User talk:François Robere

Hello there! Regarding your edits on the Compiler and Runtime library articles, it's all about preventing issues later down the road no matter how much better things look at the moment with additional formatting – and I agree that additional vertical spacing is required there. For example, recent typography refresh changed a lot, and any non-standard explicit formatting is simply a call for troubles. Thus, you should see how to modify the troublesome templates, so additional vertical spacing becomes introduced that way. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dsimic,

I agree that it's not an ideal solution, and in general ad-hoc solutions are to be avoided when possible. Unfortunately there's hardly a better solution at the moment as long as the layout engine behaves as it does (the templates themselves being perfectly fine). That being said, subsequent to your message I consulted the help desk and added a whitespace character as an outer title to the template; this will effectively "push" the template down by one line in every article where it appears - layout-wise it's not ideal, but it does provide centralized control. Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for handling this! Using   is a much better (and centralized) solution, though it might be worth it to try passing 0.5em instead as the value for top margin through the {{Sidebar}}'s |style= parameter? Seems like that way sidebars should align perfectly with the lead section both when there is a hatnote and when there it isn't (tried it out in Firebug, and it worked as expected). Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried playing around with that, and I think it is better than the   option, but eventually you get the worse of all worlds: Where there's a header template the margin should be ~0.85, and where there isn't it should be ~0.25, and 0.5 (which, admittedly, is a reasonable average) just doesn't hit either. That being said, until this is solved in the parser level I see no better solution other than doing it manually in each article (which, while problematic from a technical perspective, produced the best overall results), given that they are all monitored over the long term. For the time being we can leave it as is (give or take an additional 0.05em of padding) until a better solution comes along. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know almost too well what it's like when you start playing with aligning elements through CSS. :) Almost always things don't work as expected, at least not in one of the major browsers. Have you tried it in IE, GC and FF? That's where real troubles are usually hiding. :) Having all that in mind, I'd say that leaving it with style = margin-top: 0.5em, at least for now, is a reasonable compromise. Of course, we can always come back to it if (or when) a better solution becomes available. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Law of attraction (New Thought), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're marking all of your edits as minor. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Thanks. I don't mark all of my edits as "minor", just those that are - mainly small layout and code changes, but also some rephrasing. Marking this latter edit included mainly moving and removing of redundant refs, along with some cleanup of unsourced material - not something that affects the article's essence. Put differently - that article is so badly-written, that the only edits it could undergo that I'll consider "major" would be a significant copyedit or a substantial substantive addition; everything else is just "making it a little better", so I do not consider it major in any way.

Most of my edits are off-the-cuff as I'm reading articles that interest me. I do not count the bytes of an edit, but rather the time and energy it took, and the contribution it has to the substance and style of an article. Just as an example - adding a template to a page can add a couple of hundred bytes, but it'll still be a minor edit. The same can be the case with rephrasing a paragraph without actually removing any material. That being said, I may have over-used the "minor edit" tag on some occasions (if for no other reason then to mark the difference between some of my small corrections and additions and the more substantive work of some of the other editors on those articles), and I'll take your note into consideration. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Astrology 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 get 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. Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong The last revert was not part of an "edit war", as the editor in question previously refused to discuss the changes and proceeded to revert on his own accord. If anything, that editor should be warned that "I don't like it" is not reason enough to revert another's contributions. Other than that - thanks for your involvement. François Robere (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Thethree-revert rule You have already reverted three times. Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As have several other editors, as you may see. If you will oblige and provide the necessary warnings etc. reminding of proper conduct on talk pages. My thanks. François Robere (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive removal of the {{more plot}} template at Bad Biology. WP:FILMPLOT says that film plots should be between 400 and 700 words, and we need a complete description of the plot for this film. If you want to discuss it, take it to the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, the film has no plot. That's the point. I'm almost through the film, and it's basically it - lots of sex, lots of dead bodies and discarded mutated babies, and one permanently-orgasming prostitute. It's not exactly Shakespeare, nor is it a soap opera with five twists per scene. You simply cannot elaborate more than that without actually disclosing the end (which would require about two more sentences, because that's that. That's the film. What else do you want there? A count of mutated babies? That would obviously contradict WP:FILMPLOT, which states that "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". François Robere (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The film has a perfectly legitimate plot. You are welcome to your opinion, and you can express it on a blog or at the IMDb, but Wikipedia is not the place. I will get around to writing a full plot for the film eventually, but, until then, the template should stay, so that other people can find it at Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention. There are people, such as myself, who use this category to find articles that need work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate I agree, and retract my previous objection. Please do fix the article! We're 295 words short for it to be a legitimate account of the film's events, properly representing the dramatic intricacies of multi-clitoral cunnilingus and proper binding techniques for 2' long sentient genitalia. The article would certainly not be complete lest we describe Batz's insecurities and animal growth hormone overdose. Please, take the time and fix it! François Robere (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

after a careful study and being a Razdan, I discovered that Razdan originated from the Zoroastrian priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta (The holy text of the Zoroastrians). Razdan means "To know the secret or sacred words". Razdan's are Kashmiri and migrated from Persia, modern day Iran. The first iteration of Razdan comes from the god of the Zoroastrians Ahura Mazda which translated means Ahura - loving or light and Mazda - word. The priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta were refered to as the fharazdah. Later as the priest and religion migrated east and settled in Armenia, they grew Zoroastrianism and gained wealth and land. The Hrazdan river in Armenia, was given the name from the priest as the locals could not pronounce fharazda and instead pronounced only the "hah", this area was the second major known anthropological resting place for modern day Razdan's. Eventually as the priest migrated through the Indu Kush and established themselves in Kashmir they brought with them wealth, horses (aryans), and knowledge of ancient teachings of Indra (a zoroastrian god, not hindu) and fire ceremonies and were given the designation of Kashmiri Pandits or Priest of Kashmir. Because in India priest were brahman caste, these Kashmiri Pandits were also designated as brahmans. This history predates the census report of 1800s and dates back to the time of Zoroaster himself. Please correct the article. Razdan's are not Indian, and more correctly we are migrants of Persia and the geneological names and lineage clearly show that. I've seen multiple other places incorrectly refer to the census report and refer to Rajanak. Razdan still today means "to know the secret or sacred words".

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Rahul K. Razdan

Rkrazdan All that being said, I only added a space in that article... Whatever your case may be, you have to have it backed by reliable sources; your own research is not enough. Once you have those, feel free to edit that article. François Robere (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost two months back you put a tag on this disambig page (Uncertain dates) and created a lot of red links. Please would you tell me what caused you to do this. I think there may be a misunderstanding. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. First, look at the previous revision (diff). You can see I made a whole bunch of little changes, mainly formatting and linking, but haven't changed the content itself. Why link? Because it makes sense that every notable subject mentioned in the article will have an article of its own, and a link, even if none exists at the moment; in this case it's to the five companies mentioned in the first section (just five distinct links, which are repeated in the second section). Why tag? Because there are a lot of question marks Re: dates the different companies and people operated. In short, the article requires some attention from someone who knows the Mulliner family history and can clarify who operated where and when, and hopefully elaborate on the most important of these in their own articles. François Robere (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, red links are frowned upon. An excuse is that the editor that made them red is writing an article to which it will be linked. Are you planning to do this? Now about dates. I am something of an expert on Mulliner family history as an experienced researcher into these things. If it were feasible for a non-family member to find those dates I'd have found them. So I don't think your edits were the least bit helpful. I've removed the tag, your red links are for you to deal with. Otherwise your "whole bunch of little changes" are to my mind unwarranted but not significant. Eddaido (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you please. Regarding dates: As we're dealing with registered companies, I would expect some information would be available at either a local or national archive (indeed, The National Archives have several records of companies by the name of Mulliner that existed in the relevant time period). The current state of affairs, coupled with the lack of sourcing for the "certain" dates (sourcing which should appear in the subject articles themselves, which do not yet exist), and the general lack of notability of the subject (ie. low availability of sources) justify an "expert needed" tag. As for style: A troublesome article is only half as bad when it's well-formatted. François Robere (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha, give your hopelessly naive "suggestions" a try for yourself and its not an article. Good luck. Eddaido (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you encumbered someone else with your conceited and disrespectful tone. It is most unwelcome in this company. François Robere (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this discussion and this part of the film MOS. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, You completely misunderstand the nature of this reference. The issue isn't the IMDB score, but the politicization of it. IMDB isn't the source for this claim, but Wired. IMDB is merely the source of the current rating, following the process described by Wired. François Robere (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the topic to reply to. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, François Robere!

Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

fasinating!

To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  00:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People editing in the I/P area are limited to 1 revert per 24 hours. At 2000 Ramallah lynching, you broke this iron rule, which is covered by sanctions:

• Ist revert 13:50, 3 August 2017‎
• 2nd revert 10:09, 4 August 2017‎

You have only one option which is to restore the text as I edited it. Secondly, I added an important note from a new source, and you cancelled out the key details, and the RS source.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... not really. Only one of those is a revert. Regardless, try to avoid lawfare; if you want to argue on the merits or demerits of an edit, however, you're welcome to do so.François Robere (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani is correct here. Please read the latest here, especially the underlined part, Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours.

