Suppcuzz
Welcome! edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, Yatzhek! I am LouriePieterse and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
LouriePieterse (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
"Whigger" and Poles edit
I'm sorry, I read the source you use, and it neither shows research or common usage. It's just one guy's essay, with no references to works that can verify it. It may be interesting to you, and I am sure it would be if it was more than just speculation, but its currency in the English language is low to nonexistent in common parlance, and as it stands it is not of encyclopedic interest for this article. Perhaps you can start an article on this topic and see where it leads you. Right now it's just no good in the list of ethnic slurs. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
RE: Well, I saw it on the internet many times when ppl used to call Poles that nasty way and this article somehow confirms the reality..
|
Hello and welcome Suppcuzz! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community. |
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Nationalism edit
Would you be so kind and leave your polish nationalism out of the Wikipedia! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.72.119 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
--Yatzhek (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Show me an example. You see, the one who is spreading nationalism accross the internet is you. People such as you can't understand that being a patriot doesn't mean being nationalist. Educate yourself, and then verify your antagonistic attitude toward Polish people. Racist.
Categories edit
Stop to remove a WP:SORTKEY now! And read WP:Overcategorization at last (you can start from reading what your compatriots know about it), not to argue with me about whether is it present or no. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you understand what is sort key? Or you possibly do not understand why may you not ruin it? And I explained you already: there should be no category: racism in anti-Polish sentiment! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Ethnic Poles - Aryans? edit
Please stop adding unsourced text into articles. I reverted the recent edit on Black people in Nazi Germany because Poles were not regarded as "racially non-Aryan" nor does the source given state that. 
Fixed
Ethnic Poles, like all Europeans were Aryan. Poles were put into the "Aryan side" of ghettos and the Ahnenpaß used Poles as an example of an Aryan.--Windows66 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are extremely wrong by saying that Poles were pure Aryan! The "ladder/pyramid of races" according the Nazi Germany looked like this, from the bottom to the top: Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Serbs, Blacks, Mulattos, Rusyns and other Slavic peoples (excluding for example some Ukrainians who formed UPA, and some of the Croats who formed Ustasi and were collaborating with the Germans on the same basis as Italians did. Sove Slavs were deemed to have some Germanic Goth blood in them). Sounth-Europeans were in the middle of the pyramid (excluding Italians who were facist collaborants). The Japanese people for example, despite being Asian, were seen as the "honorary Aryans", mostly for political reasons. Apart from that, racially, the Germanic nations were near the top of the "racial pyramid", and ethnic Germans were the top "master race". It's you, who is trying to change the historical facts and manipulate them. The fact was that POLES, as well as other European Slavic peoples WERE CALLED "SUBHUMAN" and POLISH PEOPLE WERE CONSIDERED "DIRTY MASSES FROM THE EAST" as Germans called them. What's more, Germans claimed that Poles are "half-Arian mutts" that's why they were put on the "Arian side" of the ghetto! Poles had always been way darker than Germans, but the young Polish children who happened to be blonde were "a good subject for Germanization" according to the Racial policy of Nazi Germany, but most of Poles were not to be exterminated completely, but rather enslaved. The very same situation as in case of Black Africans in the Nazi Germany. Read about it, and then talk about it. Yatzhek (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, you didn't need to create a new section on my talk page but could have just replied via your own talk page here on the section I created. You have it all wrong, all Europeans were regarded by the law as "racially equal". I think you are confusing "Aryan" with "master race", the Aryan race was all Europeans, the master race (Herrenvolk) was the Germanic peoples.
Poles were actually given as examples of 'Aryans' in the Ahnenpaß/Ahnenpass ("ancestors passport") when the Nuremberg Laws became enforced.
Aryan is thus the one man who looked free from, the German people, strange racial impact is blood. Deemed to be a stranger here, especially the blood of the living room and in the European settlement of Jews and Gypsies, the Asian and African breeds, and the aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), while, for example, a Swede or an Englishman, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or Italian, if he is free of such, even that is foreign blood strikes, when used, must therefore be considered severally liable, he may now live in his home, in East Asia or in America or he likes a U.S. citizen or a South American Free State be." German: "Arischer Abstammung ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volk ausgesehen, fremdrassischen Bluteinschlag ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraum lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z. B. ein Engländer oder ein Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat, in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der USA oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.
— Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus
The reason Poles were placed into the 'Aryan side' in the ghettos because they were "Aryan". In fact, Poles were separated from Jews for this exact reason, any Poles found giving help to Jews or having any sort of relations with them were given the death penalty. Can you please provide me a quote from a speech or document that called the Poles a "dirty masses from the east"? Nothing here is manipulating history or anything, in fact that is what many of the historians and authors have done with the Nazis policy on the Slavs, although some still speak the truth. All Europeans INCLUDING Slavs were 'Aryan':
Albert Gorter, a prominent minister official gave the definition of Aryan as: The Aryans (also Indo-Germans, Japhetiten) are one of the three branches of the Caucasian (white race);they are divided into the western (European), that is the German, Roman, Greek, Slav, Lett, Celt [and] Albanesen, and the eastern (Asiatic) Aryans, that is the Indian (Hindu) and Iranian (Persian, Afghan, Armenian, Georgian, Kurd). Non-Aryans are therefore: 1. the members of two other races, namely the Mongolian (yellow) and the Negroid (black) races; 2. the members of the two other branches of the Caucasian race, namely the Semites (Jews, Arabs) and Hamites (Berbers). The Finns and the Hungarians belong to the Mongoloid race; but it is hardly the intention of the law to treat them as non-Aryans. Thus . . . the non-Jewish members of the European Volk are Aryans. . . .
— The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution.
The Poles that were sent to be Germanized were not classified as ethnic Poles but ethnic Germans living in the eastern land, that is why they were kidnapped and forcefully Germanized, this a completely different thing altogether. Now its up to you to provide evidence that they were "non-Aryan" (as well as proving a speech or document that states they were "dirty masses from the east").--Windows66 (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Also please don't accuse me of "manipulating historical facts", this can be regarded as a WP:PA.--Windows66 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop littering my wall with tons of information which you don't understand. Why did you delete "ethnic Poles" as the ones who suffered as Blacks during the German regime, while you left "Gypsies/Romani" untouched? A little did you know, Gypsies were even more "Aryan" than Germans and Scandinavians! Haa! Surprised? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gypsies.html Hitler had a big problem with them, so he figured out a story, that Gypsies are in fact from the Aryan tribe, but are not pure enough and were expelled from India with disgrace on them, and that they deserve to die as a betraitors of Aryan blood. You totally consuse "White" with "Aryan" and you produce your own theories. Poles AT THE TIME, as almost all Slavs, were regarded as half-Aryan with the West-Asian admixture from the Caucasus, Iran and Afghanistan. "The masses from the East" is what Germans called all Slavic people generally, along with the Jews, Gypsies, Armenians etc. The reason why Poles were not destined to die at first, is that they were considered to have some good portion of Aryan blood but mixed with Asian/Indo-Iranian blood. Only Germans were "Aryans" in terms of GERMAN NAZI rules. I know Poles might have a great part of Aryan genes in them, but this is what science says. And the Nazi Germans said someting different and here is my point. DONT CONFUSE the SCIENTIFIC data with NAZI DOCTRINES! By the way - Why did you start the talk about the Poles as "Aryans", while the article is about Black people in Nazi Germany and ethnic Poles (which means non-Jewish Poles) were given as an example of being persecuted, but not perished completely as Jews? PS - did you know that millions of people died during the Shoa, while 6 milion were Jews, 2 million were ethnic Poles, over half-a-million were Romani (Gypsies), and the rest were other ethnicities? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Non-Jewish - How dare you discredit the Polish suffering during the Shoa by saying that Poles were treated as Aryans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims - Hope you read the whole of my message and educate yourself. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Yatzhek, Windows66 has removed referenced information from the Nazism article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Windows66 quotes author Artur Silgailis,[1] former chief of staff of the Latvian Waffen-SS: "... By inventing such posts Jewish writer performs a social order, fomenting bestial hatred of everything German, and encouraging physically destroy German women and children. ... the Slavic peoples, and, of course, the Russian people were officially recognized in the Reich racially related, fraternal ethnic groups. What is the meaning to destroy their brethren..." Seems like blatant anti-Semitism and revisionist history of the worst kind to me. Even so, it is still better to assume good faith. Discussion on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#Slavic_peoples, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#Poles -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@Yatzhek - what I have posted is genuine text from the Nazi documents themselves, if it goes against what you want to believe then tough luck. The reason I left the Gypsies is because them along with Jews were classified as "enemies of the state" because of their blood, unlike ethnic Poles. The Nuremberg Laws classified the Gypsies as "racial enemies", this was not the case with the Poles.
