User talk:Marcelus

I have sent you a note about a page you started

FYI

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

LT placenames now in modern PL and PL placenames in modern LT

Ref error

Fulfilling your request

Zygmunt Sierakowski

DYK nomination of Michał Węsławski

Coat of arms of Lithuania

Ways to improve Plater family

Dispute resolution

Missing cite in

Lithuanian nobility

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

February 2023

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

DYK for Michał Węsławski

Please self-revert at Naliboki massacre

Casting aspersion

I have sent you a note about a page you started

You ok with drafting something?

Estonia at #Collaboration with the Axis powers

AE result

Some slightly more thoughtful feedback I am still inclined to think that if this was a thing -- and you seem to be persuading me that it was -- that it merits a standalone article and a summary, not just a section. Maybe I was questioning this because although France did have roundups it never did have officially-defined ghettos and thus no Judenrät (or whatever the plural is of that word). When the roundups started, people were sent to Drancy. As far as I know at least. I like what you have so far. I made a couple of edits for a typo and punctuation respectively. Some of the other sentences I sort of want to rework but that can wait until it's in a slightly more final form, since I want to avoid any appearance that we are arguing. One general comment: it wasn't always clear when I read through whether given statements applied to all of Europe. This might have been utterly clear to somebody with a profound grasp of the historiography but that is not me, particularly with respect to eastern Europe. Oh and one other thing, speaking of historiography: all these authors are well-cited and will be acceptable to everyone, yes? It also occurs to me that the following statement could well be challenged, and in general "only", "all" and "none" are dangerous. Just saying.

the only Jewish collaborationist group in occupied Europe was the "Group 13" that existed in the Warsaw Ghetto

23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The "inevitability of German victory" was a rationale common to other collaborators btw, not necessarily Jewish. Another that might apply is the belief that nothing could be worse than their current circumstances, and therefore nationalists often saw the Nazis as liberators and the Germans let them believe it. See Burma, Lebanon, Brittany and various elements in the Balkans and Ukraine. Also Belgium and Denmark where like the Judenrät, the collaborating government was criticized for making the Holocaust easier. It is however conceivable that in Denmark the relationship between the Jewish, Danish and German authorities saved lives. I mention these points not to say that *you* shouldn't, but in hope that the commonalities provide some insight. I am still working on trying to work on which volunteer units were actually volunteers btw Elinruby (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We might have a meeting of the minds on the archive format question. Feel to weigh in that thread btw, and I think it should be fine to start a new thread to discuss your rewrite at this point. Elinruby (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Marcelus,

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/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Filip (film)

The article Filip (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail

WP:NFILM

. No reviews found in a BEFORE. Minor awards. Tagged for notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 Hi, I made some changes, added one review, and more about awards. I hope that's enough to keep the article, I plan to expand it in the near future Marcelus (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Possible addition as a party

Hello Marcelus,

This is a slightly belated notification about something you may already be aware about.

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary § Summary of evidence involving Marcelus, evidence mentioning your edits has been summarized. You may later be added as a party to the case; no decision has been made about this yet. Of course, you will be notified if this happens.

Details about the case and its procedures can be found in the "Arbitration case opened" notification above.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree What "party" means in this context? Marcelus (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parties of Arbitration Committee cases are those whose behavior is primarily evaluated. As a result of a case, parties may be warned or sanctioned (topic-banned, for example). Non-parties are never sanctioned as a principle. That's the main difference.

Parties can use more words on the Evidence page (1000 words and 100 diffs instead of 500 words and 50 diffs). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand that, but accept it as something I don't really have control over. I wasn't really involved in the topic before the G&K article (maybe I edited something in the past, but nothing major), which alarmed me that this topic needs to be examined. And well the first experience wasn't pleasant, it definitely is a tense place. But my behavior was recently examined during AE that I started, so it feels like I'm being examined a second time for not more than a couple of weeks of engagement in this topic area.

But as I said ok; I don't really have anything to be ashamed of beside using "undo" button too much :) Marcelus (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to scare you. The notification is meant to prevent a surprise in case you are actually added as a party. This might not actually happen in the end.

Ah well, all these conduct evaluations can be pretty stressful. The topic area can be pretty stressful as well. I'm happy to see that you're fine, but if you ever get stressed out by this, it can help to keep in mind that

you are a volunteer

.