You were reverted, then reinserted the same material, within a 24 hour period. That is not allowed under the latest ARBPIA rules. Please self revert, or you will probably be reported, Huldra (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually his proposition was different than yours, but that's beside the point. You changed the rules only recently to protect against something completely different than the case in point (that is - ideological, rather than editorial disagreements); my edit was both warranted and accurate, and was reversed without cause; and now you're enforcing a new rule (of which I don't recall being notified prior to today), on a case for which it was not intended, in order to suppress a proper edit in favor of one with multiple factual, stylistic and semantic errors. No, of course I will not revert to that. If you're to engage the bureaucracy to shut yet another helpful edit/or for no other reason but the bureaucracy itself, you'd have achieved nothing but to reinforce our confidence in Parkinson's law. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What first caught my eye was the faulty grammar. You let this stand:

The 2000 Ramallah lynching was a violent incident that took place on October 12, 2000 at the el-Bireh police station, where a Palestinian mob killed and mutilated the bodies of two Israel Defense Forces reservists, Vadim Norzhich (Nurzhitz) and Yosef "Yossi" Avrahami who were taken into custody by Palestinian Authority policemen after entering Ramallah.

were taken must be written had been taken being subordinate to the simple tense of 'killed' and 'mutilated', giving the temporal order 'after being taken into custody' they were killed. This is elementary, and as it stood it was an eyesore.

The Palestinian mob of some thousand or so neither 'killed or mutilated': they did something just as bad, they cheered when shown the bloodied hands of one of those who committed that heinous act. I don't think I altered this, but it should not stand thus.

'Accidentally' is in quite a few sources. But it is not appropriate to a lead, and requires attribution, We only know that this was the official IDF version. It may well be true. But like much else, one can't assume anything in reportage here.etc.

I won't discuss this further, since the point is my change was logical, whatever its merits, and you shouldn't be engaged in wholesale cancelling without examining the merits of the changes you are blanket-reverting. So, revert. And discuss this on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. The grammar is just fine. The different verbs pertain to different subjects, both active and passive, and are inflected appropriately: "The cat was taken to the clinic, where the vet treated it." Also see this.
2. "Mob" is an uncountable noun. By your logic one should say "some of the rice grains were tasty, but the rest were stale" when talking about a rice bowl. Anyway, I didn't modify that part - you did - so it's irrelevant.
3. If "accidentally "is in quite a few sources" and you've no sources otherwise, then it's good enough for the lead (and that's disregarding the common sense). Also, not everything in a lead needs attribution in the lead.
4. Your change was exactly that: wholesale cancelling, and that's exactly the problem: You undid my revision, which included multiple unrelated changes, then added some material of your own; and now you're arguing about the whole package rather than explaining why you undid my original edit. François Robere (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring, and will be reported if you persist, since you refused to undo your IR violation. Finis. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "edit warring", this is "discussion". Are you familiar with the term? François Robere (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't discuss with people who don't follow the primary rule.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm"? François Robere (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In conjunction with the notice just above, you should read this. In ARBPIA related topics (basically anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed) editors are restricted to one revert per 24 hour period (not 3 like everywhere else). People get blocked for this regularly, even on a first offence with no warning. A little over 24 hours also usually counts as a violation. You should keep this in mind when editing in this topic area. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. I don't edit much anymore so might miss your replies here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the notice. François Robere (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I took the trouble to make your citations readable. 09.08.2012 can be the 9 August, 2012, or the 8 of September 2012, depending on what convention dmy, or month day year. See Date format by country. I've had this problem with different newspapers, and that is why I changed it. Secondly, it is normal to provide a title of the piece, which your edit didn't. You are entitled to do that, but can hardly object to an attempt to clarify for readers what the topic of the article is. One doesn't have copyright on one's work in Wikipedia. Even editors one might take a dislike to can make useful corrections. We got off on the wrong foot? That's history, forget about it.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've edited three citations, and each ended up having a different format. Don't mess up my citations. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I said. No one has 'citations'. They can be modified, as, properly, NMMGG just did to mine, with good reason. The citations aren't 'yours', they are in the public domain. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani neglected to inform you that he mentioned you in this complaint at the administrators noticeboard. Up to you if to respond or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. François Robere (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you care for kindness given how you responded to patience on that talk page. François Robere (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your case but have attempted reopening the original complaint you made at ANI as it is clear you wish to discuss the conduct displayed by the user in question. If that fails for some reason, please let me know. Nihlus 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. François Robere (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not your "old chap" and I am not your "darling" or "dear". You are unwelcome on my talkpage. Please contribute to the discussion The appropriate talkpage. It's on my watchlist, so I'll notice. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love your sense of humour and appreciate how very patient you must be to do this all day (Thedecentone at User talk:Kleuske)

Notify Thedecentone that he was wrong at once! François Robere (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want? You pinged me and two other editors, but you didn't make a coherent request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two very coherent requests at ANI, was directed to DRN, then directed back, then both issues were closed (one of them by you) and now one of the admins (GB fan) is asking me on the talk page what's the problem. And I'm just the one who gave WP:3O! The original author decided to quit (and I don't mean the article, I mean Wikipedia). So here's the problem: Apparently no one cares enough to actually get involved in anything unless I cite one of Wikipedia's 300 or so policies and guidelines, or an edit war breaks out, or the editor I complained about chases a bunch of other editors out like he already did. No, it's impossible to ask admins to help before an edit war erupts, or without sanctioning a rogue editor, or in favor of old-school civil discussion. No, we have to be shitty. I'll know next time to ask for sanctions.

User:François Robere - No, you didn't make one or two coherent requests at ANI. You had a complaint, but it wasn't clear what you were complaining about, although some of us tried to ask and to figure out. In looking at it in depth, apparently you were trying to ask to have Kleuske's edits rolled back pending discussion. You didn't make that request plainly or simply, and that isn't the way we resolve a content dispute anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we a bloody bureaucracy or a cooperative enterprise? Just so I know. Because as it stands, if you're okay with an editor going "put up or shut up" after erasing 20% of an article against the wishes of two other editors, then Wiki has a serious problem. François Robere (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Assessment[edit]

Here is what I see. The basic issue is indeed a content dispute. User:Kleuske has made substantial revisions to the article, removing a considerable amount. You initially posted a complaint at WP:ANI against Kleuske, but you didn't state that Kleuske had done anything that would warrant sanctions. You said that you wanted "the admins" to do something about a user, but you didn't make a case as to what if anything the user had done wrong. You did state that you wanted the "stable" version of the article restored so that it could be discussed, but you didn't give a reason why Kleuske's edits should be rolled back other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't made a well-reasoned content argument, other than that you disagree with her edits, and you haven't made any conduct argument. Please do not open a new conduct thread unless you can describe a conduct issue. If you want to discuss content, because you disagree with Kleuske's edits, you still can do that, as long as you focus on content. Now - What do you want? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be more precise: I initiated nothing. Sturgeontransformer, who had reservations from Kleuske's conduct, asked for WP:3O, which I provided. Sturgeontransformer seemed content and gave a lengthy reply; Kleuske mostly ignored it (and Sturgeontransformer's comments) and continued to make changed.

As I said, I think I was pretty clear that this is a conduct issue, but if framing it as a content issue makes anyone happier, be my guest. I also explained on multiple occasion (this being the first) how discussing an article post-change is much more difficult than pre-change, which is one reason guidelines instruct people to seek consensus before making a change.

In essence, as I said earlier, it's a matter of one editor making sweeping changes contrary to the opinions of two other editors, and ignoring any suggestion to stop and discuss, using inflammatory language throughout. Not difficult. What I want is what I wanted from the beginning: to restore the original version prior to his changes (with minimal style or grammar corrections), then discuss his reservations regarding that version. Isn't that what we usually do? Discuss disputable changes before making them? Also, if someone could kindly ask Kleuske to be less acerbic and more attentive (as he seems to ignore some of the other editors' comments) it would make the discussion that much more productive. François Robere (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that FR is referring to Kleuske in the masculine, as he says he has not done. There is no requirement to use the correct gender of an editor whose gender is disclosed, but accuracy is a duty and not a virtue, and there is a requirement not to claim accuracy when one has not practiced it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm keeping a running list of the number of times I used "they" vs. "he". At the moment you're losing 1:12.5. Please, tell me more! François Robere (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to block you, because I think we have not arrived at that point. I am, however, going to caution you to be more attentive to the comments of those who disagree with your edits and proposed edits, and to make more use of Wikipedia's processes for achieving broader consensus, such as WP:3O, WP:RFM and WP:RFC. If you are confident you are right, then an RFC with a neutrally-stated premise, will give you the support you need. Please also be less aggressive in your comments to others. If you continue to be belligerent and personalise disputes, you will most likely be blocked or banned. Please consider this both warning and counsel. I have no dog in this fight, but if you have people like Robert McClenon criticising you, then you are definitely doing something wrong. Numerous venues exist for discussing edits and sources in a calm and collaborative way, please use them. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Oh, gosh. The whole thing wasn't about any of my edits or even proposed edits—I haven't even edited that article at that point—and my comments were perfectly reasonable up until the admins decided to redirect my complaint twice and argue about "how it was framed" rather than "what it was about". Just for the record (again), here's the discussion before I went to ANI; here's the ANI request; here's the DNR some admin opened, and another closed before then the ANI again.