When you start putting in text like "Only Germans were "Aryans" in terms of GERMAN NAZI rules." then you show your own ignorance, 'Aryan' included more than just Germans but all Europeans, including the Poles. I have even showed you - Poles were placed into the 'Aryan side'.
We are not here to discuss the Holocaust, the number of victims nor the persecution of the Poles but rather that Poles Aryans (hence the section title), they were placed into the 'Aryan side', they were Aryans and the source given does not say Poles were "racially non-Aryan" - in fact, I've found no sources that state this hence why it will continue to be removed.
I am still waiting for you to provide me a document or speech from any Nazis saying Poles were "dirty masses from the east".
In your next reply do not bother ranting to me accusing me of complete nonsense but actually provide me some sources in stating what you say, so far you need to prove to me...
- Poles were "racially non-Aryan" - the source given does not state this.
- Poles were "dirty masses from the east".
- Only Germans were "Aryans" according to the Nazi ideology.
Go ahead...--Windows66 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Replying to me with stuff like:
"Please stop littering my wall with tons of information which you don't understand."
"PS - did you know that millions of people died during the Shoa, while 6 milion were Jews, 2 million were ethnic Poles, over half-a-million were Romani (Gypsies), and the rest were other ethnicities? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Non-Jewish - How dare you discredit the Polish suffering during the Shoa by saying that Poles were treated as Aryans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims - Hope you read the whole of my message and educate yourself. Thank you."
These are WP:PA - personal attacks is not tolerated on Wikipedia, I am educated and understand but you are choosing to ignore my evidence and are replying without any evidence.--Windows66 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You seem to not actually be willing to discuss the Poles Aryan and the evidence given which is why I am removing your edit of the article, for example the reasons why the ethnic Poles edit is getting removed:
"they were still considered an inferior race on a similar basis as ethnic Poles or Gypsies" - this is also incorrect, firstly no source is given and secondly the Nuremberg Laws defined the Jews, Gypsies and non-Europeans as the racial enemies based as "inferior races", ethnic Poles are not mentioned.
"Blacks were placed at the bottom of the racial scale of non-Aryans along with Jews, Poles, Serbs and Gypsies." - the source given The Holocaust: a reader. by Simone Gigliotti does not mention ethnic Poles as being "non-Aryan".
It's becoming close now to the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement.
Your next reply should include sources to the three things I have asked for you to provide and refrain from personally attacking me.--Windows66 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please, stop. Just stop. You are saying about Poles being "Aryan" all the time, while the article which started this sensless discussion Black people in Nazi Germany which mentioned the Poles and similar victims, is not about their Arianism, but about the Racial policy of Nazi Germany and the scale of the suffering. You replace THE SOURCED INFORMATION with some highly subjective information, also sourced, but only from one point of view - yours. My source about the "dirty masses from the East" is the book: "Revisiting the National Socialist Legacy: Coming to Terms With Forced Labor, Expropriation, Compensation, and Restitution", page 84 by Oliver Rathkolb. talk - you are hight problematic. And as i see, not only to me, but to manyway more experienced and trustworthy editors of Wikipedia. Yatzhek (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The reason I'm emphasizing about Poles being Aryan is because that is what I am removing from the article.
Revisiting the National Socialist Legacy: Coming to Terms With Forced Labor, Expropriation, Compensation, and Restitution by Oliver Rathkolb mentions no speech or document about Poles being "dirty masses from the east". This discussion does not need to go on any longer, as I can see there is no cooperation.--Windows66 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oliver Rathkolb, Revisiting the National Socialist Legacy: Coming to Terms With Forced Labor, Expropriation, Compensation, and Restitution, p.84 : "The European peoples to be conquered were hierarchically ranked into alien and Germanic races. Accordingly, there were plans to give Europe a new structure: In Western Europe a work sharing industrial society under German leadership, in the countries of the East, Southeast and later South the exploitation of raw materials and manpower. Being Slavs the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Serbs were only slightly above the Jews in the racial hierarchy. Their fate was to be enslavement or death. ... The realisation of these aims began immediately after German troops had entered Poland on September 1, 1939. ... Shortly afterwards, the deportation of civilian workforce - men and women - followed. At the same time, the Nazi-party and the Gestapo launched a campaign against so-called Slavic "Untermenschen" (subhumans) and "human beasts". This campaign even reached the farthest schools." -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I've heard all that before from so-called historians and authors, this does not give a speech or document calling Poles "dirty masses from the east". Which is what I asked for. All of that is refuted by Nazi documents anyways, the racial hierarchy placed Slavs equal to the Germans and the ancestors passport and official definition of 'Aryan' proves this. This is not what I asked for though but rather above the several things the user inserted without sources, such as the absurd "Only Germans were Aryans" nonsense.--Windows66 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Are completely out of your mind? Why are you saying this "Aryan, Aryan, Aryan" thing all the time? This was not the case and you push this topic all the way! I had enough! You deleted the information about ethnic Poles because you dont understand the article Black people in Nazi Germany - ethnic Poles were mention as people who suffered SIMILAR persecutions... or should I say - Blacks suffered similar persecutions to Poles. You are an anti-Polish pseron, hating on this nation, can't stand the fact that Poles were the victims and I think, if you had such power, you would delete all the articles about the Polish suffering and victims of the Would War II. The question is - why? Racism? Antipolonism? Yatzhek (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
HAHA I can't actually believe I am reading this. You see the edit you so badly want to be kept in the Black people in Nazi Germany is saying:
"they were still considered an inferior race on a similar basis as ethnic Poles or Gypsies, and were likewise described as untermenschen."
The reason ethnic Poles need to stay out of this is because its incorrect no statements by any Nazis can show that Poles were viewed as an "inferior race", in fact Poles were given the same racial status as Germans themselves. Blacks on the other hand were considered an inferior race and were mentioned as people of "alien blood" and were persecuted by the Nazis according to the race laws of 1935, this was not the case with ethnic Poles. The Ahnenpass mentions Poles as 'Aryans' for the race laws.
"Blacks were placed at the bottom of the racial scale of non-Aryans along with Jews, Poles, Serbs and Gypsies."
Since when??? This is why I keep trying to debate with you about the Poles being Aryan, since when were Poles non-Aryans? What ignorance, this is why it needs to stay out.
I'm an anti-Polish person and racist towards Poles because I refuse to want unconfirmed text into an article? I never have once denied that Poles suffered greatly under the Nazi occupation of Poland in any of my text. Had enough of what??? If you knew what you are wanting to be added into the article then you would sure as hell know why its being removed. There is lots of articles on Nazi persecution of Poles but that is not what this article is about and what you are wanting into the article is complete bs. Poles were not on the same racial level as blacks, they were on the same racial level as Germans.
The questions are why are you refusing to accept that it was not because of any "racial theory" that the Poles suffered by the Nazis? Why accuse me of being racist for simply removing text that is not genuine? Why are you refusing to accept Poles WERE Aryan?
You can even read stories of how Poles tried to help Jews by forging them Aryan papers and suffered the death penalty for this, you can read about how Jewish Poles faked themselves and lived on the Aryan side (Poles) in the ghettos.
You bang on why am I saying "Poles were Aryan" which is simple: you are wanting "non-Aryans along with Jews, Poles" in the article when this is NOT true. Get it yet? 
--Windows66 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems by this edit you are finally understanding the reverting reasoning of mine, the "non-Aryans along with Jews, Poles" was incorrect and is not even listed in the source given. Ok?
Problem with how it is now: Poles were not considered an inferior race like the Gypsies. I have changed the start to just mention Gypsies (since the mention of "race" is involved) with a source, see here.--Windows66 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
In the Holocaust article? Holocaust_victims#Poles and The_Holocaust#Non-Jewish do not mention anything of them being an "inferior race" or "non-Aryan".--Windows66 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Listen, why the hell do you stick to this "aryan" "non-Aryan" thing???? It drives me insane reading this for the whole time. I simply compared the type of persecution of Blacks to the type of persecution of Poles during the Nazi German rule, because it was basically the same. THE SAME. I did not compare their racial features, but the type of persecution. ========== but go ahead, write you own history. I am tired of sensless arguing with you.~PS - "thank" you for littering my wall, instead of talking about it on the Talk:Black people in Nazi Germany page. Yatzhek (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you think "Blacks were placed at the bottom of the racial scale of non-Aryans along with Jews, Poles, Serbs and Gypsies." was being refuted for? Hence the talk about Poles being Aryans. You whining on saying they were regarded as half-Aryans and so on is not backed up by any evidence.--Windows66 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
According to your post here you would not edit the Black people in Nazi Germany article anymore yet you have, why? There becomes a consensus eventually on things and your edits are getting challenged all the time, for example your recent edits on the Racial policy of Nazi Germany was challenged by the first reply to your new section created, it can be seen here.--Windows66 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I see you are extremely stubborn in obtaining your goals. That's a very good feature.
