User talk:Szmenderowiecki/Archive 2021

Wikileaks RfC

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

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

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

CNN not calling the lab origin a conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

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

@Piotrus: Thank you for the information.

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

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

BLPN/ANI review

Long, so collapsible.

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on difficult TAs

The key to "surviving" in difficult TAs is keeping your calm. If it means taking a break, take it. If it means reviewing your comments with fresh eyes, do it. There's a delicate balance to what we can and cannot say, and you should always keep at the back of your mind the consideration of how the community might read your words in the future - especially when dealing with difficult editors. Most editors are fine, and their objections eventually serve to hone the text; but problematic editors... they are who they are, and there's little that you or anyone else can, or should do to change them. You can employ a variety of strategies for dealing with them, but at end all you can really do is hope that at some point in the future they'll have a reckoning with the community, and make sure that you haven't worn out by then. François Robere (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Warsaw concentration camp

See wp:brd and WP:ONUS, if you are reverted you are supposed to make a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven The issues that did appear were related to multiple sfn problems due to doubling citation, and there were doubling coordinates, which I haven't noticed, either; these are now fixed. The Blogspot link leads to a photo I verified, so even though putting such a link did trigger an automatic warning, that's nothing to worry about.

As far as I am aware, BRD and ONUS refer to factual content and disputes, not technical problems, which was exactly the reason you reverted. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

BRD and ONUS refer to adding anything, as I said there was far to much wrong to discuss in an edit summary, broken cites, red links, too long a lede, and more. Take this to the article talk page, and make a case as to why all of this is an improvement.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Query

I know this is embarrassing but can please explain what do you mean by "there's no need to restate the table."? ThanksRatnahastin (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, sure. The question here was that the sources you substituted Jewish Virtual Library with did not say that throughout much of 19th and 20th century, Jews were #2 in Odessa. But that could be more or less deduced from the table in the section, where you have a national composition of folks in there. Both sources, however, said that Odessa was #2 in terms of quantity of Jews in the Russian Empire after Warsaw (one of the two sources mentioned it in the context where Odessa overtook Berdychiv), so I proposed to substitute the sentence which failed verification with the one that would pass it, and consider the DYK business done, with the nomination (finally) being approved.* * - To be honest, it was among the longest DYK reviews, but we had to make it conform to the basic standards if we wanted the hook to pass. It's not normally as long-winded. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding Rolling Stone Close

Hi! Thank you for the detailed close. Just one question: I think that the discussion was whether Rolling Stone was unreliable from 2011-Present (i.e. starting in 2011 and continuing through today); I'm wondering if you'd be willing to modify the close to explicitly state that, since "post-2011" would exclude 2011 itself.

Many thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll make it clear. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Polexit: political positions

That was a useful edit to Polexit. What is missing now is any pro-EU political positions. It can be inferred from Tusk's remarks but would you be able to add some info about Civic Platform? Are there others that have parliamentary representation? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

In general only the right-wing or far-right parties speculate about Polexit. I couldn't find sources for other parties in parliament, but since they are pro-EU, they are extremely unlikely to support any form of Polexit. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, see the article if your suggestions have been addressed. I think there's no reason to write anything more about other parties, other that they do not support Polexit as such. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. What I had in mind was to list the parties with parliamentary representation that actively oppose Polexit because right now the article only presents the eurosceptic view and could lead to a misapprehension that all significant parties support the PiS position. I can't do it because I know nothing about Poland.

I guess it would be OR but here in the UK we don't have a formal constitution so the government can do pretty much as it likes (the 2016 referendum was legally only 'consultative') so I am interested in how other countries deal with the constitutional issues of EU membership. I know that Ireland, which is next door, has to have a referendum on each Treaty to add a clause to the constitution to authorise ratification - and that specifically dealt with the issue of primacy of EU law. Did Poland not do the same thing? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, I think there is no need to specify which parties actively oppose Polexit, which is in fact all parties but the ruling coalition and Konfederacja, by virtue of being pro-European. There is no party in Poland having no opinion on EU whatsoever.