As for Robert McClenon: Argue what you may, he was completely inattentive from the start. Here's my first reply to him; despite this detailed reply, he continued to argue the conflict was about "content" for the rest of the discussion, without ever explaining why. Here's my second interaction with him; the other editor had just said something nasty, again, and I pinged Robert and some of the other involved to see exactly what I had to deal with with the other editor (you can see both of the messages in that page); his reply? An impatient "Why are you calling me? ... What do you want?". Well, what I wanted was very simple: First, a civil discussion. Second, that they ask the other editor to control their temper; but not a single admin or moderator—indeed not even the one you're praising—could let slip the phrase "let's have a civil discussion." Not one. Not one of the adults in the room thought that phrases like "put up or shut up" (on of the other editor's "gems") had no place on Wikipedia. Not one. Instead they wrestled with how the issue was framed.

So with all due respect, I could not care less what that particular editor's opinion is; he's shown he doesn't care about mine.

And one last thing: I've done more than 3500 edits on Wikipedia (over 4000, accounting for unregistered edits), including on contentious and frequently vandalized articles on science, religion and politics. I've never been blocked, never been banned, and the vast majority of my edits have been accepted even when encountered with fierce resistance. I know how Wikipedia works and I don't need to be lectured. Something else I know: The way Wikipedia is conducted is driving away, and has driven away, scores of editors - intelligent, knowledgeable, collegial editors, who've been driven away the moment they saw their first wall of [[WP:]]s. I personally heard the lines "I tried editing there once" and "I used to edit there, but..." on more than one occasion, from people whose professional and academic proficiencies are indisputable. I'm not bothered by Robert McClenon, and at this point I'm not sure I would care even if did sanction me; but Wikipedia has a problem - a serious problem - and that problem manifested throughout this whole thing; you won't hear it from people like McClenon, content as they are in the forest of policies, guidelines and other cultural artifacts that Wikipedians begat for themselves, but you will hear it from everyone else; and when everyone else are criticizing you, then you're definitely doing something wrong. François Robere (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could use our processes and dial back the rhetoric, and avoid a repetition that will likely end in a ban. Guy (Help!) 02:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<blushing> You had me at "process". Are there also forms to sign? <3

See, thing is that's exactly what I tried to do, and it was a miserable failure. I sure won't try that again. François Robere (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so hard. Ask, listen, clarify, move on. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, François. I'm the second most frequent contributor at Third Opinion, the second most frequent contributor (and one of the founders) at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and a member (and current chairperson) of the Mediation Committee. I don't say any of that to brag or to claim any authority (and, indeed, I'm writing here only in my own capacity, not as a representative of any of those venues), but only to illustrate that at least know a little bit about what I'm about to say about content dispute resolution. I've been watching your work and I want to thank you for your efforts. We always need more volunteers to help with content dispute resolution here and I admire your good will and enthusiasm. I'm also pleased to see that you've focused on Third Opinion. That's the best place for newcomers to dispute resolution to get their feet on the ground (and the place where they can do the least harm if they're not quite on target, since what we offer there are non-binding opinions which do not even "count" towards consensus). I'd like to address a couple of things with you, however, which are making your work less effective than it might be:

• From your comments above in this thread, and some things that I've seen you do and say elsewhere, you're struggling with the proper use of Wikipedia policies and procedures and, indeed, seem to be of the opinion that those policies and procedures are a bad thing. There's two different things in that sentence (a) first, you, yourself, seem to be struggling with simply how to do things here, partly in DR, and partly in the procedural side of the encyclopedia as a whole and (b) second, you don't like the bureaucratic way things work here. I'm hoping that the second is nothing more than a "sour grapes" reaction to the first. Why? Because I think that you have the makings of a good DR'ist, but that will never happen if you truly oppose the system as a whole. If you want to change that system, fine, that's what wiki is all about. Pick some policies or procedures and go to their talk pages and advocate for their repeal or reform. But folks who are seeking DR want results that will "stick", and solutions to their problems which don't conform to existing policies and procedures are likely to be rejected by the disputants if they know anything about how things work here and, if they don't, are only likely to last until someone who does know comes along. The best solutions to disputes are those which help the parties come to consensus in a manner which fully comports with policy.^[1] One corollary of that is that to be an effective DR'ist, you need to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of, at least, basic policy and a willingness to investigate and learn areas that you don't know if you're going to accept cases involving them.
• That brings us to the "procedures" part. At the very least, you need to fully read and comply with the instructions on the DR pages that you're working under. Filing something at DRN and then having to be reminded that you need to notify the other parties when it plainly states that at the top of the page is simply embarrassing. Similar, but more problematic, is your willingness to file and/or take on disputes which are about conduct matters when the instructions at 3O and DRN^[2] plainly state that they don't handle conduct matters.^[3] Similarly, your ongoing references to "admins" when you're at a venue which isn't part of administrators' duties betrays a lack of knowledge about what admins can and cannot do. None of the content DR processes — 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, or RFC — require administrator participation or, indeed, ordinarily involve administrator participation.^[4]
• Finally, just a word to the wise about giving Third Opinions. What I'm about to say is not a 3O requirement and not everyone does it this way, but let me suggest that 3O is best used to give an opinion (after seeking clarification if needed) and then walking away from the dispute. 3O can be used to, but really isn't intended to, provide a venue or source for mediation. It's for seeking an opinion. (One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'.") Mediation on article or user talk pages is fraught with problems, the first and most important being that it's very easy for a disputant to conclude that you're taking sides and are partisan. Once that happens, you're just another party to the dispute. All the authority we have to offer to dispute resolution is our our neutrality and once you become perceived as a partisan that goes away. The second problem is that the policy I referred you to (in the footnote, below) about handling conduct problems doesn't give us any special rights when the dispute is at an article or user talk page, which makes conduct issues very hard to deal with. For that reason, giving an opinion and riding off into the sunset (with a hardy "Hi-Yo Silver" if you like), is the most effective thing to do. See my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian for more detail on my feelings about how best to do 3O.

Let me end where I began, with commending you for your enthusiasm and effort, and encouraging you to continue with DR with a few tweaks to your efforts. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention and comments, TransporterMan - the last of which I found particularly true - and my apologies for replying just now. You're generally right in your observations, but you're missing on one crucial assertion: My disagreement isn't with the policies themselves, but with how they're applied; and more generally with what Wikipedia grew to become from what, perhaps, it was meant to be.

Wikipedia is not just an information source or an organization, but a miniature society, with its own rules, conventions, literature, and the anecdotal makings of a mythology (eg. your quote above). The writing guidelines themselves are not a problem - they parallel accepted academic norms, and constitute a style guide the likes of which are common in other institutes. The conduct guidelines aren't necessarily a problem either - any organization must have a code of conduct and methods for resolving disputes. The problem is elsewhere: for whatever reasons, humans tend to take any decent corpus of laws and thicken it with a shrubbery of regulations, losing sight of the trunks along the way; and this is even more pronounced in regulated online communities like StackOverflow and Wikipedia, perhaps because they do not require their "magistrates" to have any formal legal training. This is further exacerbated by the fact most users do not have any training in discussion or debate - itself a proficiency requiring practice - and so many users naturally veer away from the substance of an argument (or "clash" in formal debating terms) into the more familiar territory of policy, strictly applied. And so regulations come to dominate the discussion, rather than the fundamentals - the Five Pillars and the statement of principles. The result is, indeed, that instead of Wikipedia being an open and inviting environment for anyone with the writing skills and subject knowledge (and a modicum of social competence), it presents a learning curve largely unrelated to its core goals.

Bear in mind, most of the above has been documented and researched, and the slow decline in the number of active Wikipedians has not gone unnoticed by Wikimedia. I've dwelt on it again after my most recent experiences here, and come to believe that much of it can be countered without touching policy substance. I'll elaborate in due time, perhaps even ask for you advice.

Thanks again for your comments and attention. François Robere (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input on the editing issues described on the talk page of the Vagina article. I am only coming to your talk page because I didn't want this note to get lost in all the goings-on. I have to agree that things got rather complex and you seemed to sift through it all pretty skillfully. Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts here, but as I noted there, you do not appear to be familiar with WP:MEDRS and other guidelines and norms for editing about health, and as far as I can see you have not dealt much with alt med and pseudoscience, which are topics that have discretionary sanctions on them. While I appreciate your effort to help, offering opinions that are not based in an understanding of the policies and guidelines is not ultimately helpful. Please reconsider offering third opinions on those matters until you understand that underlying policies and guidelines better. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Did you see in your extensive search anything to suggest I am not a medical doctor? Or a nuclear physicist? Or perhaps a sociologist frequently occupied with fringe phenomena? I doubt you have. As far as you know, I might have written WP:MEDRS myself at some point. But even if I haven't - the fallacy of addressing one's characteristics rather than one's argument does nothing to advance the discussion. François Robere (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking of what you do here in Wikipedia and your awareness of policies and guidelines based on what you do here. What you do in the real world has nothing to do with understanding Wikipedia, and the fact that you said anything about what you do in the real world as though it is relevant, shows that you do not know what you are doing in Wikipedia enough to be offering advice to other people. Please do reconsider participating at third opinions until you understand Wikipedia better.Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: So you reckon WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with the practice of eg. medicine? François Robere (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Not a thing. It has to do with the kinds of sources that are OK to use in Wikipedia for health content. You don't have to be a doctor to understand it and many doctors don't understand it - it is in fact counter-intuitive for doctors and scientists who write regularly in the biomedical literature. Again you are showing that you do not understand Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: WP:MEDRS quotes no less than 31 sources mostly from medical literature as justification. François Robere (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, François,

At this discussion, regarding proper pronoun usage you said, "I try to use 'they' to avoid gender-related mistakes..." but there's a better way: intead of "they", use "{{they}}":

• Flyer22 Reborn is "they / them / their / theirs".
• Doc James is "he / him / his / his."
• François Robere is "they / them / their / theirs".