- I still claim Poles were NOT Aryans, you can never call them like this. They were regarded as half-Aryan and half-central-Asian with an admixture of some genes from the Caucasus (a place between Russia, Turkey and Iran). All Slavic were seen as such. Only SOME Croats (but not all) were said to have some Germanic Goth blood in them and this funny fake theory made up by the Nazis (similar to the Japanese "honorary Aryans" theory) made Hitler a new ally. He simply saw some of the Slavs as strong and brave men, and it would be a pity to kill them, so he'd rather use them as his soldiers. Some Czechoslovaks and Ukrainians were also trated a bit better than the rest of Slavs, but NEVER AS GOOD as GERMANIC PEOPLE. Even the British, who are Germanic, were not "pure enough" for Hitler's ideology and he called them "bandits". Nazi racial laws were very very restrictive and strictly defined. The "honorary Aryans" was the most extreme "deviation" from these "norms".
- By saying "you won" I meant the article Black people in Nazi Germany - I totally disagree with you at that point, but i feel helpless about your actions and stopped reversing your edits. You are too strong for me, you complain about me to some highly-graded Wikipedia admins to eventually block me. AND I DIDNT EDIT THE ARTICLE not even once since i said that "you won", OK? Nevertheless, I see you follow all my input on other "talk- boards", and I feel like being haunted and oppressed by you man, so please give me some understanding. After I said I am done with arguing with you you started to search for my current edits and wrote here: Talk:Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#The_.22Pyramid_of_Races.22_according_to_the_Nazis_during_the_World_War_II
- This is why I keep talking with you. But please, stop commenting on my stuff by impairing my every single suggestion, and I will not post you even a one more message. Thank you for your attention..... Oh, and one more thing .. Despite I think what I think, I'm sorry for this whole situation. I dont want to have a foe on Wikipedia because I am a normal person not a robot. Don't mean to attack you, but your following and reverting my edits made me angry. Sorry for this. Just want to say that privately I am a polite man, just sometimes some things make me mad, and I feel bad about this situation. I am giving you a conciliation-hand. That's all. Yatzhek (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Windows66 (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring policy edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Black people in Nazi Germany. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. Has the User:Windows66 also received such an alert? What is more, he is placing unsourced information and deleting the sourced and verified data in the articles about Nazism in Europe. Yatzhek (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I also received the alert.
Where in any articles have I removed unsourced information?
The first bit of the edit that is questioned has no source, the second is a load of bs, "non-Aryans along with Jews, Poles" is not in the source given and is not true. 
It will stay out of the article.--Windows66 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014 edit
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You are in danger of being blocked due to your disruptive comments. Shii (tock) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for your notification. First of all - I am not a native-English-speaker so I do not understand everything clearly, but I try. Secondly - I am a polite man, always wiling to cooperate, amicable, and who never complains about nobody to nobody behind one's back. This is why I think it is highly unfair when someone does it to me.
- Finally - please show me a clear example of my personal attack SINCE MY LAST WARNING given by a user "Diannaa". I have the right to know that, Wikipedia gives me that right. So either give this clear example or cancel the warning.
- Moreover, I want to make peace with the user "Windows66" and promised not to start no argument with him any more.
- Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Shii - Yesterday I was trying to make peace with "Windows66", but today I see some mass-attack on me, despite the fact that I did nothing wrong since your warning given to me. [[3]] [[4]] Why? Why is he doing this to me??? It's really annoying and making me pissed off. Please Shii, tell him to stop stalking me so he and I can just go our own way. I know that he will still be monitoring all my contributions and reversing everything I edit, no matter what will it be, but this time he will not succeed in making me this mad. Yatzhek (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- He is certainly being confrontational, but he hasn't broken any rules yet. It seems like he knows the rules very well. If you need more help in the future, you can put the template {{helpme}} on this talk page, and another admin will come take a look at the problem. Shii (tock) 07:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course I am being confrontational and rightly so; I was accused of racism, anti-Polish, Holocaust denial and white supremacy... do you expect me to be singing joyful songs and take this with a pinch of salt or something? It is serious allegations yet you have the cheek to claim you are the one being mad. No I won't let it be for now atm, I will once the investigation is done with, not my fault you couldn't cooperate with me in the first place. Funny how you are getting all defensive when an investigation is being made regarding sock puppets and when I am reading stuff like [5] from yet a DIFFERENT random IP address it certainly rings alarm bells, don't you think so Shii?--Windows66 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @ Shii - thank you so much. I will ask someone for help. Do I use this "helpme" tag in a new section or here? Windows66 is so agressive towards me that I feel helpless, he is winning all the way by his manipulations. His knowledge of Wikipedia rules gives him the power to manipulate them in order to shut the mouths of other users. I want you to get interested in him, while if I was a new user of Wiukipedia, he would simply scare me away from this website. I think, that even if Id make a contribution keeping all the Wikipedia rules of sourcing, with unbreakable sources included, he would revert it anyway. Tell me, Shii, where can I get help when someone reverts my sourced and neutral contribution? I don't know the functions and need someone to help me. I am portrayed as an aggressor while i am the victim! I don't want to make no fights on Wikipedia. I just wanted Wikipedia to be free of the "quasi-historical" "truth". I wanted to discuss my contribs with Windows66, but right after reading his messages I felt oppressed and attacked by his ironical manner of conversating with me and tons of materials which made no sense. That's the way he does it. Yatzhek (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh please give over playing the sympathy card with Shii. You are far from the "victim", you are the aggressor, how can you even say you are not when you have accused people of racism, Holocaust denial and being a white supremacist please tell me. Simply scare you away from the website? Thousands upon thousands of people use Wikipedia every single day it doesn't mean they check someone's user contributions. I've not removed anything that was sourced, your edits which were incorrect were a) not supported by the source given b) had no source - try again. Please tell me what "quasi-historical" "truth" I have used. Just because I state the fact Poles WERE considered Aryans does not mean that I think no Poles suffered, for all you know I may be Polish myself. Manipulation? If one looks through your history logs the person will see a pattern of someone who comes across as aggressive and then when gets reported plays the sorry and sympathy card and expects people to accept this and move, sorry but no. And whilst you may not realise your response there is a WP:PA... you were advised to read the Wikipedia rules and regulations. I mean, how do you even know I am a male ("he")???--Windows66 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you were intelligent enough to understand... I think you know exactly what I mean, but you act like you wouldn't know, to make me talk more and more so it would work against myself and look bad when the admins see it. I will explain in to you anyway - by "new Wikipedia user" i meant someone who begins his adventure with editing Wikipedia. You would scare such a person away. You used "quasi-historical truth" by saing "Poles were not untermensch" and that "there is no evidence" while there is TONS of it. How come you, an Englishman (it's impossible you are a Pole because all Poles know their history), how come you know it better than me, a Pole with an admixture of some Jewish and African blood, living in the place where it happened, whose family members were killed or did slave-work during the Holocaust and only few survived? There is TONS of EVIDENCE in POLISH LANGUAGE and well as GERMAN language, that were not translated into your language. You also suggested that Poles were "Aryan" and so they were seen as racially no worse than Germans or other of the "master-race" (European Germanic peoples) insinuating like there have been friendly relations between them and Germans considering the racial policy. - PS - I said "he" because no girl would be that persistent. Yatzhek (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You two both need to cut it out. Focus on writing the article, and if you disagree over the facts explain where your information comes from. "Tons of Evidence" is not sufficient. Ignore personal attacks and don't get personal with other editors. Shii (tock) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Which is something I have previously mentioned. I don't even want arguments but I will not ignore being accused of what Yatzhek claimed I am, hence the reporting. But sure lets just disagree to agree.--Windows66 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Shii - I will ignore the attacks from now on, but he must promise to ignore me either. I know that a further argument makes no sense, while me and him we have certainly different views and noone will win this. I was just trying to defend the historical truth, and I'm paying for it right now by getting some warinings, being complained about to the administrators behind my back etc etc. Well, just as all Poles I pay the price. Who tries to defend the truth and keep it on Wikipedia must do this sacrifice. Now i see it was sensless while the truth always will be on the native-English-speaking side. Yatzhek (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Then if you would look to defend historical truth admit Poles were Aryans there is overwhelming evidence for this. Yeah you will ignore my attacks yet you have reported here... HAHA. See here, so Shii who is not letting things not drop now huh? These tedious little childish games are becoming irritating, I must say from this particular user.--Windows66 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's 1:1 now. You reported me, I have reported you, while behaviour like yours shall be reported as well. Nonetheless, I would like to end this conflict as soon as possible. I said what I had to say, nothing more to add. Yatzhek (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a game of me versus you, please just leave me alone. I can see you are trying to get me to break some rule or another, not going to happen. Goodbye.--Windows66 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:TALK#USE.--Windows66 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yatzhek, listen, User:Windows66 is blocked now, he turned out to be a sockpuppet of User:English Patriot Man, while he was accusing us both and numerous other users. He is pathetic, isn't he? A racist and totally anti-Polish man, an English nationalist trying to defame the Poles on every single step by changing the facts, diminishing the suffering of Poles during the World War II as well as denying many other struggles of this nation. He destroyed tons of articles. Now please, Yatzhek, User:Tobby72, User:MyMoloboaccount and the other users who were unfairly accused of sockpuppetry - could you all take a closer look at Windows66's contributions and revert them to the previous state, untouched by his racist propaganda? 91.218.158.26 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Oh really? How come? He used to accuse me (as well as every single user who didn't agree with him) of sockpuppetry, and now he appears to be one! Funny. This is the peak of hypocrisy. Thanks for the information. Well, I don't want to revert his contribs yet, as some of those still might be valueable. However, I will take a closer look to it, and I hope other users who have wide knowlegde about the WWII will contribute. Thanks for the information once again. PS - who are you? Heard you're from Poland..? Why are you under your IP address? Yatzhek (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I use my IP because it is more comfortable and safe as I didn't want this maniac "Windows66" and his sockpuppets to provoke the admins to block me. All I want is a peaceful debate and the historical truth kept on Wikipedia, just like you do. ... Tak jestem z Polski, pisalem Ci przeciez na mojej stronie. Pozdrowienia! Take care. 91.218.158.26 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi edit