All the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue Police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PWN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence

I quickly looked through your Evidence section, and have a few comments.

1. You seem to bring evidence against someone who is not a party. Do you suggest to include that participant as a party? If so, this should be clearly stated and explained why.
2. Someone simply removing large portions of text could be just fine (this is not a proof of misbehavior by anyone). Was this contributor engaged in an edit war? If so, then you should say just that, i.e. he edit war [diff],[diff]... I am not saying he was engaged in edit war; I have no idea after just quickly looking at your evidence. But even if this user was engaged in edit war, then was not you too? Did not you see the result of your AE request?
3. Or maybe he acted against WP:Consensus? That could be a problem, but can you claim there was a certain consensus on such page? This is close to impossible to say unless there was an RfC on the subject, and it was not. Or maybe he violated
   WP:BRD
   ? I did not see it, although I did not really check.
4. Speaking on the "Battleground attitude", this is very problematic because it was you who brought that previous request to AE. Hence, someone (not me) might reasonably argue that it was you who is engaged in such behavior.

Saying that, your submission is entirely up to you. But remember that you will not be able to change anything as soon as your evidence will be summarized. This is a kind of trap. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes. Ad 1, I wasn't aware of that. Ad 2,

WP:TNT entire sourced section, without any reason, most of it in my case is revert baiting (I'm on 0RR), especially in case of Józef Mackiewicz. There are things that are impossible to desribe with diffs. That's the problem with the whole thing. Ad. 3, if we consider a stable, well-sourced version consensus, than she is actively acting against it. Ad. 4, Hence, someone (not me) might reasonably argue that it was you who is engaged in such behavior in what way? Can you elaborate so I'll have a grasp of what you mean. Marcelus (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Based on other comments on your talk page above, you may be included as a party to this case. If that happens, you may be sanctioned by Arbcom. Your submission to Arbcom (as is) may be used as an evidence of your battleground behavior. The story at AE would replay. I would recommend you to remove your evidence ASAP given that it is of poor quality and you are not yet a party. But this is up to you of course. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are probably right. It's just every interaction with TB triggers me; but I don't really need it. Thanks for the advice Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had content disputes with X. You submit a complaint about X. If your complaint is without merit, this can be interpreted as you trying get an upper hand in a content dispute by complaining about X (this is a textbook example of battleground behavior). Fortunately for me, I was not really involved in main space editing in this subject area. Still, I am extra careful with submitting any kind of evidence; it well could be that I will not submit any. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really about content dispute, but I can see how it can be interpreted as such; but thank you I let myself to be baited once, won't go there again Marcelus (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on the improvement of pages, this is not a lost cause. Take a step back, check sources, suggest specific changes on article talk page, discuss, and if no consensus found, start an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just every interaction with TB triggers me I am sorry to hear of that. I will try to come across as less terse in our interactions. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I appreciate it Marcelus (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As to 0RR, I was not baiting you. I am frankly willing to waive off abiding by such restrictions (to the usual 3rr limit) while reverting me. I personally find 0RR unmanageable in that it creates more drama than it solves and probably, had argued at the AE against such sanctions. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but for the time being 0RR is a refreshing experience for me, it forces me to look for alternative ways to propagate my changes and I think in the long run it will change my editing practice for good; and sometimes just prompts me to just avoid certain discussions which is equally good Marcelus (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On an aside, while I might not agree with Mvbw about the content of articles and/or G&K paper, I agree with his thoughtstream. Like them, I do not plan to submit any evidence either. To take a representative example, Piotrus sought to include all reviews from all sorts of journal in an article on a controversial book can be a legitimate reason for editors (say, me) to feel agitated about but it is a reasonable interpretation of policy and non-requiring of any sanctions much less by ArbCom. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel the same Marcelus (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Marcelus. Thank you. -- Pofka (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wolf for you

Ppt91 has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protector forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Keep up the good work, remember to be kind, and don't get discouraged. :-) Ppt91^talk 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, you really made my day! Marcelus (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TWL

No, 0RR is not enforced at software-level. Did you try logging out of TWL and logging in again? Are you shown any error message? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it worked, thanks Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of thread-hijacking but I have a question for you so as to orient my future plans. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to do that Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: You have been added as a party

You have been added as a party to the Arbitration case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary, and can be analyzed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis.

Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why I was added as a party? AFAIK there was no evidence against me submitted so far Marcelus (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 pinging you in case you didn't get notfication about my question Marcelus (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I indeed did not see your previous notice. You can see the Evidence which has involved you here. This question from the FAQ may also be helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 sorry, but I still don't get how all of this works; where are the evidences against me? All I can see is that I took part in two discussions that's all; the summary of evidences is basically a summary of the discussion without any actual allegations against me, I don't even know how to respond to that Marcelus (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is the evidence at the moment. As you can see there are some parties who have no evidence at the moment listed for them. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. The whole procedure is a bit confusing Marcelus (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably saw

User:Piotrus/Response. But just in case you haven't looked at it recently, I've updated it with some nice formatting and such over the last week+ or so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed it some time ago, I will check it out Marcelus (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Glinciszki massacre

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of Glinciszki massacre

The article Glinciszki massacre you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Glinciszki massacre for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on the GAN page, and wanted to add that if you feel the fail was inappropriate, you may want to post a note at

WT:GAN saying so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I'll maybe do that Marcelus (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CFD Process Issue

Hello, thank you for nominating categories in

WP:CFD to help improve the encyclopedia. For this recent nomination you need to add a notice to all of the categories you nominated, otherwise it will be procedurally closed even if other editors agreed with you. (If you need help with how to do that, just tag me and I'm happy to assist!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the info, can you check if I did that properly? Marcelus (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the links so they go right to the specific nomination. (They default to the CFD section being named after the nominated category but, with group nominations, you need to specify the section name.) Thanks! - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re

My apology, I forgot about your editing restriction. But whatever. There are many other contributors around. Honestly, I do not understand why this needs to be included to the page. Yes, maybe I am overdoing this, but given the accusations by G&K, I think it is better be safe than sorry. This is one of only two cases where I would agree with arguments by G&K (another was Naliboku massacre). Yes, I maybe wrong even about these two pages. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After all, this whole section was completely rebuilt after the G&K article and has nothing to do with what it was actually. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the page, what can I immediately see, just by looking at the titles of subsections? Who were all these Nazi collaborators? Countries A, B, C, D (each typically with multi-ethnic population) and ... Jews! Is not that a little problematic? My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think it is, or even if it is, it's only at first glance, and first glance is not something we should be overly concerned about. Whether you want to or not the problem of Jewish collaboration is an important issue addressed by many researchers. It is strange if it would not be mentioned at all in such an article. Marcelus (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your arguments are not unreasonable. For example, one could argue that the section about Jews should be included because they did not have their own state at the time of the events. But I still feel this is undue on such very large page because they were not so important as Nazi collaborators. This page needs to focus on those who provided a significant economic and military support to Nazi. Local ghetto administrations and a few informants are much less significant. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see you two are talking about this. I think that Marcelus did a fine bit of writing and that that section should become a spinoff article. I think the problem might be that it is a little too short for an article and a little too long for a section of the Collaboration. So one idea would be to make one expanded version of the writing and one hyper-condensed version for the summary sections. Because I do agree with MVBW that there is an apparent category mismatch. I thought you did a good job of explaining why there should be an entry, though, Marcelus. If it helps at all there is a case to be made imho -- (Peacemaker67 might have an opinion about this -- for grouping Serb massacres into their own section.

As for the relative weight, whatever you think? Elinruby (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maybe just a couple of other sections of trans-national groups like ethnic Germans and Turkic people? Elinruby (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at

of the Starlit Sky 03:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Pofka

For your information, I have closed the AE request Pofka filed against you with no action against you. Pofka is now banned from interacting with you. This restriction does not apply to you but I would ask that you have the courtesy to work as though it did. If Pofka does not abide by the restriction, you can report any violations to AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, I will also try to limit my interactions with him. By the way, could you take a look at this RfC; Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#RFC_on_Belarus_Section_of_Coat_of_Arms_of_Lithuania; it has been open for a very long time and it would be worth it if someone uninvolved closed it. Marcelus (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

of the Starlit Sky 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for proposition, but it won't be needed Marcelus (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood. But I ended up reading the RfC anyway and it seemed like there was a consensus for C. I noticed that

of the Starlit Sky 13:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Kings of Poland

Missing in Polish too? pl:Kategoria:Władcy Polski. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah seems like it; i'll maybe try do something with it in a future Marcelus (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject matter reality check

Casimir IV Jagiellon was both Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland until his death? I came in here to run that by you. LMK when you get a chance. Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was both those things Marcelus (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks; I restructured a sentence in his article a bit and it wasn't quite clear in the original if he held both titles after he became king. Just trying to make sure I don't introduce errors. Thanks for your time. Elinruby (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at the Allies talk page.