If you wish to change your pronouns, you can do so by going to your Preferences. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

François, thanks for working with me on the article, let’s pause the editing of this article for some period of time because it has been reverted too many times already. This may be viewed by some as a Edit War. Cheers GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now mainly adding or rephrasing stuff. Do avoid undoing if you remove good stuff along with wording you disagree with. François Robere (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so I’ll not touch it then for some time to leave you some unstressful time to work on it, but try to work at different areas avoiding disputed entries. P.S. François, please be conscious of the fact that it appears that you have a strong opinion on the subject that others may not agree with. I might be guilty of the corresponding as well. Let's try to be as unbiased as possible. Rethink everything twice before making changes to see if it might appear to be a POV pushing. Cheers man. GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi François, you entered: ”The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself” backed by citing 2 media articles. One from the American LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/13/local/me-9923

and one from the Israeli Ynet news:

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4745850,00.html

How do these 2 foreign media publicists prove Polish "complicity" in the Holocaust being controversial in Poland itself? There is not a word about it and I have read the entire articles.

On top of that, you linked the expression “controversial” to "Polish death camp" controversy article. This doesn’t make any sense.

You see what I mean? I read the Polish press and I can tell you that the issue of Polish complicity in the Holocaust is not controversial in Poland at all. If you really think that the matter is controversial in Poland itself then you need to back it up by the sources that prove it to be true; such as a range of article in the Polish press or few books about it etc. I hope you understand where I'm I coming from. I will move this conversation to the associated talk page and will think how to reword this line, but you can help me with that if you want. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources are WP:RELIABLE, and both clearly support the statement. I'm not going to do literary analysis on that. I'm unclear on why you place such an emphasis on the nationalities of sources, both in the article and on talk pages.

I read the Polish press and I can tell you that the issue of Polish complicity in the Holocaust is not controversial in Poland at all Indeed, it is just widely denied, at least from what I'm seeing time and time again. Would you prefer we go to my original phrasing? François Robere (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francois, in response to your recent message to me on the other page, I’ll utter my thoughts here instead. You mentioned an antiSemitism in Poland. It's true, Poland had a very large chunk of antisemitic element among its populace always. It is somehow typical because that was where the most Jews lived for a 1000 years, you don’t have antisemites in Greenland, don't you, LOL? The conflicts between Jews and Poles were mostly based on the faith disputes and economic issues. Some Poles, for example, being Catholics unfairly blamed Jews for the death of Christs. Some Jews, on the other hand, favored other Jews in business and discriminated Polish traders. The list of this minor conflicts between the Jews and Poles is very long but in general Jews in Poles lived in Poland together in relative peace and harmony for centuries. This all changed on the outbreak of the war. Jews lost all rights because of the Nazi orders and that is when some of the antisemitic elements within the Polish society blossomed. Jewish life was worthless, criminal element further demoralized by the reality of the war took advantage of the situation and committed many crimes against the Jews, rapes and murders. But you need to understand that these people didn't represent Polish society as a whole. Majority of the Poles were rather sympathetic to the Jewish situation, and many actively helped despite the fact that any help was punished by death (imagine that!) Now think how painful it must be to those righteous Poles and their offsprings when they hear that “the Polish Nation is complicit in the Holocaust" this is unfair. Guilty is the criminal element of the society, not the Nation. The reason I’m writing all this to you is to strive some kind of understanding and sensitivity of how the Poles feel about all of this. PS I’m old Francois, some Jewish blood here also:) you can say that I’m telling you all this from my life experience GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're exhibiting exactly the sort of denial you denies exist. It starts with a false equivalence: "Jews and Poles always had small conflicts" - conflicts like the Khmelnytsky pogroms, where 100,000 Jews were murdered? Or any of the smaller pogroms, where "only" dozens of people were murdered? But the Jews... the Jews preferred to buy in their own shops! Disgusting! Are you serious?

The Jews were always a persecuted minority, you can't equate between whatever they got and whatever they supposedly "dished". You can't call persecution conflict. This is the beginning of denial, and it goes on to suggesting the tiny minority of Jews who survived the Holocaust were responsible for Communism (Józef Glemp, 2001); are planning world domination (Antoni Macierewicz, 2015); bear responsibility to the Holocaust because they were "passive" (Andrzej Zybertowicz , 2018); and many more such comments government officials and media.[1][2][3] Poland is still full of it[4][5], and rather than face it today, you're busy denying the past. A "criminal element demoralized by the reality of the war"... are you kidding me? They were not "criminal elements", they were neighbours, friends, strangers at the marketplace. I've heard dozens of survivors' testimonies (if not more), and one of the common threads running most of them is betrayal by fellow Poles. Ronen Bergman's story? I've heard dozens just like it. People being ratted out to the Nazis by strangers. People coming back after the war and finding their homes ransacked and all possessions looted by neighbours. It's not "criminal elements", it's literally every single story.

Jews, as you know, did not simply disappear, and their possessions did not magically vanish, and it wasn't all the German Nazis' doing. People knew what's going on and took advantage of it. "Now think how painful it msut be to those righteous Poles and their offspring" - yes, of course... consider the Poles emotions. Poles are the victims here... we must protect the Poles... Well, what about Jews and their offspring? When will anyone take responsibility for that? [6][7][8]

François Robere (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this Ukrainian Hetmnan’s Bohdan Khmelnytsky pogrom? I sadly see François that you have a very strong opinion on the issue and you knowledge is based only on one sided references. Very troubling. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean Khmelnytsky of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland.

One sidedness? I doubt you read even a single one of those sources. I doubt you ever asked yourself what your own numbers mean: if Poland was home to 6,700 Righteous Among the Nations (whose feelings worry you so, as if people of such character get offended so easily) - a mere 0.02% of Poles - what does it say about the other 99.98%? And those 0.02% who saved their fellow Poles under threat of death - who were they threatened by, exactly? Surely if everyone were so sympathetic to the Jewish plight, and only a few Poles - a handful, really, only the "criminal elements of society" - posed them a threat, surely they had nothing to fear, right? Who would give them away? After all, the other 99.98% of Poles were so sympathetic. François Robere (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Francois, we are speaking about the same man, the hero of Ukraine, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, he led the 1648 Khmelnytsky Uprising against the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. His rebellion among many other things resulted in the massacres of the Polish Jews. Up to 100.000 were killed by his Ukrainian rebels called Cossacks. Jews sided with the Polish King (do you dare to ask yourself why?). You see, that's what I'm talking about when I said that you have a very strong opinion based on one-sided views and even stereotypes. But let me be clear, I’m not criticising you for that Francois, actually, I do understand you. PS I'm busy right, just wanted to drop this line here before I head out. I'll address the rest later. PS Francois, may I ask you if you are an Israeli? Just out of the curiosity, you don’t have to answer if you don't want to. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know who he was, I know he was born in the far reaches of the Polish commonwealth, I know he was educated in Poland and spoke Polish fluently, and after being captured while fighting on behalf of the commonwealth was bailed by Polish nobility or office holders. Like it or not, he was as much part of the Polish commonwealth as anyone else.