While editing Wikipedia it's best to focus on adding content and sources, and trying to avoid emotional reactions. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yatzhek, if I was black, I would take offense at your comments. You have not been the subject of any prejudice, and William cannot be said to have a prejudicial bone to pick in this dispute. I think you have misunderstood the problem with your edits and the fact that Wikipedia faces nationalistic POV pushing on a daily basis. If this kind of nonsense continues, I will happily support your topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Take offense? Really? Noone has the right to compare to Black poeple? Well, a little did you know, I am 1/4 Black African! Hahaha! What now? Secondly - How come you call my contribution "nonsense"? Educate yourself - Mikołaj Kopernik was Polish with 80% of his family tree being Polish people, and barely 20% of Prussian/German origin. His first language was Polish. Why can't his real Polish name be in the brackets as first? Why its German equivalent is on the first place? It's not nationalism, you accuse me for that only because I defent the truth. Admit it. Be a man. Yatzhek (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
May 2014 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Reinhard Heydrich, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You've changed it twice, and been reverted twice, so stop. Do not add it again unless you find a reliable source that supports your edit. Thomas.W talk 16:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I will find the exact source and will edit it again soon. And don't revert it then, because this will be against the Wikipedia rules. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- That depends on what the source is, if it's a reliable souce then it won't get reverted, not by me at least, but if it's not what Wikipedia see as a reliable source, then you will be reverted. Thomas.W talk 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yatzhek: I stated the reason for my revert, as you made an uncited addition and challenged it per WP:BRD. You, therefore, should not have reverted back to your uncited, WP:OR addition but discussed the matter on the talk page. As Thomas.W states above, any new addition now must be WP:RS cited and the wording agreed to, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- That depends on what the source is, if it's a reliable souce then it won't get reverted, not by me at least, but if it's not what Wikipedia see as a reliable source, then you will be reverted. Thomas.W talk 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I will find the exact source and will edit it again soon. And don't revert it then, because this will be against the Wikipedia rules. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, my sources will be reliable. I simply need to find the book or the website that cites the book. Yatzhek (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 13 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aquiline nose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Aquline nose edit
This[6] belongs in a new discussion at the talk page where you need to get consensus. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2014 edit
Your recent editing history at Aquiline nose shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Who are you? Why are you doing this? I'm writing things based on sources! You have no reason to block me. Tell me a good reason. Yatzhek (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm NOt involved in any edit war!! Can't ypou see that I'm improving the content and not reverting nobody's input? Yatzhek (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The first person who reverted the original edition and started the edit war was the IP address and then it was YOU! I only restored the sourced version. The IP investigation will show us if you are a sockpuppet or if the IPs performing vandalism belonged to you. I got nothing more to add. Yatzhek (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- You don't understand what edit warring means. Read up at WP:EW--same as I told the IP editor. Edit warring is edit warring even if you're right.
BTW, if you can't see the difference between that IP and me, even in the very language we use, then I doubt your competence to edit here. Funny, I told the IP that as well--maybe you two are the same. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Yatzhek: You're not doing yourself any favors by reporting editors with whom you disagree to SPI. Dougweller and Drmies are on different continents and the IP is on a third: the only common link is that they disagree with your edits. You're on very thin ice as it is, stop making it worse by accusing everybody with whom you disagree of being the same person. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The only person who can "destroy your account" is you, if you keep on edit-warring and making blind and obviously wrong accusations of bad faith against everyone you encounter. Please stop making it worse, take a step back from your confrontational stance, and calmly discuss the issues instead of treating the subject as a battle that must be won. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do not edit the article until you've reached a consensus on the talkpage: you've been edit-warring, and you will be blocked if you do it again, regardless of the merits of your edits. And see Bbb23's warning below, which I endorse. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
How can I reach the consensus? These users will do anything to get me blocked despite I had good or bad intentions, it doesn't matter to them. And which talk page do you mean? The articles? Yatzhek (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Those users will not do anything to get you blocked, that's something you've convinced yourself will happen. User Talk:Aquiline nose, presenting your sources and suggested edits, and seek the agreement of other editors. That's how it's done. Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Yatzhek reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also, if I were you I'd revert that edit on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It's incorrectly formatted and it is utterly ridiculous. If you want to be laughed at, just keep it there. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
YOU started the EDIT WAR! Why do you lie??? It were both of you reverting my every contribution! Yatzhek (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Warning. If you continue this baseless crusade at SPI and at other wikipedia pages, you risk being blocked. That includes any more edits to the closed SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. I just want you to know that the person who closed the investogation, didn;t even check those accounts. He just closed it. And therefore I assume this is highly unfair and I will write the Wikipedia administration about this case, because I have such right. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- He didn't need to, and in fact is not supposed to per policy. Drop it. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I won;t let it go. I got some rights and nobody is going to take them from me. I'm sure that the IP addresses that provoked me to do edit war belonged to one of those two users that started to attack me after 10 minutes since i tried to save the article in one piece. Yatzhek (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care what you do with respect to the "Wikipedia administration". However, if you don't drop it here, you'll be blocked, and the duration of the block will be substantial up to and including indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yatzhek, this is just nonsense. Neither Drmies nor I have been socking. Nor have we attacked you. You're the one accusing us and suggesting my edit was "INSANE!)". Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care what you do with respect to the "Wikipedia administration". However, if you don't drop it here, you'll be blocked, and the duration of the block will be substantial up to and including indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I won;t let it go. I got some rights and nobody is going to take them from me. I'm sure that the IP addresses that provoked me to do edit war belonged to one of those two users that started to attack me after 10 minutes since i tried to save the article in one piece. Yatzhek (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- He didn't need to, and in fact is not supposed to per policy. Drop it. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. I don't want to fight no more. Just how come you say you didn't attack me? and who accused me of "edit war" without a strong reason? I obviously didn't want to "fight" with you, but with the IP addresses which I believed belonged to one of you, most possibly to "Drmies". I was enhancing your work later on, and you accused me of constant reverting. Why? The only thing I reverted was the damage made by someone hiding under various IP addresses. OK. I'm willing to end this conflict. Arguing leads nowhere and only peaceful cooperation leans somewhere. As I see your recent edits in the article are quite alright and, what's important, they're sourced. Now check my point and answer in that talk section: [7]. Thanks. Yatzhek (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks edit