You claim that I am propagating a false version of history, and you warned me that I will be reported. I checked your talk page, and I see that you yourself have been sanctioned recently per EE. That means, if I report you, possible sanctions may be severe.

I still believe you just misunderstand the point I am trying to make, and you misunderstand what I am saying during that discussion. Please, re-read my posts and try to summarize my position, and try to understand what is my words is supported by RS and what is not. After that, I'll check your summary, and if it is correct, then it may become a starting point for development of consensus. If I'll see that you understand me incorrectly, I'll fix your mistake. Finally, we will come to consensus.

Another option is to report you immediately at AE. In contrast to me, your behaviour is exactly what AE is intended for. However, I would prefer to avoid this scenario, and I propose you to try to come to consensus first. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert. First of all, you are promoting a false version of history by proposing a text: "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941". This version unequivocally claims that the Soviet Union did not attack Poland, Finland, did not carry out aggression against the Baltic States, Romania etc. There will be no consent to pretend that the Soviet Union in the first years of World War 2 did nothing. This is a historical distortion.

I don't see the point of further discussion with you if you don't cross out this proposal and openly withdraw from it.

I checked your talk page, and I see that you yourself have been sanctioned recently per EE. That means, if I report you, possible sanctions may be severe; do not threat me. Marcelus (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I respect both of you. Can I be of any help as a mediator? How about rewording "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941" to "Soviet Union: at war with Nazi Germany from Jun 1941"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This version was proposed by @Aemilius Adolphin ("at war with Germany from Jun 1941"), seems that most people are in favor of it. Marcelus (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But of course every kind of mediation is good to deescalate editing conflict. So of course if you are willing to invest your own time I gladly accept it. Marcelus (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, Paul said he will disengage with this conversation with you. In either case, in the future, if any of you has trouble interacting with the other one, feel free to ping me and I'll try to mediate. Everyone should remember about

WP:NPA, and that arriving at consensus can take some time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thanks Marcelus (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allies of World War II

Hi Marcelus. You've added references for "Zuziak 2003" to Allies of World War II, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Bibliography section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, already fixed Marcelus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, thanks for fixing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

• News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU

• In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics

• Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions

• Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion

• News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation

• Special report: There Shall Be Seasons Refreshing – Stories from WikiConference India 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Useful template

For linking to articles that don't exist on en yet but do exist on other wikis. See this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know about ill, this time it was just my laziness :) Marcelus (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
  This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
• Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
  All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
• François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• My very best wishes
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Volunteer Marek
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on,
  posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
• The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
  As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
• The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:
  In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
  [archive / log]
• When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at

ARCA

or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

• News and notes: Golden parachutes: Record severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

• In the media: History, propaganda and censorship

• Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"

• Recent research: Create or curate, cooperate or compete? Game theory for Wikipedia editors

• Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles

• Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs

• WikiProject report: Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 12:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

CS1 error on List of estimates of the number of victims of massacres committed by the UPA against Poles and of Polish retaliatory actions

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of estimates of the number of victims of massacres committed by the UPA against Poles and of Polish retaliatory actions, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 13:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar

Thank you, @Piotrus! Marcelus (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		For your ongoing efforts to improve Polish-related topics, I award you The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Marcelus by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 13:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"