I also know that your recurring attempts to classify both perpetrators and sources based on their nationality, is nothing but an attempt to sidestep well-known truths, hanging to whatever you can find (eg. some of your sources that are either unknown or unqualified to make the argument). You say I'm "one-sided", well - I asked you what your numbers mean when you look at them from a different angle... Have you? François Robere (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Francois! Exactly what I was talking about! After I proved to you that in fact, you did’t know much about the Khmelnytsky, you only heard something Khmelnytsky-pogroms-Poland, you immediately started to spin everything. Because your strong opinion takes over you conscious. Khmelnytsky wasn’t Polish Francois, his Cossacks were not Polish either. He was not a subject of the Polish Crown when he committed atrocities on Jews and Polish Catholic Clergy. His newly formed Ukrainian State was fighting Poland. Many Jews fled for the safety of the territories still controlled by the Polish Kingdom to avoid the slaughter but you unconsciously reject all of the above facts because you strong opinion prevails. You are immediately looking for any abything to make Khmelnytsky Pogrom as Polish as possible. Despite the fact that you already know now that his atrocities had NOTHING to do with Poland other than the fact he spoke Polish. This is exactly the same course of your unconscious thinking when it comes to the Holocaut. You twist everything because your strong opinion takes over. Very troubling but I still have a great degree of sympathy to you Francois and I’m pretty sure I do understand you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he wasn't! They never are, are they? You keep denying any Polish involvement in any historical massacre, whether from the 17th century or WWII. You deny antisemitism, collaboration and persecution, usually by calling "No true Scotsman": "it's not true Poles, it's an 'antisemitic element of the populace'"; "it's not true Poles, it's a 'criminal element demoralized by the war'"; "it's not true Poles, it's rebel Cossacks". It's never "true Poles", isn't it? "True" Poles are "brave" and "sympathetic", and all 6,700 of them saved Jews! François Robere (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

François please, I’m not denying the fact that there were Poles that committed crimes against the Jews and I never did. There were Polish nationals who committed terrible crimes on Jews, of course, and there were many people like that. I know more barns like Jedwabne were Jews were slathered with the active participation of Poles. But not all did that. Most Poles were preoccupied with their own survival. Ask yourself this question. If Poles were so eager to help the German why death penalty for helping Jews? Questions like this you should reflect on. I'll tell you the personal story later when I find some time. Good day or good night whenever you are :) speak to you later. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good, so what's the problem? No one said everyone were involved. Stop grabbing at straws to prevent any mention of it in the article. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the sources you liked (Piotrowski) claims that the whole Polish society was involved in hunting and killing Jews. Here is my personal story I promised to tell you. During the war, my mother helped to shelter (3 weeks) a Jewish friend of her, a veterinarian. He left the Ghetto and decided to blend in on the Arian side because he had a very slight Jewish look in opinions of many. The were no Ghetto walls in the town we lived in, so it was easy to move in and out. All neighbors were told that he is a Pole, a cousin, on his way to Warsaw, but most suspected that it is not the case. One day when he took an infant (me) for a walk, he was seen by a German officer (very nice men) my mother knew. The Germans lived nearby. (Germans expelled Poles from the nicer apartments and moved them to the apartments Jews were expelled from) The German officer asked my mother when he bumped into her "who is the man that is walking the infant every day? My mother told him the same story that he is a cousin of his way to Warsaw. The German answered: “Er sieht wie ein Jude aus" - He looks like a Jew. My mother almost literally got a heart attack from panic. If the German investigated or called the Gestapo we all would be dead. Next day my mother called a friend and asked for help. She arranged a new location with a farmer in the nearby village. Her husband rode two bicycles with the doctor to the village where he was hidden until the end of the war. Doctor survived but died in 1947 from natural death. I bearly remember him. The reason I told you this story is to point out something. The Jewish doctor - 1 person receiving assistance. Helpers were, my mother, my father, cleaning help that lived with us, my mother's friend who arranged a new location, her husband, the farmer, his wife and indirectly four teenaged sons. Now look, it took 11 extremally strong people to help one person survive. But it would take only 1 bad person to denounce them. Now, none of them is recognized by the Yad Vashem, they all past away in late 60's and early 70's, not sure about the teenage sons but if they are alive they must be very old. Untold stories like mine are many. Reflect on this a little, at least try. That may at least change your perception on the view that “ a mere 0.02%" helped and the rest should be condemned. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I believe you're mixing Piotrowski with Grabowski, and I'm not sure you're reading the latter as he intended.

Second, your mother's story is heroic and commendable, but your educational mission here is quite simply misplaced. As I said, I heard dozens of survivors' stories if not more, so I obviously know saviors' stories as well. The article in question isn't about the saviors, it's about all the rest. The Polish WWII ethos is that of a "heroic society" - a brave stand against the German invader on all levels of society - a myth. A lie, if you will. The fact of the matter is that the Polish people weren't any better than any other society that had to endure Nazi rule. They suffered more than some, but were braver than few. However you turn it - double the number of Righteous, multiply it tenfold to account for the supportive environment - you're still left with a fraction of Poles. The rest? In the beginning they said "we didn't know", but we know they did. Then they said "we couldn't stop it", but the Righteous few showed that it could be done, at least in some cases. Then they said "but at least we didn't do it ourselves"... but by all accounts they did do it to thousands of people. You say ten people were needed to save just one person? The same was true for many pogroms: ten or more attackers on every victim; and more people around them who just didn't do anything. Jews were a tenth of the population, but no one cared when they were gone. And therein lies the core of the Polish lie: The Polish nation was not engaged in saving Jews; most people just didn't care enough, and a great many were happy to see the Jews disappear. That is what Grabowski meant when he said "there were no bystanders"; you either did something or you didn't; most people - the Polish nation at large - didn't; only the precious few did. It would honor your mother's memory, as well as the man she saved, to clarify how unusually brave and remarkable her actions were, rather than bind her in the same sheath with the indifferent majority. François Robere (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am interrupting. I edit a lot of Holocaust content on WP. During the past year, I have edited or read pages about Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and present day Baltic neo-Nazis. Last night I read the Wiki article about the Zaporozhian Cossack navy in the 15th to 17th century. I replied to a comment on the talk page questioning whether they ever sacked Constantinople I replied there, and on the editor's talk page . He is Adnai, the banned Russian guy who was a Wikignome on English Wikipedia. I read your entries in the discussion there. I like and agree with what you said: "A lot of prejudiced people can be quite nice in person, and would even align themselves with your cause if they only knew you. Indeed - familiarity is one of the reasons that have been frequently cited to explain the speed by which LGBTx were accepted by (Western) society vs. other minorities. The fact that a person has that infobox on their profile doesn't mean they're beyond "redemption"; in some ways it's better that they "wear their beliefs on their sleeves" than hide or mask them. . . other Wikipedians simply don't know what to look for, so they accept a range of expressions that, to a member of a minority, are crystal-clear." Next, I read your essay, about racism. I feel sad that it ignited a firestorm of protest. I know of WP:NONAZIS. I like your essay better.

The conversation you had with Bella was in 2018. These feelings people have, especially about Jews, they never seem to die out. I grieved as I read this. It is dated 2010. I grieved when I read THIS, published by Deutsche Welle! (If anyone should know better, they should!) The U.S. would never give $100 billion, HIMARS, and 155mm ammo to the 2017 Unite the Right Rally (nor would the latter want them to); yet they do give that, and more, to current fans of Babyn Yar in our proxy war. Returning to Bella's comment and the present, I recently read about the Crimean Krymchaks. This excerpt seems relevant: "Why did Poland adopt a law allowing for the criminal prosecution of anyone who suggests that some Poles helped the Nazis, but decline to pass a law on perpetuating the memory of those who saved Jews, often at the cost of their lives? Why in Lithuania is Ruta Vanagaite, the author of the book “Ours,” which addresses the extermination of the Jews by Lithuanian people, considered an enemy of the people and a traitor?”

I have been editing Wikipedia for 13 years. I've learned so much! I never felt welcome here, e.g. I only was informed that I had been assigned a Wikipedia mentor in 2011 when I was told he had died last year! I feel even less welcome now. Thank you for listening.--FeralOink (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in giving your third opinion a second time? The third party has organized a new soure which he believes to back up his change from 1879 and 1890 and naming Italian Eritrea as a successor state. In reality it's just a more detailled version of what we already observed: There was some armed resistance after the imprisonment of the last Bahr Negash. It even states that Ras Alula was the de facto ruler over the Eritean highlands, so it's a shot in his own foot really. If you would state the obvious we could reverse his changes without many problems. GG LeGabrie (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This heading is the funniest thing I read all day. I'll attend to it tomorrow. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that both you(LeGabrie) and Francois Robere are best friends in this discussion, I am right to state that the Third Opinion is Biased. Please recuse yourself Francois Robere as you are proving to me that you are NOT a NEUTRAL Party to this discussion.Uknowofwiki (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More at User_talk:NeilN#Unlocking_Medri_Bahri. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would be cool if you could leave your opinion here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Medri_Bahri#Ethiopian-Bias_in_Article_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medri_Bahri#MerabMillash(MedriBahri)_1870s-1890_(More_Notables_and_Events_then_1879) LeGabrie (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francois Sorry about not getting back to you earlier, too busy. Good work on the article C. with the Axis P. looks much better in many aspects especially that it has been abbreviated. Now, when I read it I do sense, however, an unintentional POV from your part. It all comes back to what we talked about previously, (remember?) your strong opinion. Expect an invasion of other people with Polish POV. You may contemplate working on some things a little to avoid that. For example, you stress Grabowski’s finding as an undisputable and eternal truth. However, his finding of 200.000 plus Jews killed by Poles is in fact unusual. He goes against the finding of everybody else, other than Gross but this guy has very little credibility. Secondary, you need to add that the police blue police (former polish police) had to report to duty for the Germans or face the death penalty. There I more but start with polishing that, otherwise, you will find your version changed, I’m certain of that. I don’t want that to happen because I like it, you did a good job. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Hey GizzyCatBella,[reply]

Thanks for the comment. To be frank, I'm surprised it took this long for one of the "others" to revert it.