You are extremely lucky you weren't blocked for edit warring - the administrator thought you would be blocked for your other actions. If you continue to attack other editors with statements such as "lies pushed as "truth" by intentionally wrong interpretation of sources given" you may be blocked. Hard working editors such as Drmies and me do not want to take part in discussions tainted by such comments. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's obviously not a personal attack. By posting this you admit you didn't read my entire message as I indicated that I have nothing against him as a person, but I have very strong and reasonable doubts about the truthfullness of the things he is editing. By accusing me of personal attacks you prove that you are very obstinate against me. Why are you doing this? I feel oppressed by you. The one who is attacking is you, and the victim is me. I don't want to hurt nobody, this is obviously not the point. I am a peaceful man. I just want to discuss the problem. Are you able to differenciate between derogatory statements and discussion? Yatzhek (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I saw that. But surely you are accusing some editor or editors of pushing lies as truth and intentionally wrong interpretations. Whether or not you have nothing against an editor as a person, those were your words and aimed at someone. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, but admit, that I just suggested what I suspect, not saying that it's 100% true. Moreover, I am using the TALK PAGE of the article to discuss the problem without deleting no data from the article before discussion. I am trying to be a good editor, but the user "Drmies" avoids to answer my precise questions, while he performed some more edits in the article. This is why I suggested he interprets the sources his own way and only what he likes can stay in the article. I just need him to answer me. I feel like I'm gagged by you both, while Wikipedia should be for everyone. That's all. Yatzhek (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've blocked you for 72 hours for your personal attacks at Talk:Aquiline nose. You repeatedly used the word "lie" (or some variant) when talking about another editor. You were specifically warned against this kind of behavior. Your notion that it is acceptable to say things like that because you are trying to improve the article or you are insisting that others address your points in the manner you wish them addressed doesn't wash. Discussions cannot be used as a proxy to attack other editors. Use {{unblock}} to request an unblock, but first read WP:GAB for guidance on appealing a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Suppcuzz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I didn't mean to attack nobody, I was unconscious that suggesting if someone is trying to prove a WP:POINT is clasifficated as a personal attack. I'm sorry for this. I promise that I will not attack the person ever again. You got my word. But please note, that I have the same right to contribute in Wikipedia as others. I was threatened that if I won't discuss my suggestions concerning deleting some information from the article, I will be blocked. I discussed them as it was said, I didn't receive the answers [8], therefore my suggestions. Thank you and please unblock me. I am a long-time user, very sensitive when someone is ignoring me, that's why I said he is "pushing lies as truth on Wikipedia". Note that I added, that I have nothing against him as a person, it's just his interpretation of sources was what I considered intentional misinterpretation. I promise, no more suggestions like that. Regards. Yatzhek (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(edit conflict)I'll add what I wrote which got hit by an edit conflict as I hadn't saved before the block: "Why should anyone answer you while you are creating such an unpleasant atmosphere? I certainly don't want to." Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- An uninvolved administrator will review your unblock request. That said, your promises are not worth much. You have made them before and not been able to control your behavior. In addition, you are not a long-time editor, at least not under this account. You have made a total of 425 edits, of which only 204 have been to articles. Although you created the account in 2009, there have been many breaks in your editing history, including a two-year break between 2009 and 2011.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- @"Dougweller" Please, don't provoke me to go into further discussion. I will tell you briefly - you can check, that AFTER he didn't answer me and ignored me while continuing editing the article his way, I suggested that he makes his contributions by consciously misinterpreting the sources. That's what I'm blocked for and what I'm sorry for. I guess if I was attacked noone would defend me so bravely as you defend the user "Drmies". It's very nice.
- @Bbb23 - How come you say that my promises are not worth much? As I said - I DIDN'T KNOW that suggesting, that someone is conscciously misinterpreting the sources is classified as a "personal attack". Don't treat me like trash please, I have some rights, and my promise is a true promise as I am a man of honor. I will not attack the user "Drmies" personally again. I will just discuss things with him politely, ask him question if needed, that's what I promise. Thanks. Yatzhek (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Yatzhek, Competence is required, and if you've had the account since 2009 how have you not realized that saying another user is misreading a source on purpose is a personal attack? I'm honestly curious. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 20:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't know, as to me a "personal attack" is an unfounded attack including derogatory statements towards others, while all you need is to trace the user Drmies's edits in the "aquiline nose" article to see, that he strongly favors one concept (which is supportet by non-anthropological sources based on pure theories) that this nose type is reserved for Europeans and that it's "noble" or indicates "nobility" (the word is overused in the article), while simultaneously the user is belitteling other concepts which say that the nose is widespread mostly among non-European peoples (Middle Easterners, Indians, Gypsies, Jews, Armenians, Iranians, Kurds, Native Americans, North Africans, Somalis, Eritreans, peoples of Hittite heritage, etc) as it is originally a non-European feature which came to Europe with Armenoids and through the Mediterranean race - the concept was supported by real anthropological research, not just pure theories. The user reverted all my contributions, so I restored them, then again, again, and again, and he accused me of "edit wars", so I got mad. Nevertheless, I admit, I was too unpleasant in my statements, as the emotions took over me. From this moment I will only discuss the topic, without personal remarks. Best regards. Yatzhek (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- As WP:NPA says at the top - Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you cannot agree then we have a dispute resolution system Ronhjones (Talk) 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Ronhjones - I will keep that in mind. Yatzhek (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Eastern Europe sanctions notice edit
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Warning edit
Your recent editing history at Eastern Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.47.150 (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 5 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aaliyah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aliya. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Revert edit edit
I've recently reverted undone your edit as its not supported by the source and is contradicted by primary sources from the Nazis themselves and other sources.
Please do see the talk page of Nazism here to discuss further.
Eastern/Central Europe in regards to Poland edit
Hey, it looks like things have actually started moving forwards in terms of the changes we have been proposing. Have a look and leave your POV as well if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland#RfC:_Eastern_vs._Central_Europe
Napisałbym całość po polsku, ale nie wiem czy tak można na angielskiej Wikipedii. Pozdro. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wygląda na to, że wreszcie się udało. Nie wiem jak długo to potrwa, bo zapewne kiedyś zacznie się kampania żeby zmienić to spowrotem na Europę Środkową, ale póki co artykuł o Polsce mówi o "country in Eastern Europe". Ciekawe jest również to, że facet który doszedł do tego wniosku (jakiś weteran Wikipedii) napisał: "when you weigh what editors are saying on other parts of this talk page and when you read the sources carefully, the matter is quite clear. I find that Poland is an Eastern European country and the lead should say so." Jestem całkiem pewien, że mowa tu o naszych starszych dyskusjach ze zwolennikami Europy Środkowej, czyli chyba to właśnie nasze argumenty pomogły mu zdecydować. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ech... nie wiem po kiego ch*ja w ogóle zawracam sobie tym głowę. Zobacz sam. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Cześć. Słuchaj, trzeba mocno obstawać za tym, że Polska jest "at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe". To zdanie jest w 100% prawdziwe i to jedyny konsensus na jaki pójdą. Pakowanie Polski w strefę Europy centralnej jest chore, ponieważ podważa to nasze wschodnioeuropejskie wartości, naszą kulturę i pochodzenie. Dlaczego Chorwaci, czy Bośniacy, których kraje leżą bardziej na zachód od Polski, czy chociażby Serbowie znajdujący się geograficznie pod nami w linii prostej, mogą być brani pod parasol "South-Eastern Europe", a my już nie "eastern", podczas gdy przecież nasz kraj rozciąga się ZNACZNIE bardziej na wschód? To jest główne pytanie do nich, i zauważ, w ogóle się do tego nie odnoszą! Yatzhek (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Zgadzam się z tobą całkowicie, ale już próbowaliśmy iść z nimi na kompromis i z tego też nic nie wyszło. Chyba znów zrobię sobie od tego przerwę, ale będę sprawdzał co tam piszą co jakiś czas w razie gdyby ktoś zaczął paplać zupełne głupoty. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Untermensch article - "with some particular exceptions" edit
Can you please quote the text in the Der Untermensch pamphlet where the Nazis said there were some exceptions to the term "untermensch"?
Your edit summary: "It has to be stated that not all Blacks and other persons "of color" were "untermensch", as Blacks served in the Nazi Muslim troops, so did the Arabs, also some Indians formed Nazi sub-units"
And? That's not evidence there were some exceptions. The Nazis allowed many other untermenschen people such as Ukrainians, Russians and other to form Waffen-SS divisions due to the shortage of manpower once the war began to turn against them.--Pawel Schloner (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- The Germans saw Slavs and Blacks as Untermenschen. The exceptions among the Slavs are easy to define: not only some of the Ukrainians, but also some of the Czechs, some of the Slovaks, the majority of Croats, the majority of Bulgarians etc...
- However "Blacks" is too general, "persons of color" is even more general - this is why it has to be stated that Hitler DID NOT HATE ALL PERSONS OF COLOR and so there were SOME PARTICULAR EXCEPTIONS - the Indian nazi troops, as well as the Muslim nazi troops were formed from VOLUNTEERS, so how come they all served the nazis, knowing that they're all considered "subhumans" by those who they serve? Explain it.
- The nazis did not force the Arabs and Blacks to serve there, they were honorary nazis. Check Hitler's meetings with Amin al-Husseini. They were friends! How come Al-Husseini sympathized with Hitler, knowing that he is considered a subhuman himself? Check some photo examples of Blacks in the Nazi troops on YouTube: "Black Africans in the German Army Freies Arabien Legion in WWII". Yatzhek (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Just because some of those considered subhumans fought for the Nazis does not change a thing.