List of rulers of Belarus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of rulers of Belarus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § List of rulers of Belarus until a consensus is reached. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[17]. Do you forget that you are under zero RR? Please self-revert ASAP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert any of your changes, I was just editing at the same time as you. Marcelus (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your previous edits on same page were also reverts (e.g. [18]). I do not really care, but you should. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not revert, it's editing the article. I didn't remove anything really. Marcelus (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A partial or complete revert should not be a removal of anything. You repeatedly restore para starting from "The exact moment when the greeting was created is controversial.". But whatever. This is just to let you know. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was acting in a good faith, but I'm restoring it to the version before my latest edit. Marcelus (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You continue doing the same, but whatever. I probably should not edit these subjects myself. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes, what exactly? Marcelus (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are refering to this; the source is using the name "fascist salute", not "roman salute", so I restored the text that was closer to the source, as I explained in my edit description. Marcelus (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what was your justification for edit. It only matters that it was a partial revert - for the purpose of 0RR, 3RR and such. I would advise you to self-revert and do this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for that, it wasn't edit warring just clarification what the text is actually saying. I'm tired of this constant revert baiting I face. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. You refuse to follow your editing restriction. Yes, a single revert (as you did) is not an edit warring, but it was a violation of your editing restriction (0RR). But OK, I explained everything, no more comments about it from me on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, I don't see it being problematic in any way. I feel like out of two of us I was the more constructive one: actually working on the article, explaining my edits, fidning new sources, trying to make something that is valuable. You in turn were just reverting all my edits without giving any reason and stonewalling discussions. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with you that you worked more on this subject, that you know it better, and that you are probably a better contributor than me. I commented above only about 0RR. But your point is taken. Let's do this. I will stop editing this page and commenting for a while, and we will see what happens. My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[19] - I already responded. Besides, you are steering this discussion too close to the area covered by my topic ban, hence I would rather stop my participation in this particular discussion. Good luck with including this content about Ukrainian fascists. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration with the Axis powers

We've been discussing a spinoff of your excellent work in the Baltics. Maybe, and this just occurred to me, we could title it simply collaboration rather than Collaboration with the Axis powers, and also discuss collaboration with the Soviets. This is just a thought, and not mandatory. The main thing that has held us up is whether it should be one article on the Baltics as a whole, or individual articles on each country. But I think we may be ready to proceed, so could you let me know? I also left some thoughts on the talk page of the Jewish collaboration. Tl;DR if it keeps that title it should be expanded. However, I also pointed out the similarity to Vichy and the Belgian and Dutch governments, which may be of interest. 09:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby, thank you for your kind words. I think that we should not describe all three Baltic States together because there were significant differences between them. I also think that we should not combine collaboration with the Soviets with collaboration with the Nazis. Moreover, I think that in general the article should be limited to collaboration with Nazi Germany only. Marcelus (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already spun off collaboration with Japan. The problem with limiting it to Germany is the ethno-nationalist groups in the Balkans that seem to have collaborated with both the Italians and the German in order to get weapons, but that's another problem.

I think you are saying that in the Baltic we should not cover collaboration with the Soviets? If so: somebody asked whether we should address collaboration with the Soviets also, but I dont think they have a strong opinion on the matter and bottom line I personally just want the article(s) to be accurate, myself. Vollaboration with the Soviets might be interesting but would need to be written by someone who isn't me, is all I know.

A lot of people still seem to be afraid to touch the article, so my hands are kind of full and I definitely have many other more urgent fish to fry. Since there are a couple of other spinoffs happening, one at a time is definitely good though. Which one do you want to start with? And will you do it yourself or do you want me to do it? LMK.

Better yet, post at the talk page, but I don't anticipate any problems with the move as this has been discussed several times here and there. I made the Business collaboration section a draft and left the section intact. In that particular case I thought the text was rather list-like, though. if you do the spin-off, do it as you think best, but leave a summary in the main collaboration article, right? Elinruby (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that collaboration with Soviets should be described, maybe even deserves its own article, but shouldn't be described in the artcile about collaboration with Nazis. The problem with limiting it to Germany is the ethno-nationalist groups in the Balkans that seem to have collaborated with both the Italians and the German in order to get weapons, I don't think that's a problem really, it can be described here; I'm not advocating removing any mention of collboration with other Axis powers, it's just shouldn't be a focus. It's possible to creater article Collaboration with Fascist Italy etc.

I'm very much willing to help with the article, but not right now, because I'm focused on other topics, in particular UPA massacres of Poles, because I want to improve the article significantly before the 80th anniversary. Marcelus (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best to untangle Yugoslavia but that and Italy are two areas where nobody is stepping up but me, so I will I guess continue to stumble around there until someone else turns up who can do it better.

I see your point about the anniversary and agree that especially given recent publicity that those articles should be improved as much as possible before their inevitable spike in readership.