• I tried to make the whole section as straightforward as possible. Grabowski's estimate is cited by both Connelly and Bauer (to name just a couple), and from what I can see the only reason it's unusual among the other cited estimate is because it's the only one actually trying to account for Polish violence against Polish Jews, the others taking the narrow approach of "crimes against the state" (a difference I tried to explain in the article). If you know of other studies that take the first approach but reach widely different conclusion, I'm very much interested in knowing them. Nevertheless I'll review my phrasing there and see if it implies certainty or undue weight.
• As for Gross - I don't know of any credibility issue of his, but I do know he's highly regarded enough to have caused turmoil in Poland, back in 2001, and is widely cited.
• My exact phrasing was "It was mostly composed by former policemen forced to report for duty under the threat of execution". We can reword it if you think it unclear.

Thank you very much! I really do appreciate the comment.

François Robere (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been relapsed already, but I really like your variant better because it is compressed and it is focusing on actual collaborators rather than non-collaborating. I’ll talk to the editor who reverted your version to reconsider his stance. But as I said Francois, there is a need for a slight alteration of your version to make it pleasing for both sides of the argument. Grabowski’s conclusion is extraordinary, it may be accurate but presently, there are very few historians that actually correspond to his stance and it's strongly rejected by the Polish historians. This needs to be emphasized otherwise we will never get a consensus. Gross is another issue, not important at the moment. Nevertheless, I’ll back you up because other than these minor issues that can be easily fixed. your version is much better than the lengthy and complex one before. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's not an "either-or" situation, you know? Those stories have their place, just not in that article, and certainly not in the way that they were presented - as a sort of "cover up". Reality is complicated enough as it is, and WWII made it that much more complicated; we need to find the ways to tell all of the stories, and do it properly.

Yeah. I doubt they'll change their minds, having filed an WP:ANI against me. The moment the ANI discussion is concluded I'll get back to reviewing Grabowski, as promised.

François Robere (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Victims-During-English-Hebrew/dp/0896040550 This is not a bad work by Gutman and Krakowski (you know who they are right?) a landscape of conclusions from a Jewish viewpoint. You should read François one day if you haven’t already. I usually read historical work of both views and draw my own opinions. I can suggest some work of respected Polish or other scholars for comparison if you are genuinely intrigued by the topic. https://www.amazon.com/The-Holocaust-and-European-Societies-Social-Processes-and-Social-Dynamics-The-Holocaust-and-its-Contexts/dp/1137569832/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8 GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The first is on my least; I'll check the second one. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the "Ghettos" section François Robere when you get an opportunity, it's too long-drawn and there is too much load on Jewish collaboration. That Jewish Gestapo spy pictured is actually worth noticing because he was a true SOB, same with Żagiew and Group 13 but Ghetto Police should hold less weight. Also, your version of the "Blue Police" segment is better in my judgment, try to incorporate it into the article, I'll back you up on that one. Thanks, GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[9]: you should also restore the reference that backs it up. Currently this number is unsourced. I support the resotration of the sentence we had in the article, which cited several historians. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I believe I put it there in the reverted revision, but couldn't find it later for some reason. I'll add it now. François Robere (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect that is not what you asked, you asked what she meant by Money being behind it, not what evidence she had for the bias of some sources, please drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You realize how biased her stance is, that she repeatedly makes allusions to antisemitic stereotypes without even realizing it? François Robere (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant (and a PA, I remind you the article is under special sanctions, and it may well get you a block). What she meant by a statement is irrelevant, asking does she have RS to back it up is not. Besides which her statement (as I said) was off topic that does not mean you can continue to discus matters that have naff all to do with the articles improvement but are just tit fort tat snipping. So asking you not to do it again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get me a block for asking what she meant? Are you serious? You should be warning her for making that comment, not me. Have you?

Bear in mind her opinions are very much relevant insofar as they get reflected in the article (and even on the talk page) and place Wiki at legal jeopardy. François Robere (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, for continuing to comment on the user, and for treating ma talk page like a forum. It does not matter how biased she is, what matters is what she says (not why she says it). You are not going to get a block for doing it once, you will if it becomes a pattern. I did (by the way) tell her she was getting close to sopaboxing, she had then wit to stay m=stum.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which I never did, so I assume your comment is merely a friendly attempt to watch out for me, rather than an expression of opinion on my discussion style. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a compromise over at Polish collaboration, and your objection to it reads more like "I do not like it" then any valid objection. As the page is under DS this might not be a good stance to take.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Slatersteven, but you're out of line. You keep coming back to "warn" me against things, but I don't see you warning others when they far worse.

I agreed to a compromise back in March 17th, which Bella quickly rejected. You didn't warn her then, nor when she repeatedly ignored my questions or even refused to discuss them (!) (list). You didn't warn her when she repeatedly reverted my texts, even removing tags asking for clarifications, or when she made despicable edits unfounded on anything (list). You warned me of "edit warring", but said nothing of others' disruptive behaviors ([10]).

On my part, I made a proposal which is as good as they come: Concise, carefully phrased, and well sourced - complete with page numbers and even quotes for more than half of the references [11]. Bella, on her side cherry-picked sources to the extreme [12], and flooded the page with mostly irrelevant sources [13], which she clearly didn't read. She repeatedly made all sorts of accusations against me, from "POV pushing" through "cherry picking" to "personally insulting" her, but for some reason never provided proof. You said nothing on any of this, even when I pinged you.

And now you want me to compromise on a WP:FALSEBALANCE that isn't supported by any of the recent (and even not so recent) sources, and vaguely based on news clips from the 1940's and some 1980's journals that aren't even fully cited. So no. Bella hasn't fulfilled her WP:BURDEN of proof. She repeatedly provided sources that contradict her, and when I asked for clarification she desperately tried to find others that might contradict those, instead of just admitting she was wrong. I can compromise on phrasing, or on the inclusion of some minor fact or another, or on whether a borderline-relevant source is really relevant, but I won't compromise on accuracy. This "he said, she said" style of text gives undue weight to sources that are either extremely old, and surpassed by newer sources (1960's is pretty old in this domain); or to vague mentions of "something that may have been said to someone" (rather than something clear, concrete and well-documented); and furthermore, is clearly contradicted by RS that state that there were willing collaborators as eminent as the former Polish premier. We should summarise "the most reliable sources on the topic" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), not manufacture a controversy. François Robere (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have more modern sources for this, and it is irrelevant anyway. We now have DS inn place, that is why I warned you, you have chosen to ignore that. We are not here to report "facts" we are here to report what RS say "factually accurate or not). I found sources that back here claim, how come you have not?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I want to see the modern sources! All of the modern sources we have state the contrary, and you're welcome to check yourself.

We are not here to report "facts" we are here to report what RS say. Oh, and I haven't asked for RS maybe 20 times?

I found sources that back here claim, how come you have not? Because it's not my burden of proof. Bella made the claim, Bella needs to back it up, and you should be asking Bella why she didn't, not me. Have you? François Robere (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK you want more [[14]] 2011, [[15]] 1994 (or is this not modern enough?), [[16]] 2001 (not too old I hope). Note how long this took.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're complaining to me. I've been asking for Bella for sources for a month and a half now. Why are you complaining to me about asking for sources rather than to Bella for not providing them? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'd really like an explanation. Also please opine on her "cherrypicking" sources to death (as I've already shown with lengthy quotations on the talk [17]). François Robere (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because your the one arguing that you want to see them, rather then accepting they have already been provided multiple times. Bella gave a ton of sources, and you rejected them for reasons such as ""too old" or "i cannot read them". Now I have provided you with modern sources (do you want more, I can find them?). What Bella has done is irrelevant, you are the one refusing to accept a compromise based upon multiple RS. Now do you accept that yes there are modern sources that say the Germans did attempt to create as Polish rump state?Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bella is not refusing to accept my text, you are. AS she has accepted it why I am going to ask her why? You have challenged what I have said (she has not) so I am telling you why I think you are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I don't have a right to ask? The very first source I asked her about [18] she still mis-cites (Lee didn't write this, Gross did), still miss-quotes (he makes it clear that no "puppet government" would've formed), and more importantly - still references. The fact of the matter is the more sources she finds, the more evidence we have she's wrong. How can she claim - how can you claim - that Witos "failed" the Germans attempt, when the author claims the opposite in the very same paragraph? And you say "the sources have been provided"? I'm now going through your sources and I'll tell you what I think; in the meanwhile go through that and tell me if the sources really say what she claims they say.