From the 1942 pamphlet Der Untermensch (The Subhuman): "Mulattoes and Finn-Asian barbarians, Gipsies and black skin savages all make up this modern underworld of subhumans that is always headed by the appearance of the eternal Jew."
Provide a source that there were some exceptions.--92.30.163.24 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- You did not answer my questions.. you escape from it very smoothly.
- Your theory falls apart while Finns and Asian Japanese people were later considered the "honorary Aryans", didn't you know that?
- And on the very same basis, there were some exceptions made for Arabs, Berbers, Armenians, Blacks and Indians who volunteered to join the nazi army. you won't find one Polish or Serbian soldier in the nazi troops who would be 100% pure Slavic - to collaborate with the nazis, Slavs had to PROOVE that they had at least one pure German grandparent and they had to sign a special document to reach the status of a "honorary German"... nonetheless there were virtually no Slavs among the German army because hating the nazis was part of the slavic honour, especially the Poles hated the nazis because they completely devasted Poland which was their #1 aim. BUT... do you think those blacks and arabs who were in the German nazi troops really had some German heritage? Well, I don't think so... Therefore I strongly support the notion that some PARTICULAR EXCEPTIONS were made for SOME PARTICULAR persons of color who declared loyalty to the nazis. Yatzhek (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point, the whole point in this section on your talk page is for you to provide explain with sources your claim that there were some exceptions to the term "Untermensch". You seem to be confusing the terms Aryan and Untermensch, the Nazis did allow some blacks and others to fight on the German side, this does not mean that there were some exceptions to the term "Untermensch" being applied to such groups. The status of Finns and Japanese people as honorary Aryans does not change anything. Plenty of Poles fought in the Wehrmacht and there was a Serbian Volunteer Corps which was a collaborator with the Third Reich (de facto). Plenty of "100% pure Slavic" Russians, Ukrainians and others fought in the Waffen-SS and collaborated with the Third Reich.
What is your source that Slavs had to provide proof of one German grandparent to reach the status of "honorary German"? The Nazis considered the Slavs as Aryans i.e. a non-Jewish European. Also, there was no such thing as an "honorary German".
There were hundreds of thousands of Slavs who fought alongside the Nazis especially the Ukrainians, Russians, etc, see the List of Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts article. People did not need to provide proof of any German ancestry to fight as Waffen-SS volunteers (or conscripts), plenty of non-Germans and non-Europeans fought alongside the Germans during World War II.
I'm not on your talk page to read a whole ramble of your unfounded opinions. Provide a source that there were some exceptions to the term "Untermensch".--92.30.169.71 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Once again your theory falls apart, as you say that there were "Plenty of 100% pure Slavic Russians, Ukrainians and others fought in the Waffen-SS and collaborated with the Third Reich" - correct! - I said it too. But there were NO 100% Slavic Poles in the Wehrmacht, as they all had to provide documentation that they had at least one 100% German grandparent, moreover thay had to recant their Polish heritage, and sign a document that they will be loyal to their German roots. There were only few so called "Poles" in the German army and those were Poles of German descent.
- Have you ever heard of the Volkslist? Interesting, that those people "of color" who served the nazis and collaborated with them, didn't have to sign nothing, didn't have to prove their Germanic origin. My source is common sense and the knowledge passed from generation to generation as I am Polish, living in Poland, talked to numerous elder people who survived the WWII and who knew how it REALLY was. My information are untouched by any propaganda. Pure knowledge of a peaceful and non-biased person, that's all.
- You want sources that Hitler made exceptions? You have a plenty of photos of blacks and arabs collaborating with the Hitler's army, what more do you need? Poles and Serbs were the only Slavs who were not accepted in the nazi army if they didn't prove their origin (Poles had to prove being German while Serbs had to prove being Croat or Austrian). Hitler said that Poles and Serbs are the worst kind of Slavs as Poles were "filled with the Jewish and Asiatic blood" while Serbs are "filled with Gypsy blood". As I said, such Slavs as: Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Bosniaks, Croats, or initially also Russians were all partially accepted as not being "subhuman"... so were some Arabs, Berbers, Tatars (Muslims in general), Blacks, Armenians, Iranians, and Indians. Japanese are "of color" as well and they were "honorary Aryans" - will you deny? Yatzhek (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You're avoiding the issue and replying with more red herrings. This discussion is about your alleged statement that there were some exceptions of the term "Untermensch" being applied to certain groups. I've asked you to provide a source for this and the only thing you've replied with is "common sense" and photos of non-Aryans serving in the German army, that is not referencing a source. The Volksliste was not about signing up Poles to the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS, it was Himmler's way of classifying people in the German occupied territories, although the majority of ethnic Poles who signed the list in the categories which accepted those of German descent, some ethnic Poles pretended to be ethnically German as it gave them many privileges.
It's a non sequitur to claim that because some non-Europeans e.g. blacks, Indians, etc, serving in the German army during the war means these groups were exempt from the term "Untermensch". The pamphlet Der Untermensch clearly states such groups as Untermensch, you've provided no evidence to the contrary. You're continuing to confuse the terms Untermensch with Aryan/honorary Aryan.
Although this is totally irrelevant to the question being asked of you, since you mentioned it, what is your source that Hitler said Poles were "filled with the Jewish and Asiatic blood" while Serbs are "filled with Gypsy blood"?
You're using the proof by assertion fallacy by repeating the same thing and not provide any sources and you're using the ad hominem fallacy by attacking me and not the argument directly.--92.4.252.136 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, User:Pawel Schloner ... Watch this - User:English Patriot Man - does it tell you something? I see you're blocked. You think I'm a fool? Get out of here you childish racist anti-Polish troll. Yatzhek (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Avoiding the issue, red herrings and ad hominems, whatever else can you throw out in your posts? You can't provide proof for your claims and when challenged to provide it you resort to replying with various fallacies, it says a lot about you.--92.15.185.35 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Going your way of thinking - Hitler did not know what was really happening in the concentration camps... he didn't, because there are no written sources that he actually did, you'll never find one. I gave you all the logical sources you need concerning the exceptions for some particular persons "of color" not to be classified as "subhumans", but I've also provided the most important source which proves the nonsense of this discussion - your blocked sockpuppet account, which says a lot about you. Yatzhek (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Get a grip. You've provided no reliable sources for your assertions. All you've done is make totally unsourced assertions, your opinion is not a source. The main problem is that you know nothing but persist in acting as though you do and when challenged to provide reliable sources for your assertions your response is personal insults and off-topic irrelevant stuff.--92.15.191.222 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Going your way of thinking, please provide me documents and sources, that Adolf Hitler knew what exactly was going on in the concentration camps. Everyone knows he knew, but there are no documents, he never personally visited such a camp and never gave direct orders in this aspect. Yatzhek (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016 edit
We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anti-Polish sentiment, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. I have provided reliable sources[9]. Please participate in the proper discussion thread for the next time: Talk:Anti-Polish_sentiment#Prejudice_against_Polish_people_is_present.21 - Thank you very much. Yatzhek (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. I saw the refs and checked them. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
May 2016 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at White Jamaican, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, you claim that the collonialists, the Spanish people of Jamaica, aren't White? OK, I gave a source. Now it's all good. Yatzhek (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
June 2016 edit
Your recent editing history at Kosovo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W talk 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- The person who started this was User:Vanjagenije, he deleted SOURCED data. Why don't you accuse him of deleting data with multiple sources given? Give me the answer! Yatzhek (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The content I added is crucial. Therefore I invite you to see the talk page here: Talk:Kosovo#Slavic_name - Thanks. Yatzhek (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not in any way crucial, it's trivia. What the word Kosovo can be interpreted as in Polish is totally irrelevant in an article about Kosovo, a geographic area that has never had any connection to Poland. Thomas.W talk 18:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Never had any connection to Poland"? Hahahaha. What about the Slavic language and the genesis of Serbs? You just proved your ignorance and lack of historical knowledge. Old Turkish chronicals say that Polish people took part in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, when Polish knights were described by Serbs as "Slavic brothers from the north". Yatzhek (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You started the topic and now you say "what's that got to do with it?". That's weird. Now, to the point, Kosovo has a Serbian name which has a meaning not only in Serbian, but in many other Slavic languages. The point is, how come Kosovo is a meaningful word even in the Polish language, while it has absolutely no meaning in Albanian language? Isn't it interesting? It was debated many times by historians in Poland and Serbia, I have sources, but you are biased and want to prove a point while all I did is just giving some other point of view which is deemed to be a fact, not just a presumption. Yatzhek (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not the least interesting, that's why you're being reverted. Thomas.W talk 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the level of information being interesting is more important than facts with sources given, than now I understand your being biased and prejudiced. Yatzhek (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Yatzhek. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 9 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazism and race, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Formatting Google book citations edit
Hi Yatzhek. Did you know there's a tool available to help you quickly format Google book citations? http://reftag.appspot.com/. I've used it to properly format your new citations at Untermensch. Best, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Yatzhek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