I may stop by and swipe some sources or even text, since I just removed the entire Ukraine section of the Collaboration article because it was entire devoted to those massacres yet all of the sources were self-published. Ok, all but one, plus a Library of Congress 404 page. Anyway. At the very simplified level of the survey article all I need is some sources, but I've just noticed that

Holocaust in Poland uses some of the same sources. Pretty sure I can resolve at least the Collaboration section without help but I may have questions. Meanwhile I will tell the editor who is chafing about length/depth disparities that there is a plan and suggest he focus on France for a while, which has similar problems. I think we should focus more on expanding spinoffs than trimming existing sections, except maybe France, which duplicates a lot of Vichy France

...etc etc

TL;DR ok Elinruby (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby I think I can try to help with Ukrainian collaboration, but hard to determine when. Marcelus (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, understood. Elinruby (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Baltic collab page spun off

Dear @Marcelus:

Without deleting a single word from the Baltic section of Collab with Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy — and not knowing of the above June 2023 discussion — I have just spun off an exact duplicate copy of that section as Wartime collaboration in the Baltic states.

Knowing how much time, effort, research and writing you did, at the request of @Elinruby: and myself, on previously rather-incomplete Baltic sections, I certainly didn't want to throw any of it away.

I had a twofold purpose, apart from preserving your work:

• To allow the trimming of the long Baltic subsection of the parent article, so that it is more proportionate to other geographical subsections of the article, and doesn't slow readers down or dissuade them from continuing down the page. I was thinking (considering the relative lengths of other country sections) of 2-3 long paragraphs or 4-6 short paragraphs for each of the three countries. ¶ Since you did all that research and know the subject far better than Elinruby, myself, or most other regular editors of this article, you (if you had the time and patience) would obviously (and justly) be the first person to ask for any such abridgement.
• To allow discussion of collaboration with the U.S.S.R., which seems to me to have a close, dialectical relationship with collaboration with the Germans. A Soviet collaborator would be a traitor to a pro-German collaborator, and vict-versa. It probably also makes the subject more comprehensible to those unfamiliar with the sequence of successive Soviet and Nazi occupations. That's why I chose to use the general term Wartime collaboration in the Baltic states (when & where; rather than with whom).

Thanks and best wishes —— Shakescene (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other people are working on the problem, mostly at The Holocaust. I suggest you let that one play out a bit. Not that I am the boss of you or anything, but it would be a bad time for you to get into a squabble with a designated "good editor". I'm already in it because of the Collaboration article, which this wholesale rewrite of history does affect.Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...I see you have made a little headway. Good then. Be careful. Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit, you introduced a number of undefined sfn references - Snyder 2010, Hilberg 2003, Kliymuk 2018. They are useless as references as nobody can look them up. If you could fix them then that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, give me a couple minutes and I will fix it! Marcelus (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including

Per consensus at

Thanks for the info Marcelus (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus, regrettably, this nomination was made over a month after you created the article; for DYK, articles are supposed to be nominated within seven days of initial creation or appearance in article space, 5x expansion, or listing as a Good Article. Should the article ever be nominated to be a GA and then passed, you can renominate it for DYK within seven days of it passing. Thank you for your interest in DYK, and I hope your next nomination is made in a timely fashion so it is eligible for further review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The article looks certainly like it would have a good shot at GA. I second this idea. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset @Piotrus, thanks I will probably do that Marcelus (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		The lucid and well-researched prose you produced under the difficult conditions at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is especially appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this award. Cheers Marcelus (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz. Remember that although @Mzajac sees things differently from you, he is ultimately trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I'm concerned that your accusations of bad faith in the following comments were disruptive, distracting from the collaborative process of establishing consensus.

"Did you not study these links at all before inserting them? Are you able to point out that any of these sources say what you claim? Or are you simply providing as many sources as possible just to force acceptance of your version hoping that no one will verify their content?"

"Because my verification indicates that you tried to mislead the participants in the discussion. I ask that you respond to this. Your behavior qualifies to be reported to the appropriate noticeboard."

"What matter is a fact that you are manipulating sources and present them dishonestly in order to "win" discussion. Don't do that, it's despicable."