As for the constitutional process in Poland: there is a written constitution of Poland (see here for the authoritative translation), but unlike in Ireland, there is no requirement for each Treaty to be subject to referendum. The requirement only concerns any amendments related to sections I, II and XII of the Constitution, which the EU treaties do not change (in fact, the constitution has not been changed at all since its adoption). However, there was a referendum in 2003 called by the Sejm, in which almost 78% agreed to join the EU (that was the only referendum concerning EU at all).

As for the primacy of EU law, it theoretically depends. If the Article 8 is interpreted literally (as some seem to do, including the Constitutional Tribunal and the govt), there's no way to avoid a referendum. If it's not and the international treaties take precedence, then theoretically you don't really need it and you write the clause to the "sources of law" section and a 2/3 votes is enough. However, a) I can't imagine the Sejm having the 2/3 supermajority to adopt it and b) the MPs will most probably refer it to the referendum anyway. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears it up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Re Enclaves

I saw you pinged him, Wikieditor was tbanned from IP area, in large part due to his behavior at the enclaves article.Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't known that, thanks for the info. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: modifying comments

As another tool in your toolbox, know that you can use little comments to note your changes in addition to, or instead of strikethorugh and underline. François Robere (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC) (Clarified alternatives 09:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC))

Haaretz RfC

Since this relates to Wikipedia as a source, it should probably be listed under the Media, the arts, and architecture category. Mind if I add it? François Robere (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for the message you left at the review. I'd never done a DYK nomination before, but I wanted to get my fellow WP:Med member's work recognised properly, so I nominated this article, and I came up with what I thought was a great hook. I never imagined the hostility that would ensue. It's really discouraging, and I don't think I want to be involved in this anymore. So I probably won't be replying to your message on the thread. But I didn't want to not thank you for pointing out how wasteful this is. I personally find it really sad when something ends up being a low-quality version of what it should have been :( Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DrVogel: the problem is not hostility - all editors in the review are well-meaning, make no mistake - but that IMHO some have stuck to the rules of DYK too tightly. That is not to say that we can make original research in the hook, so it's not as if the hooks may take whatever form you wish, but I am also saddened that some creativity was sacrificed for strict adherence to guidelines, which aren't supposed to be (To be clear, you're not alone, because while the original proposal for a Raytheon 704 computer hook was gorgeous, the version seen by the general public much less so).

Please don't be discouraged and try another nomination - DYK is in fact one of the quickest ways and probably best ways to have your work recognised at an initial stage, you were just a little out of luck with the reviewers, which happens. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for replying. I was really surprised with the experience, but perhaps this is due to my relatively little experience on Wikipedia. For example, striking somebody else's text comes across to me as a really aggressive thing to do. I would never strike anybody else's text, out of respect. But perhaps that's not aggressive, and I'm completely wrong about that. Also I wasn't looking for recognition for myself, I was looking for recognition for the guy who wrote the article - not me! Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Striking hooks that are no longer under consideration is standard procedure in DYK reviews, so that we know which of the hooks are still in play. But that's an exception - normally comments are not struck out, and there are specific guidelines as to when it is permissible (spoiler - in normal circumstances that should only happen rarely and in most cases you are doing that, see WP:TPO for details).

You will be credited anyway as nominator when the hook (in whatever form) appears, but I appreciate the altruism. Keep going. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI discussion

Hey Szmenderowiecki,

I suggest pinging the user you mentioned there. I'm not sure it's required outside the OP's initial message, but it's good practice and will save both of you some grief. Cheers! François Robere (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Szmenderowiecki,

You said What's saddest in all this discussion... Without extending the prose on that page, what did you mean by that last part? Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean that the editors objected to the content that no one intended to cite to the source anyway. So all these digressions about the conjectures concerning the existence of a supposed clique of Polish nationalist editors, about the fact that Icewhiz is banned, about the alleged conspiracy against the editors wanting to purge Wikipedia of whatever remains of Icewhiz, is all actually totally irrelevant and is only, in my humble opinion, a big red herring. What we were to discuss is whether should we cite a fragment saying about the hoax (or however else you'd like to call it) to Haaretz and whether the editors have any business editing the article mentioning them; instead, we are discussing Icewhiz's sins and his opinions no one intended to mention in the article anyway. They simply happen to be in the article a lot of people disagree with, partially because they disagree with his hypotheses and partially because Icewhiz seems to be their archnemesis. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think a small part of it is denegrating the source to show that it's not reliable. The rest of it is as you said, is even more totally irrelevant. Well anyway I respect your opinion on the matter (normally that's some selfless thing you say to someone who disagree with you (I don't) but oh well), happy editing. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A note