she has accepted it why I am going to ask her why? You didn't answer the question. I asked you why you keep bothering me, and never warn others against edit warring, "cherry picking", refusal to discuss, insulting other editors, flooding the talk page to make a point etc. etc. François Robere (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your sources, you can see on the relevant talk page. I also added a breakdown of the problem to clarify just why none of these sources actually support Bella's (and now your) assertions. François Robere (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you because you (and not her) are now the only person refusing to accept consensus on a DS enforcement talk page. I am not going to bother any more, if you end up with a block it is your own damn fault.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You realize after all your talk and "warnings" you just introduced the same change I was pushing for? [19][20] François Robere (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: As for "bothering" - it's not about not 'bothering' me, it's about spreading your "bother" more evenly across editors. If some editors get a "free pass" for bad behaviours then the process fails, and this recent discussion is an example of that: The first discussion started on March 19th (and ended with no clear conclusion 11 days later); in the month that followed Bella got a "free pass" for poor sourcing and abjectly false claims, I got a rundown of reverts and arguments, ANI was involved twice, and ~4400 viewers ([21]) read a poorly-sourced, sub-par version of the page. Why should this happen? If everyone pulled their weights in the first discussion we could've concluded the whole thing in 3-5 days. François Robere (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FR, can I just ask you to use a more standard format for reference sources, we constantly get these 'Cite Errors' at the bottom of the article, that a reference source was citied but not referenced, I suspect it's related to formatting issue. --E-960 (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that happens is because some sections assume a ref exists in the reflist when it's been removed. The reflist is hugely useful - prevents multiple citations of the same source in different formats - but people should comment-out sources in stead of removing them to make it easier to handle. See the ref section at Collaboration with the Axis Powers for an example [22] - there's a whole section of commented-out sources there. François Robere (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book about the GG is the only recent one about the GG in English I know. It's rather about the Holocaust in GG than about the GG, but still contains some informations. I have explained who were Communists in Poland and why I believe that the subject covered in the book deserves to be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: You explained, but only after people asked. Why not give them enough context that they don't need to ask? Take this message for example: I know why you wrote it, but what if I didn't? What does a message titled "my answer" tell me? Nothing. I don't even know what was the question! Compare with this:

Context in TP comments

I see you left me a message on the need for context in TP comments. I think that...".

François Robere (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as you did here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't minor? It's simple copyedit. François Robere (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am writing to inform you that an AfD debate has been initiated for the article Environmental inequality in Europe (formerly Environmental racism in Europe). Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time in the last two days that you've made passive aggressive personal attacks (the other time is here). I guess you think that phrasing it with phony-concern with my well being is either funny or it excuses the actual nature of what you're doing. But it's not and it doesn't. So please refrain from these kind of comments in the future.

You might also want to explain why you blind-reverted an edit without bothering to read what was in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Volunteer Marek,

Quick question: on a scale of one to ten, how would you rate any of the following in terms of civility?

• Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it.
• How about you "focus" your RfC (and format it properly) so that it doesn't propose one thing, and then tries to sneak in another?
• And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian... Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem
• As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum!... YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING.
• Please, come up with better excuses for reverts.
• And of course many, many fallacious accusations of "POV pushing", "cherry picking", misleading editors and the like.

What do you think? A seven? An eight? François Robere (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Proceed as you think best. Really, please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do answer. As the host on this talk page I must entertain my guests, of course, but do allow me this one pleasure. François Robere (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FB, could you just fix the 'cite errors' that came up after the NSZ changes. --E-960 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. Thanks for the notice. François Robere (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This will be deleted in 36 hours, so take your own off-Wiki copy if you want it. Zero^talk 09:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and mysterious. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your copy will need to be deleted for copyright reasons. Zero^talk 11:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any Polish-Jewish articles discussion might have stalled but fixes are needed. I think most of the articles stabilized in the past few months, hopefully more because we reached consensus than because of the unfortunate topic bans, but I also haven't been that active. If there's anything you think we should work on, do say so. It would be great if we could reach consensus before said topic bans expire, so that when our colleagues come back there's less reason for any more disagreements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Piotrus, thank you for your attention! I've been away since the beginning of the month for personal reasons, so I don't want to knee-deep into discussions just yet. Nevertheless, you're right in your observations, so I will raise some of the issues so we can at least get others' consent for the spirit of the changes, if not the details. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[23] I have the book "The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945" in front of me, there is nothing about Antyk on page 385.Can you explain this? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The edit cites p. 358, not p. 385. François Robere (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While both solutions have pros and cons, I'll point out that the old school style of references ("five refs for Piotrowski, etc.") allows Google Page links to individual pages. Unifying references often removes those links, making verification a bit more problematic. Not that I intend to revert one change over another, just pointing out why I generally prefer and use separate refs for each page if possible (and links are available). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My own 2 cents - I like individual references for the same source - unless they are a really tight page range (e.g. 2-3 pages). This is particularly true when content is under V/NPOV contention.Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Shortened footnotes?

This is particularly true when content is under V/NPOV contention Why? You can add page numbers and quotes with {{r}} as well. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't like those too much, as they lower the readability of the Wiki code. Either way I'm not trying to enforce anything, so you can add them /back if you want. The catalyst for overhauling the references was the addition of multiple, separate references to Zimmerman by another editor, which really had no justification. By the way, I originally (another article, some months ago) tried to use {{r}} inside a <ref>, to allow multiple footnotes with quotes that all use the same citation (eg. <ref>{{r|Source}}, p. 5: "quote"</ref>), but it didn't really work. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you moved the reflist-talk that displayed the references in my comment at this AfD. Please don't change my comments. I wanted the references to be seen at that point, and I have moved it back. If more reflist-talk's are needed, they can be added at any time. There can be more than one in the discussion. Thank you. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear François Robere! You undid the government response in the article, while at the same time added two noname someones' opinion to the page. In the wikipedia if we are discussing a debate, than the principle is that the argumentation of both sides must be presented equally, and can not be disqualified as "not RS on academia" etc. Your contributions raises the issue of POV pushing. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Please reconsider what you delete or not. It is not only an academic question at stake, but a legal issue - and in this field, the government totally has the right to respond.--5.204.115.190 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "noname someones" published in major news outlets (NYC, WaPo and Vox), giving some credence to their name; while the government's derogatory response, referring to the "wooden house" in which the the CEU NY branch is located, cannot be taken as reputable with regards to the CEU's academic quality, which it purports to ascertain; nor can it be considered serious with regards to the university's regulatory compliance, given the government's attitude in general, and that spokesperson in particular to the university. We can cite it to establish a statement like "the government continues to claim the university did not hold up to its regulatory requirements", but we certainly don't need to quote it. As for NPOV: RS agree that this isn't a "debate", but targeted persecution (in fact, the government itself suggested as much). Thus, giving as much credence to certain government claims as we give to everyone else would constitute a WP:FALSEBALANCE. François Robere (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. calling a wooden cabin a wooden cabin has nothing to do with academia.
2. The guys, you refer as important journalist don't even have wiki articles...

It IS POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't refer to anyone as anything. You added a POV statement - want to do that? Bring sources that support it. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the US Ambassador's opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't? François Robere (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted sourced info. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

diff? François Robere (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in more detail at AE, I am warning you not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence. The Arbitration Committee has decided in this respect that "an editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. ... If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums". If you continue to engage in such conduct in topic areas where discretionary sanctions are in force, you may be made subject to bans, blocks or other sanctions. Sandstein 22:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cast aspersions, I merely relied on your own statements: [There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[24] François Robere (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for personal attacks within the Eastern Europe subject area on the page WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• What Sandstein said above, accusations of racist vandalism are unacceptable unless you can seriously back them up and contribute to mistrust and disruption in the topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, that's not what I said. Second, Sandstein himself made these comments: , I suspect that GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources; all in violation of any number of policies; [There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[25] And third, that user just edited in clear violation of AE and got a slap on the wrist,[26] and you're blocking me from the entire encyclopedia for a week? You're out of line. François Robere (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said I would also like to note, again, that our admins have been consistently negligent in protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism. The fact that Bella is still allowed to comment anywhere even vaguely related to Jews and Jewish history, after having committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has, is a sign of their failure. That you were implying a specific editor to be an ethnically-motivated vandal is clear. If someone is actually an ethnically motivated vandal, you provide proof with diffs and bring it to ANI and they will be blocked, but you don't get to use it as an attack and trump card in disputes, especially for requests that are apparently unrelated to the person in question. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. What I said was that [Bella has] committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has - that is well supported by Sandstein's comments in that case and doesn't require further proof. I did not accuse Bella of vandalism - that is your inference, and you should've asked for a clarification before sanctioning me for it. As for prejudice - the anti-Semitic context of the discussion is well established, as evident by Sandstein's own comments (for which he wasn't blocked, or even admonished): GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources.
2. The "unrelated editor" inserted herself into the discussion contrary to AE, yet you didn't sanction her. Hence my comment about admins not enforcing Policy.
3. The fact that you did not sanction her, nor the editor who commented on the account's singleminded crusade towards adding racist pseudohistorical sources, nor another editor who accused a third for [filing an] obvious "payback report" for the fact that [his] partner in edit wars... recently got indef blocked (an accusation he made many, many times before), suggests to me that you blocked me from the entire encyclopedia not for policy violation, but for criticizing admins. François Robere (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein and TonyBallioni: I have some questions to both of you regarding the above.

1. Sandstein rightly pointed out that I have no record of blocks or even warnings; why, then, wasn't I allowed to explain or refactor my comment before any sanction taking place?
2. Why wasn't I allowed to continue taking part in the discussion like other "offending" editors? Volunteer Marek managed to get his "sentence" reduced by 2/3s just by staying in the discussion.
3. VM was t-banned; why was I blocked?
4. You (TonyBallioni) wrote on VM's appeal[38] that VM didn’t add diffs because he assumed I knew what he was talking about. The same applies here: I assumed Sandstein knew what I'm talking about, as he was the one who banned that editor, and earlier that day engaged (and absolved her). Why did you accept in that case but not in this one?
5. You also noted that the points VM raised could have been the basis for an AE report against Icewhiz... I don’t think it’s appropriate to be sanctioning someone for commenting on one AE thread about issues that would be a valid report in another. This isn't something VM said - it's your statement, and it could apply here equally well. Why didn't you raise it here, only there?