October 2018 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Żydokomuna. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Racism in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. You deleted sourced content claiming it was unsourced. Frankly it looks to me as a pointy edit. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- In terms of the article Żydokomuna all I did was adding fully sourced information, and the sources are reliable, as most of them are used in other Wikipedia articles as well. So what is your problem? Do you deny historical facts? The ones who might get blocked are you both, as you delete fully sourced data and make the article biased. I'm waiting for your answer. Yatzhek (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Again you are confused. I know nothing about the article you mention and my warning was clearly about Racism in the United States. I clearly haven't deleted anything, I restored sourced text that you deleted. No one is blocking me or User:Grayfell over this, I can guarantee that. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- In terms of the article Żydokomuna all I did was adding fully sourced information, and the sources are reliable, as most of them are used in other Wikipedia articles as well. So what is your problem? Do you deny historical facts? The ones who might get blocked are you both, as you delete fully sourced data and make the article biased. I'm waiting for your answer. Yatzhek (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This edit[10] removed sourced material claiming it was unsourced. I reinstated it and you removed it again[11] with the edit summary "Ive read it. there are no sources to prove it. If so, then why you delete the thing about Irish, Polish and Italian people not being classified as White in early America???" The article clear says " the relationship of Jews to whiteness remains complex, with some preferring not to identify as white.[158][159][160][161" and "some Arab Americans from places other than the Levant feel they are not white and are not perceived as white by American society.[180]" As for your claim that I deleted something, you obviously are confused as those are the only 2 edits I've done on this article since 2014. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please quote me the exact information from the source, not from the Wikipedia article which somebody (probably you) wrote. Where is it exactly in the source? By the way, your friend reverted my fully sourced edit in the article Żydokomuna and now he's accusing me of edit waring, I see you defend him, so how dare you say I don't read carefully? Do your own research, stop being a biased wikipedian. My knowledge is based on the sources, not on what someone wrote on wikipedia while giving some random sources, which might not even contain the key information! Wait until I'll submit sources about Irish people, Poles and Italians not being perceived as White in early America. What will you do then? Will you defend my sourced submission? Or will you revert it without even examining the sources? I bet you'd do the second thing. The one who's incompetent to edit articles is most definitely you. (PS - do not flood my talk page with long titles). Yatzhek (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC
- It's obvious I didn't write the article, check the history. Take your complaints to the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please quote me the exact information from the source, not from the Wikipedia article which somebody (probably you) wrote. Where is it exactly in the source? By the way, your friend reverted my fully sourced edit in the article Żydokomuna and now he's accusing me of edit waring, I see you defend him, so how dare you say I don't read carefully? Do your own research, stop being a biased wikipedian. My knowledge is based on the sources, not on what someone wrote on wikipedia while giving some random sources, which might not even contain the key information! Wait until I'll submit sources about Irish people, Poles and Italians not being perceived as White in early America. What will you do then? Will you defend my sourced submission? Or will you revert it without even examining the sources? I bet you'd do the second thing. The one who's incompetent to edit articles is most definitely you. (PS - do not flood my talk page with long titles). Yatzhek (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Yatzhek. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
February 2019 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Holocaust; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
This message is in reference to your recent edits at The Holocaust (diff, diff, diff, diff) and Nazism (diff, diff, diff). These edits have been reverted by other editors. Also, this edit seems to have had no effect other than listing "Polish" before "Spanish" in the categories list. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:EW. Do not re-instate edits that have been reverted; instead, start a discussion on the article talk page. Thank you. Levivich 16:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Were other people involved in this "edit waring" also warned like this? Yatzhek (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Nazism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've made a fourth reversion at Nazism (diff), which has been reverted by another editor, and you seem to be doing the same thing at Untermensch (diff) over the lead image, so I am posting another warning. If you want to edit the prose to talk about Polish victims of the Holocaust, or change the lead image at an article, your suggestions and changes are absolutely welcome. But we have procedures for how to do it: WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss). Bold edits are great, but if someone reverts it, you need to discuss it at the article's talk page and get consensus for adding it in, not just revert it again. Just hitting the "undo" button repeatedly is edit warring, and you are close to violating the WP:3RR rule. Please, instead of repeatedly reverting, start a section on the article talk pages to discuss your edits that were reverted (and see if other editors agree with including it). Thank you. Levivich 00:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add a note to say thank you for starting a discussion at Talk:The Holocaust#Ethnic Polish victims of the Holocaust are ignored, omitted, and marginalized in the article. Levivich 00:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you too. I will try to discuss the topic before editing. Yatzhek (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please consider this: editing against consensus is considered to be disruptive editing, and disruptive editing can lead to being blocked from editing. In addition, editing to push a point of view, even civilly, is a violation of our neutral point of view policy, regardless of what that point of view is. Please keep this in mind in your future editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked edit
You are blocked for 6 months for making logged-out edits to avoid scrutiny. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Since this page popped up on my watchlist: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yatzhek. You obviously haven't changed at all since 2014-2016 (see further up on this page). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
These accusations are just insane and you will suffer the consequences. Your allegations are based on guessings and suspicions. Long time ago I posted these articles on some Polish group/forum and anyone could grab my ideas and edit those things! Do you know how many users in my country have the same internet provider? And even if this would be me (which is not), how can you block me for the whole 6 months just as if I did some large-scale vandalism? How dare you do this? And what if somebody would lose his password and still wanted to edit an article as an IP user? Will you block his account? Even if this would be me, you are accusing me of something which does not qualify for such a long-term ban. I think it could be some private revenge performed by User:Beyond My Ken. I see it's him that posted the blocking proposal, and as you can trace, he was persecuting me on Wikipedia for a long time, usually reverting my sourced edits. I will not leave this case just like that. Yatzhek (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it, with all probability, also is a duck. And in my personal opinion a six-month block is on the lenient side of the scale, because you should have been blocked indefinitely here years ago, for doing nothing but pushing POV. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- According to the messages of users on this talk page, you have engaged in many edit wars. No offense, but I think this block is well-deserved. Please stop once the block expires, as you may be banned. I am not an administrator, but if you look at the edit warring policy page, one sentence in the lead says "Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." Thank you for understanding, and please do not engage in edit wars in the future. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:D434:82D3:C07E:F052 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- If someone loses their password, they are free to create new account or edit unlogged, but have to declare it properly. Using unlogged editing to avoid scrutiny is WP:ILLEGIT. If you want to appeal this block, the guide is here: WP:GAB. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
What is your proof that it was me then? Because I claim that these IP addresses do not belong to me, which is truth. And what did this IP user did wrong, that would qualify for getting blocked?
Why didn't you do a semi-protected page then, instead of blocking the wrong person? All you do is wrong.
You can not accuse someone without evidence. All you have is your conjectures and wild guesses.
Edit: I see now what's going on. The user who blocked me - User:Vanjagenije - is from Serbia, and the IP-address guy attempted to delete the Serbian picture from the article about the Nazi "subhuman" notion.
The user Vanjagenije is emotionally conntected to the case, and so he is biased.
By the way, dear Serbian friend - as a Polish person, I am the author of many successfull contributions about Serbian suffering during the World War II, including placing the information about Serbs in the "subhuman" article as people who were also called by that term, just like Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other non-Aryans. You can verify it, go ahead!
I think that getting blocked just because some of my persecutors told you so, was not a wise decision. And what can I do to be unblocked earlier?
Yatzhek (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Suppcuzz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
One of my goals in improving Wikipedia is protecting the historical truth, therefore my input sometimes leads to hard discussion, even edit wars. I admit. However, the accusation which I got blocked for, was about deleting a picture from an article, without logging in and using an IP address, which in fact was not mine and it was not me. But let's forget about it. Arguing about it won't lead us anywhere. The mentioned picture is a German caricature of a Serb, currently placed in the article Untermensch. I admit I had an attempt to delete it (because according to me it was anyhow connected with the term "untermensch"), however some other user mimicked my attempt much later, using an unlogged IP-user. And so, I got suddenly blocked out of nowhere. Nonetheless, please note my useful input in the same article which the deleted picture comes from. You have to know (and you can easily verify it!), that all of the information about persecutions of Serbs which are currently in that article were added by myself, exclusively by myself. Therefore, I am not a vandal, I don't have bad intentons at all, I am open for discussion. I even had an official praise on Wikipedia for my good input. I am not a fake instigator, nor a Wikipedia-vandal, so please unlock me my friends. At least consider it. Yatzhek (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In July, while blocked, you told Vanjagenije "you will suffer the consequences" [12] in regard to your block. While WP:HA was not the reason for your block, it is still a policy that applies universally. Under it, harassment consists of statements whose "purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated". The statement "you will suffer the consequences" appears to meet this definition. Our policy WP:BLOCKP identifies blocking as an appropriate remedy to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms".