Hey Szmenderowiecki. You and I got got off to a bad start, but since then I've seen you around and I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate the work that you do. Happy editing! JBchrch talk 19:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Hi Szmenderowiecki,

I just wanted to discuss the applicability of WP:SNOWBALL to the move requests at Wrocław, Kraków, and Łódź. WP:SNOWBALL states that The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. Given that the requests were only open for two days and that there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement, I believe that the decision to close the discussion is very premature.

Furthermore, in closing the discussion, how did you consider the strength of the arguments as per WP:DISCARD? I ask this because many of the comments either didn't cite policy or source reasons for their opposition despite both of those being used to support a move.

Thank you. --Spekkios (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually came here to ask the same thing, though with a particular focus on the Lodz discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, move discussions do not for some reason cite the rationales for the closure result and simply state it. I will explain them, of course, since you say that the closure is not yet appropriate.

First, I see the same users participating across all discussions, therefore I equated the date of starting to the earliest RM discussion, which was the Kraków case from 3 December. One would say that four days is not enough to be closing the discussion, but I doubt this is the case in the present situation, as the main requirement for the editor is to assess whether there were enough voices heard for the closer to reach the verdict, and I believe it to be the case in each of the discussions I have closed

Despite the fact that any WP discussion is not a vote, I could not have negated the fact that the Wrocław case was 11-1 opposing the change, 14-2 in Kraków case and 10-3 in case of Łódź.

Regardless of the reasons why diacritics are being left out in some sources but not others, which may be related to the fact that a standard English keyboard does not contain them so people don't make a fuss about including them, there are some Wikipedia rules that also guide the process of naming of articles.

Per MOS:DIACRITICS: Proper names in languages which use the Latin alphabet can include characters with diacritics, ligatures, and others that are not commonly used in present-day English. Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters. The best approximation I have seen is the ngram viewer, which actually gives a slight edge for Wrocław and Kraków and a slight edge for Lodz, but none of them are convincing enough to say "this is an obviously prevalent version", just some prevalence, with good evidence that the diacritic version will be used more in the future.

The only piece of evidence that was advanced was usage in selected news publications, but I found evidence that the sources were being used selectively. For instance, WP:DGUIDE contained the usage in encyclopedias and dictionaries for Łódź/Lodz (most sources use "Łódź"), and the same goes for Wrocław and Kraków (most use the Polish spelling). The scholarship as available on Google Scholar uses Wrocław but Krakow and Lodz (and yes, this does not happen because people consciously decide to omit the diacritics but because they are too lazy to include them/it is too difficult for them to do that, which should not count as a reason to exclude it). More importantly, the articles already had the diacritics for almost 20 years before you decided to challenge the current name, so there was a great deal of presumed consensus for the name, which simply appeared in the discussion.

The München-Munich example does not apply because the names are distinct when you remove the umlauts; the closest RM request to that situation would be a move request from Kraków to Cracow, but that's not what was requested. As was said, the people tend not to use the diacritic version because that is troublesome for some to find the proper key and faster for others. It was not because the editors-in-chief of the cited outlets decided that we should use the non-diacritic name as more established (as is the case in Munich, Nuremberg, Vienna, Cologne, Warsaw, Moscow, Lisbon etc., where the names are traditionally retained). Finally, there is a list of reasons why to use diacritics, and you failed to show why these should not apply. The diacritics are not problematic for us but their removal would be for the readers. [lɔd͡z] is different from [wud͡ʑ], and certainly no one in English pronounces Łódź (the second version) as Lodz (the first one), even if it is difficult to do that correctly for non-Polish speakers. The same goes for Wrocław, and for Kraków, it is either pronounced Kraków or Cracow, but not Krakow (at least not in English).

