondrum. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Comments like these: "your argument rests on user Adoring nanny, who is unable to express the adjudication of T. Martin/George Z. Perhaps one should rethink the logic." are uncivil and make it hard to work collaboratively and assume good faith. Please focus on content not other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Bacondrum: that is my point entirely. Thank you for responding in apropos Wiki etiquette and not in utilising terms like "weaseley" which would reflect rather unkind such. Stick to content: do not use personal slang terms to attack others, which is uncivil. I offered you and others concrete numbers and references, which I supplied, yet you deleted. Perhaps that is why you deleted it: they were concrete references? Remember, for this reason talk pages exist. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I deleted your comments because they were uncivil, feel free to reinstate figures and references, but not the snide comments. Look it's up to you, but if you keep up the snide comments and pompous declarations you won't get far. Bacondrum (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Bacondrum: thank you for your response. Forgive me if you felt my comments were impertinent in any way, yet you agreed with another user's premise "as per," meaning you agree with the another user's logic. This is all silly to me; I won't waste anymore of our time on this subject, but that user confused me on how the Trial of George Zimmerman was adjudicated. If you agree with her perplexing reasoning on the adjudication of Trial of George Zimmerman, is it illogical that anyone would follow her lead and rubber-stamp her opinion elsewhere? I have never been accused of being uncivil, nor have I been barred anywhere, and certainly what I wrote is anything but uncivil. I do respect your opinion and your latest comments on the talk page; they are to-the-point, and not "as per" someone else. In other words, if I may, be your own master, and call your own tune. Respectfully, and cheers, (life is too short) Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Please move some of the information in the lead into a new section, such as Backgroumd, so the lead becomes a brief summary of the article itself
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello @FULBERT: Thank you for both pointing it out and your constructive comments. I know it is more readable and I appreciate your kind remarks. The lede is way better! Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bigeez, I noticed that you posted the new draft of the the C&R text (in the last few hours it got reverted by another user as being too lengthy). I agree with the two summaries as being well balanced, though I would recommend that the two texts are trimmed quite a bit to around 300 to 400 words, currently the texts have between 600 and 700 words. The WWII article is quite long already, however some of the statements in the draft texts are well suited for use in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers and Resistance during World War II articles, which actually lack good overviews.
Also, two minor factual corrections, "the Judenrat who served as the Jewish police" the Judenrat was a separate organization from the Jewish police, so the members of the Judenrat did not serve as policeman (two very separate and distinct roles). Also, "Events that sowed the seeds for deep resentment include: the dissolution of the Central Powers; the fall of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman Empires; the partitions of Poland; the emergence of multinational states; and communism." The reference to the "partitions of Poland" should perhaps be removed, the partitions happened in the 18th-century (1795 to be exact), and there really is no direct link to collaboration during WWII. --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, @E-960: Thank you! I will re-attempt it, whittling it down a bit, to 3-400 words, and good points about the above, you're right. Also, I thought I had a momentary lapse in consciousness ... one minute it was there and then poof! I thought I messed it up! Nick-D (talk), who has been very helpful, like Paul Siebert (talk), wrote that I should retry it, but first preface it with an explanation about what I am hoping to achieve here. Again, many thanks, will work on it! Cheers, stay safe, Eli Bigeez (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Hello, I'm Bacondrum. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Comments like these: "your argument rests on user Adoring nanny, who is unable to express the adjudication of T. Martin/George Z. Perhaps one should rethink the logic." are uncivil and make it hard to work collaboratively and assume good faith. Please focus on content not other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)