Therefore, I regret I am required to decline your unblock request as the block is serving as a behavior modification tool and will have to be maintained until it either succeeds or expires, whichever happens first. In this matter, the question of logged-out edits was not considered. A new unblock request may be filed but should address both the reason for the original block and the new matter of HA.
Though I was required to decline your unblock request, you should note that the block will naturally expire in January 2020. Though your editing ability will remain restricted during this time, you are very welcome to continue as a participant in the Wikipedia project as a reader of WP content. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Suppcuzz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Actually, dear User:Chetsford, my block message says: 21:15, 18 July 2019, Vanjagenije blocked Yatzhek with an expiration time of 6 months - REASON: (Abusing multiple accounts - Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). But OK, as you say, I will this time refer to the other issue. I admit, I got angry because of, in my personal opinion, unjust blocking of my account. By saying "you will suffer the consequences" I meant getting blocked for unreasonable and radical action, which of course is my personal opinion again. I regret of using emotional language. Being blocked for the first time in my Wikipedia career is no fun. All I can say is that I will do my best to keep my emotions calm. Also, Please note that I am a user with nearly 10-years of experience as an editor and this is my first block ever. That's why I am not a destroyer, I am a builder. I am not a vandal, I repair vandalism. I think it would be good if Wikipedia users received a warning about their bad behavior, instead of a sudden block. That would verify who treats Wikipedia seriously. I really care about Wikipedia content and keeping the information as close to the truth as possible, without any bias. During years of editing, I got praised for my useful and positive input to Wikipedia. But I've also met much hate and propaganda hidden under the coat of improvement. Again let me emphasize - I am always open to discussion. That is why, please, unblock me. Yatzhek (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only, not a decline on the merits of the request. You falsely claim this was your first block. That's not the case, you were blocked in 2014 for harassment. Five years is a long time and I'm sure you just forgot (I mean that honestly, it would be natural to forget), so I'm giving you a chance to correct your statement in a new unblock request. Yamla (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Suppcuzz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thanks User:Yamla, I did not remember about the previous block, to be honest, I still don't, but you are probably right. It must have been a short-period block, not a 6-month one, so maybe that's why I can't recall it. Anyway, this is my corrected statement:
Dear User:Chetsford, my block message says: 21:15, 18 July 2019, Vanjagenije blocked Yatzhek with an expiration time of 6 months - REASON: (Abusing multiple accounts - Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). But OK, as you say, I will this time refer to the other issue. I admit, I got angry because of, in my personal opinion, unjust blocking of my account. By saying "you will suffer the consequences" I meant getting blocked for unreasonable and radical action, which of course is my personal opinion again. I regret of using emotional language. All I can say is that I will do my best to keep my emotions calm. Also, Please note that I am a user with nearly 10-years of experience as an editor, that's why I am not a destroyer, I am a builder. I am not a vandal, I repair vandalism. I think it would be good if Wikipedia users received a warning about their bad behavior, instead of a sudden block. That would verify who treats Wikipedia seriously. I really care about Wikipedia content and keeping the information as close to the truth as possible, without any bias. During years of editing, I got praised for my useful and positive input to Wikipedia. But I've also met much hate and propaganda hidden under the coat of improvement. Again let me emphasize - I am always open to discussion. That is why, please, unblock me.
Yatzhek (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Due to ongoing block evasion, this is now an indefinite CheckUser block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- That is correct. You were blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". I declined the block due to the revelation that other policy violations (violation of WP:HA) had since been committed that would have demanded immediate reimposition of the block following its lifting. To unblock you only to then immediately reblock you would have been unnecessarily procedural and Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. It would also have been manifestly unfair to you since it would have had no practical effect in alleviating your restriction but would have created further marks on your block log.
-"I got angry because of, in my personal opinion, unjust blocking of my account. By saying "you will suffer the consequences" I meant getting blocked for unreasonable and radical action, which of course is my personal opinion again. I regret of using emotional language. All I can say is that I will do my best to keep my emotions calm." In my estimation, that satisfactorily resolves the question of HA. Someone else should review the block for the original matter of "abusing multiple accounts".
Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
User:NinjaRobotPirate - What do you mean by "ongoing block evasion"? My last request was guided by User:Yamla to correct my statement in another request for User:Chetsford to review, and so I did!
Yamla wrote: I'm giving you a chance to correct your statement in a new unblock request - And that's exactly what I did!!! And so, I had only 2 unblock requests, the 3rd was a corrected version of the 2nd one according to guidance of another admin.
I have the right to know what was so wrong in my last unblock request! And what exactly do you mean by "indefinite CheckUser block"? Yatzhek (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- You've been evading your block by editing while logged out. The block is now indefinite; in other words, it will not expire. The evidence is from the CheckUser tool, and the block can only be lifted by a CheckUser. You can make another unblock request if you want, but your only real hope of being unblocked is the standard offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I am always defending historical truth and reliable sources on Wikipedia, even at the expense of being bloked. I can't recall which article did I edit while being unlogged, after the unblock requests and regreting my attitude. I've also read that an indefinite block is only for the worst offense and vandalism. Why have my unblock requests and regreting for emotional language resulted in expanding my block to even more, worst possible version? That's unfair.
So what do I do now? I wait 6 months, and then what exactly should I do? Will my 10-year experience on Wikipedia and many praises for my input be taken into consideration when I request for unblocking then? Who to ask for unblocking after that period of 6 months of not editing Wikipedia? Yatzhek (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:NinjaRobotPirate I wrote you an e-mail. I apologize for my mistakes and I'm willing to cooperate. Yatzhek (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I guess you'd have two options here. You can make an unblock request normally, via {{unblock}}. Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks will give you advice on what we look for. The other option is that you could ask for an appeal to be posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If you did that, all users in the community (not just administrators) would discuss the issue and come to a consensus on whether to unblock you. The advantage to the first option (normal unblock process) is that you don't have a mob of random people commenting about you; instead, it's a one-on-one conversation with an administrator. The advantage of going to the community is that the issue will typically be resolved rather conclusively, one way or the other. If the appeal to the community fails, the block will usually be converted into a community ban, and any further appeals will have to go through the community. You could also try you luck with the normal unblock process, and, if you dislike the result from that, try going to the community instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. So what exactly should I do to start the standard unblock process? I want to make sure to avoid an unwise decision.
- I'm new to this situation that I'm in, and I'm a non-native English speaker, therefore I have to think twice as much while making a move. Yatzhek (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can understand that. There isn't really any opportunity cost to making an unblock request on your talk page, so that's what I'd personally suggest that you do. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. It's the same process that you did above. You can do that as many times as you like and still appeal to the community later. However, once you appeal to the community, any further appeals would also have to be done via that method, too. So, it limits your options somewhat. Of course, some people might feel that administrators are biased against them and prefer to appeal to the community. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I guess you'd have two options here. You can make an unblock request normally, via {{unblock}}. Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks will give you advice on what we look for. The other option is that you could ask for an appeal to be posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If you did that, all users in the community (not just administrators) would discuss the issue and come to a consensus on whether to unblock you. The advantage to the first option (normal unblock process) is that you don't have a mob of random people commenting about you; instead, it's a one-on-one conversation with an administrator. The advantage of going to the community is that the issue will typically be resolved rather conclusively, one way or the other. If the appeal to the community fails, the block will usually be converted into a community ban, and any further appeals will have to go through the community. You could also try you luck with the normal unblock process, and, if you dislike the result from that, try going to the community instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you User:NinjaRobotPirate for all the instructions and valuable tips. Yatzhek (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Suppcuzz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've waited 9 months without touching Wikipedia in any way. I feel sorry for my previous mistakes, I'm conscious that my behavior was against some of the Wikipedia rules which then I was not fully aware of. I will avoid such actions in the future. Regards. Yatzhek (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
With the agreements below, you are now unblocked. Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm OK with unblocking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- If NinjaRobotPirate agreed to lift the
{{checkuserblock-account}}, I am OK with it. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- If NinjaRobotPirate agreed to lift the
Thank you! I appreciate it. Yatzhek (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring at Racism edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I'm referring to WP:BRR, especially the sentence Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive.
I'll be happy to discuss the issue on the talk page, but I ask you really to make an effort to understand my concerns. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit
| | 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message edit
| | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
May 2022 edit
Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to Paul Shenar have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. Ok, I didn't know that. I reverted your input before reading this, so you can revert my submission once again. However, Shenar is most probably a Jewish surname, so next to his Polish and Slovenian roots, it is highly possible that he also had some Jewish descent. The information about his Turkish and Greek origin are the least reliable though. Suppcuzz (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)