In short, exporting laziness of some news outlets to care about diacritics that they don't readily have on a keyboard (see NYT with their Accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. [...] Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example), which are less familiar to most American writers, editors and readers; such marks would be prone to error, and type fonts often lack characters necessary for consistency), to Wikipedia, being a global project written not only by people in the UK, US or other English-speaking countries, and where we don't have problems with type fonts, is certainly not a way to go. Instead of fighting the war on diacritics from your own sofa, I'd propose to do something else, something which is probably more productive.

You may of course challenge it by appealing to move reviews, but, in my opinion, the non-diacritic name does not bring any benefit that a name change would bring in the first place, and has several issues as outlined above. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

To focus on the Lodz discussion, I feel that what you have presented here as your rationale for closing as "not moved" is problematic, because you go beyond the arguments presented in the move, and as closer you are only supposed to judge the arguments presented, and not insert your own (per WP:CLOSING). The most significant example of this would be raising the essay WP:DGUIDE, which neither side mentioned in any of the discussions, and neither side based their support or opposition on.

Given this, I believe the most appropriate action would be to revert your close and instead present your own arguments in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I could see, the only passage that actually supports your point is this one: The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.

There are two takeaways from this passage: 1. I must know the policy before closing (or else I should have no business there), 2. I must use the adversarial (common-law), rather than the investigatory (civil law) system of judgment.

Even from the adversarial system (from which I decided the issue, what I got is: an overwhelming opposition by head count, COMMONNAME designation (disputed, as some editors pointed to sources opposing the view, or simply asserted that the name was in fact not common), DIACRITIC invocation (not helpful, because whether it was COMMONNAME in the first place was unclear), Filelakeshoe's argument against he presented in Wrocław (technical considerations not applicable to Wikipedia), which they also said would apply for Kraków, Poznań and (presumably) Łódź too (not disputed), an unnecessary dumbing-down argument (not disputed), OFFICIALNAME argument (properly debunked), proper spelling (pronunciation?, see NeonFor's comment in Kraków, not disputed), "Ł" being confused for £ or L (not disputed but not particularly relevant, either, as we are not inventing the alphabet). As such, I assessed the arguments as being against the will of those advocating for the move, based on those presented in the discussion.cccc

When I dug deeper, to even more properly justify my closure, I saw most of the arguments of the opposers confirmed and in particular the asserted COMMONNAME status of non-diacritics usage further in doubt (except for maybe Łódź, where my assessment hasn't changed much but other considerations from the discussions, which went largely along the same lines, came into play, such as the different pronunciation, lack of technical problems, and the head count, which, as the policy says, should not be the only factor but does influence the strength of the argument).

Tl;dr: I rest my case and I will not revert the closure unless told to do so by WP:MR folks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the explanation for closing the discussion, and while the reasons you cite may be applicable under a standard closure, I don't think they are applicable under WP:SNOWBALL. WP:SNOWBALL specifically notes that "likely" or "quite likely" outcomes do not automatically fall under WP:SNOWBALL and despite the likely or unlikely outcome of the RM it is based on sources and policy, and is not a random disruptive RM.

As for your points on closing, you are required to discard opinions as per WP:DETCON. Not all reasons for supporting or opposing an article move are equal. I second the request from BilledMammal to reopen the RM and let the discussion run it's course which would allow other users to comment and additional sources for support and opposition to be applied.