François Robere (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First point: there’s a difference between a content dispute and what at face value looks like a tit-for-tat AE report. Second, if you had made the same report at AE as you made a statement, I would have blocked you and closed it for the same reasons I blocked you this time, namely, accusations of anti-Semitic vandalism without proof have an extreme chilling effect and are toxic. Finally, I’m not in the business of comparing sanctions: every situation is different and every editor and action is considered holistically. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: You haven't addressed any of my points.

1. there’s a difference between a content dispute and what at face value looks like a tit-for-tat AE report:
   1. "Tit-for-tat" is an assertion about VM's motives, which is exactly what you sanction others for doing. That's hypocritical.
   2. And as far as assertions, it's hardly one that should absolve him of responsibility. Since when is using AE to retaliate against others acceptable?
   3. Nor is it an excuse to ignore our respective histories - specifically his long, long history with WP:ASPERSIONS, and my non-existent one; nor for not even asking for clarifications. Are we in the business of facts, or beliefs?
   4. I'm not sure what you meant about a "content dispute". Is my complaint about content? Is a potential editorial bias about content? If it is, then it's not your jurisdiction and you shouldn't have intervened.
2. if you had made the same report at AE... I would have blocked you and closed it for the same reasons: You're just repeating what you said earlier, which is not helpful. Do read what I wrote and try to be helpful by telling me exactly which part you object, and why.
3. I’m not in the business of comparing sanctions: every situation is different and every editor and action is considered holistically Well, you're in the business of WP:ADMINACCT, and you haven't really explained how all of this sits well from a holistic perspective.

François Robere (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already explained my actions, and stand behind them, and answered your questions. That is what admin accountability requires: not that the sanctioned user agrees with their sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but they ought to be understandable to a casual observer. Saying "the cases are different" without explaining why they're different, or using the term "holistic" as a buzzword, or asserting the veracity of your understanding of my comments while ignoring my own - these aren't "answers". François Robere (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"WWII is a major area of scholarship, and virtually all reputable sourced end up being published in English" - This is an extremely parochial, Anglo-Saxon-centric, ignorant claim which borders on racism. It's also completely false. Hate to break it to you, but English speakers, their bloody conquest of the world and all, do not actually have a monopoly on truth. Indeed, the more interlinked the world becomes and the more freely information flows across borders, the more we discover and the more obvious it becomes just how limited and, well, fucked up, this kind of Western-centric exclusivity actually is and how much damage it has done to human knowledge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in this particular topic area the glaring fact is that most authors writing in English, with some notable exceptions, either don't have access to, or simply don't bother to consult, primary sources because these are not in English (or possibly French or German). And to be frank, most Western historians can't be arsed to learn a language that is not one of those three. Which makes them actually WORSE secondary sources, not better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you said in the first paragraph, but English is the lingua franca of the day, and if one wishes to communicate their findings to the broader research community they typically do so in English. This includes Polish and Polish-speaking historians (of which there are many more than you think, I believe), as well as English-, German- and French-. I stand by my analysis that this is a choice between recency and obscurity, and stability; and that if hadn't these many obscure, fringy or outright disreputable Polish-language sources brought in then we wouldn't need a vote on stability. Equally as important - we won't be losing too many high-quality sources, as many of those were filtered out (or ignored) for having the "wrong" politics. Case in point: the reputable Polish Center for Holocaust Research[39], which has a long list of Polish-language publications, yet is rarely cited here (and when it is, it's in English). So there's little to lose with that proposal, and a lot to gain. François Robere (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reputable Polish Center for Holocaust Research has published translations of its main books and prepares a short version of Dalej jest noc. The Center has a number of ethical questions. Their works are generally biased, even Center's author Tomasz Frydel (Dalej jest noc) criticizes the bias https://www.academia.edu/32301232/The_Devil_in_Microhistory_The_Hunt_for_Jews_as_a_Social_Process_1942-1945_2017_ . Dr Proszyk, invited to write a part of Dalej jest noc, is rather critical regarding the goal of the book. http://proszyk.blogspot.com/2018/05/nienapisany-rozdzia-powiat-bielski.html Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German opinions about German terror in Poland preferred here to Polish works. It's crazy. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West German (and subsequent unified German) scholarship is extensive in the field, and is fairly independent of communist government suppression (1945-1989) or government induced historical revisionism (start date debated among scholars). Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read The Fox Effect? It's not an accident that Fox is a propaganda outfit, it was the entire reason it was founded. Ailes believed that the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post and New York Times. And incidentally, Network Propaganda is a very compelling argument against pretty much all right-wing media sources. 152.62.109.216 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks. I haven't read The Fox Effect, but I know of it; and I do refer to a couple of chapters of Network Propaganda. I wanted to avoid Fox News's history in that discussion as some Wikipedians would see it as irrelevant to Fox's conduct today; and while I disagree, I'm not set on convincing myself. François Robere (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are or were interested in creating an RfC on Fox News. I found a report from Media Matters for America on how Fox News mixes disinformation with the hard news every day in its hard news division at https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/05/13/fox-news-lie/223683 that was released on May 13, 2019. However, this report focuses on the actual video channel and not on the content on the Fox News website, so it could be somewhat irrelevant. I just do not have the time to start an RfC or read the whole report at the moment. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be relevant[edit]

Fox News' news (e.g. not pundits) division on climate change:

• Bill Sammon, the Fox News Washington managing editor, instructing Fox News journalists to dispute the scientific consensus on climate change: "A leaked email from the managing editor of Fox News Washington, Bill Sammon, during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 reveals Fox’s scepti- cal policy towards climate change. Sammon advised Fox journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question”." Page 174 of Marisol Sandoval. "From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries". Routledge.
• Bret Baier, a straight-news anchor -“In February 2010, a paper on sea level rise that had previously been published in Nature Geosciences74 was formally withdrawn75 by the authors because of an error they had identified subsequently in their calculations. Fox News announced the development in this vein: “More Questions About Validity of Global Warming Theory.”76 In fact, the error in the calculations had led the authors to projections of future sea level rise that were too low!77” Page 223 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”
• Bill Hemmer, a straight-news anchor: Promotion of Climategate falsehoods: "“This particular falsehood had been promoted recently by venues such as Fox News , e.g., Bill Hemmer on Fox’s America’s Newsroom, December 3, 2009: “Recently leaked emails reveal that scientists use, quote, ‘tricks’ to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the past, say, few decades." Page 353 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.” Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of Mann's book. I'll check it out. François Robere (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May also be of interest:

• A guest on a Fox News 'straight news' program asserts that Obama caused the Great Recession. No pushback at all from the host, even though the assertion is insanity.[40] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a little more careful in your future editing than adding mention of an obvious joke to a WP:BLP as if it was a serious statement made by said living person. I know you're on a crusade against Fox but that doesn't allow you to ignore some of our more serious rules. 199.247.46.106 (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a crusade against anyone. He said it on air, it was picked up by multiple RS, and I'm merely citing what those RS reported. As for the BLP aspects: if he's on air and has these beliefs, then it's notable; if he's on air, jokes about having these beliefs and is criticized by 3rd parties, then it's still notable. Do remember he has millions of viewers and his way with words is as relevant as anything to his article. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'if he's on air, jokes about having these beliefs and is criticized by 3rd parties, then it's still notable.' No, it's not. Especially not in a BLP. Just getting noted by the media is not an automatic inclusion in an encyclopedia. The media covers jokes and offhand comments made by famous people every day. 199.247.46.106 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it rarely cites the CDC in criticism of these jokes. Jokes that draw particular ire are notable. François Robere (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It got coverage for one whole day, largely thanks to the clickbaity headline nature of it. That's not 'particular ire'. 199.247.46.106 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the comments that you deleted on the RS noticeboard Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "edit conflict" page... I'll restore it. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the BLPNB discussion you wrote "...that Poled killed between..." Did you mean to use the word "Poled"? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! Thanks. François Robere (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

diff - Just Do It. Well, OK, I don't want to sell shoes. I did find the program somewhere, and some of it is described in accounts in the article. Most of program details are in French (at least the sources I've found - I suspect there's Polish too somewhere, but I've been working of EHESS and French sources more than Polish). Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, I started. That's exactly what I found, and would rather have an official English version rather than translate everything. François Robere (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The don't speak English in France - it's a matter of national pride. Many might understand English, as a matter of necessity or practicality, but on principle they won't speak English on French soil (or any former colonial possession that still speaks French). Lingua Franca and all that. I'm not sure there is an English program. Many Poles (and Polish scholars) know French as well - strong historic bonds between elites in both countries (oddly - a bit like the French/Russian connection - skipping over Germany). Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Joseph Berlin, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more, then. François Robere (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To this. Oh no, I am not really involved in editing this page and t