Finally, I take issue with your description of these RM's as "fighting a war on diacritics from your own sofa". That is a fairly bad-faith characterisation of my reasons for starting the RM's. --Spekkios (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Szmenderowiecki for a detailed explanation. Second, Spekkios and BilledMammal, I already commented that your constant hounding of users who oppose your arguments (i.e. most users) comes across as aggressive. You displayed it during the discussions, and now continue here. The close appears entirely appropriate. Regardless of whether one looks at the discussion quantitatively or qualitatively, the outcome is the same. The vast majority of users who took part opposed your preferred moves. More importantly, most of the substantial arguments also opposed your suggested moves. You failed to demonstrate that either of the names is the common name in English. What is more, there was considerable evidence presented that the Polish spellings are the preferred versions in English by reliable sources. In case you're not aware, if there is no consensus on a proposed move, the decision is not to move. In this case there was not only a no-consensus, but a rather clear consensus having been established against your suggestions. That you don't agree with that established consensus or fail to see the arguments is not a reason to keep the discussion going. Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't perceive any of these requests as hounding or harassing, as the closer may always be held accountable for his/her close and the challengers have a right to request all clarifications necessary, which I hope I have duly provided. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, and I don't believe for a moment either uses intends to be hounding (and less so harassing). I already pointed out to them that their tendency to comment on virtually each and every comment that stated the opposite to what they wanted, and more than once commenting on their perceptions of the quality of other users' comment may come across as a bit aggressive. I don't assume any bad faith on their part, just engagement in the topic. If they want to achieve results, a more hands-off approach after starting a discussion usually works better. Jeppiz (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz, I have already addressed this elsewhere, but this is not hounding. I am fully entitled to offer a rebuttal to the point raised by a user during a move request. It is also perfectly normal to request clarification of the reasoning behind the closure of a RM when none is provided, especially when that closure occurs before the standard 7 days. This conversation between Szmenderowiecki and myself has been completely civil and not aggressive in any way. If you have an issue with my conduct go through WP:RUCD. --Spekkios (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Spekkios, I think your motives are perfectly valid and I don't questions your intentions for a moment. I disagree with your proposals but I don't assume any negative intentions in them, far from it. Please take my comment as a friendly recommendation after more than a decade on WP. If you want to achieve results, it almost always pays off better to sit back after you have launched a discussion, or to make only a few comments, rather than to jump in all the time. And for the record, I tend to behave exactly like you, and I've been told many times what I'm telling you. There is no bad intention on my part either. Jeppiz (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jeppiz, and I apologize for misinterpreting your comments. I'll take your advice into consideration. --Spekkios (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As for the final remark: take it easy, just too much of watching CNNNN, which I personally find hilarious. No offence meant. I have no problem with asking someone to do something by itself, unless that's total WP:BOLLOCKS, which it wasn't.

As for WP:SNOWBALL: The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. I believed it proper to stop wasting other editors' time on what I saw was a foregone conclusion, based on the overwhelming opposition of the commenters. I have pointed out above which arguments I found persuasive and which were not exactly so or were properly debunked. In short, if you don't want to read the above piece, a host of other considerations were advanced, few of which have been addressed at that point but could have been, based on timestamps of the editors supporting the move, while the OPs stuck with COMMONNAME argument, which itself was on pretty shaky ground. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Szmenderowiecki: no offense taken. I think we have established that we disagree on if the early closure was warranted or not. I'll take some time to consider if I'll take up a move review request, and if I do I'll let you know as per policy. If I don't though, thank you for your time and your detailed explanation. I've enjoyed reading your responses, as I find them quite detailed and well-written. --Spekkios (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Another thing I wanted to mention: there were five discussions about moving the titles to non-diacritical ones, and the ones I have not closed are related to Poznań and Zürich. While I would apply the same considerations to both, the first did not have enough feedback yet for me to SNOW-close it, while the other was much more nuanced, with even Swiss authorities weighing in in favour of the non-diacritic version of the city, which introduces some nuance and definitely does not allow for a speedy closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I saw this close back in December and found it quite reasonable. Now I recently see another good close by you (RSN discussion on CounterPunch). Two makes a pattern. Keep up the good work.VR _talk 05:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Duplessis

Huge thanks for your translation work on Maurice Duplessis ! I worked on the french version of the article. Hamza.Tabaichount (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, you may want to join the translation effort, too. The article is huge, and I've only got so much time. If you also have any of the books mentioned in the sources in your library, that'd be great. It's hard to find them in Poland :) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your incisive comment. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

technical note

You mention a certain User:DreamCatcher25 but such an editor does not exit. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Le Touquet weatherbox at templates for discussion

Template:Le Touquet weatherbox has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Warsaw Concentration Camp and Haaretz article

Hi! It takes some time before I could respond after you mentioned me in your comment about Warsaw Concentration Camp and Haaretz article. However, I’d rather not to participate in this discussion. Firstly, I don’t have a strong opinion on that matter – while I am rather against “Wikipedia articles focusing about what was written about these articles in other sources” I find difficult to identify the Wikipedia rules that clearly forbid mention the story from Haaretz. Secondly, I fully agree with you that it is mind-boggling that such a small footnote caused such controversy. Finally, this whole discussion is clearly fueled by the severe personal conflict, and I don’t want to be the part of it. Having said that… If I can be of any help regarding the Warsaw Concentration Camp or other Holocaust-related articles, I mean their substance, the sources etc., you can always approach me. Last but not least, let me congratulate you the brilliant expansion of the article Warsaw Concentration Camp. I hope that I find some time in 2022 to use some of the new sources you found (if you be so kind to share some of them, if needed), and use them to expand the article on pl.wiki. Cheers!Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I get it, thank you for the encouragement and I hope I will translate more Polish articles you've created to English - they are indeed very well-written.

PS. I hate to say it, but I personally have very few history books - most sources that are available are either on the internet or in trusted shadow libraries. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Translation question

Hi, I was wondering if you could help with a Polish translation; I think Google translate is misleading me. I'm looking at this Tygodnik Nasza Polska article, which (tell me if I'm misreading) appears to be an editorial written by the publisher of TNP, and I'm reading things like "Żydzi roznosili tyfus, spekulanci wykupywali towar ze sklepów, antyszczepionkowcy zabierają miejsca w szpitalach itd. Zresztą wszystkie te grupy mają dużo więcej na „sumieniu”. Ale jedno ich łączy. Są wrogiem społeczeństwa i trzeba ich wyplenić." (Gtranslate: "Jews spread typhus, speculators bought goods from shops, anti-vaccines took places in hospitals, etc. Anyway, all these groups have much more on their "conscience". But they have one thing in common. They are the enemy of society and must be eradicated.") and "Trzeba też pokazać rozwiązanie: eksterminację Żydów, skazanie spekulantów, ograniczenie wolności dla antyszczepionkwców lub ich przymusowe wyszczepienie." (Gtranslate: "A solution must also be shown: the extermination of the Jews, the condemnation of the speculators, the restriction of freedom for anti-vaccinees or their forcible vaccinations.").

Here is my question: I can't figure out if the author is, in his own voice, advocating that Jews be exterminated, or if the author is drawing a parallel between people who say "Jews must be exterminated" and people who want to mandate vaccines or restrict the freedoms of anti-vaxxers? I can't figure out if this is like neonazi propaganda, or anti-vax propaganda, or not propaganda at all and I'm just totally misreading it? Thanks for any insight you can provide. Levivich 17:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The Google translations are largely correct, but the author definitely does not advocate extermination of Jews. The fragment that should have suggested that to you is: Kolejną metodą jest tworzenie uprzedzeń, które łatwo wygenerować i upowszechnić poprzez częsty kontakt z zestawieniami pojęć z prostymi komunikatami: „muzułmanin – terrorysta”, „Żyd – tyfus”, „antyszczepionkowiec – epidemia, śmierć”. ("Another method [of dividing the society] is the generation of prejudices that are easy to create and spread via frequent contact with juxtaposed terms that have an easy-to-decipher message: 'Muslim - terrorist', 'Jew - typhus', 'anti-vaxxer - epidemic, death'"). From these words I think you should have inferred that he does not consider any of these parallels to be right.

In other words - the second option is right - Mr. Kwiatkowski is drawing the parallel to argue against lockdowns, restrictions against the unvaccinated and vaccine mandates (as you can actually see from the last three paragraphs). Nothing I could read from the text as anti-Semitic, it's just plain anti-vax bullshit. PS. It does invoke Auschwitz, but only to argue that quarantine facilities are the modern iteration of Nazi concentration camps and that "no one yet shoots at the unvaccinated on the streets". Thankfully Kwiatkowski hasn't gone this way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Levivich 20:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)