"Your persistent changing of the subject and unwillingness to admit that you are wrong justifies my assumption that you are driven by ill will and deliberately building dishonest arguments by manipulating sources to win the discussion." 169.156.16.220 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained there why I stopped assuming good faith on his part. I also recommend you to set up account, because it's hard to follow your edits and comments. Marcelus (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please either take it to the administrators or abandon these claims of bad faith. There are proper channels for reporting misconduct, and

WP:GOODSOCK. (Also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Whose sock are you? Marcelus (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a

WP:GOODSOCK anymore. (Also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, just in relation to Security Service (Poland), remember to provide a suitable edit summary to ensure that attribution of text is clearly noted, as a large chunk of it was copied from another article (your edit summary of "separating SB from MBP" doesn't offer enough clarity). I have sorted this now. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Marcelus reported by User:134.192.8.17 (reporter also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19)(Result: ). Thank you. 134.192.8.17 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023–24 Legia Warsaw season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andreas Gruber.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with decisions taken at WP:Categories for discussion, consider whether you have a fresh argument or fresh evidence to present, and if so then make a nomination.

Please do not unilaterally reverse decisions taken by consensus e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london I don't reverse anything, I'm just creating missing categories, there are 17th century Polish people by occupation but 18th century's are lacking Marcelus (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to move 18th-century Polish people to 19th-century people of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – not just to create a parent category over Polish and Lithuninan categories. You already challenged that consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 March, unsuccessfully.

If there are blanks in a sequence for C18 within {{

navseasoncats}}, the way to fill them is by creating redirects, e.g. [20]. Instead of that you removed some redirects, e.g. [21]

.

You objected to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian painters having a navseasoncats template as part of the Polish series, and you just removed it, [22] without giving any disclosure or rationale in the edit summary. Look, if it should be in both, then here is another way to do navigation links.

So please use {{cfs}} and start a discussion if you think the arguments for splitting Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth into Polish and Lithuanian people have not been sufficiently considered yet. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus it was literally decision made by four people, most of them don't even edit in that area, the request was created by user who was later blocked for sockpuppetry. . No Wikiproject was ever informed about this discussion. I don't remove PLC categories, I'm trying just to fix the tree this decision made by four people damaged.

This move caused a big hole, as there is no categories for Polish people of 18th century. And the move was wrong because Polish state existed in 18th century, despite what the author of the request was claiming, so there was a Polish nationality in the sense of belonging to the Polish state, at that time. But overall the definition of nationality is much broader it covers both: belonging to the state, and belonging to the nation as a group of people connected by tradtion, history etc. Marcelus (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have stopped denying that you reversed anything, which you literally did – e.g. see the two edit summaries at the top here.

You are right that the original nomination was not notified via the Alerts system. I have looked into this and it is because the category talk page had originally been tagged by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs) only with WikiProject Years, not WP Poland. That's why the Feb 2022 CFD never appeared on Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts. However, WP Poland was specifically notified of the follow-up nomination to reverse the original, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland/Archive_18#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation; but even after this notice and despite it being relisted twice, only two WikiProject participants argued in favour of reverting, but this was opposed by others, and did not gain consensus. Therefore your complaint about lack of notification in Feb 2022 does not provide sufficient reason to discount the original consensus. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening a fresh CFD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_21#Category:18th-century_people_from_the_Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth_by_occupation, and well done for including the above links. I have tried to add clarity to the intention of the nomination and to the question at stake there, and trust that you have no objection to what I have written there.

Pardon me for pointing out at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_20#18th-century_Lithuanian_people_by_occupation that you made a fool of yourself challenging me to notify the WikiProjects. Don't you think you should have checked whether I had already notified the WikiProjects before nagging me to do so?

As for your writing "not some" – please read more carefully what you were replying to. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I should have checked that, sorry for casting a shadow of doubt on you. Marcelus (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore your complaint about lack of notification in Feb 2022 does not provide sufficient reason to discount the original consensus; I think it still do kind of, it was a huge change that was done very hastly, none of the participants was really active in this content area. Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Voivode of Vilnius, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Janusz Radziwiłł and Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023–24 Legia Warsaw season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cracovia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo! I have never experienced a revision of a talk page. If you disagree or think it does not fit, why don't you just comment and ask about it? I am not that much into the Wikipedia-slang so unfortunately I am not aware what t/p means. However concerning the relevance of what I linked: It's an article about fires that have an unknown cause in Russia that have been going on since the Russian invasion of Ukraine started. I implicitly asked for a fire in St. Petersburg that was reported by CNN to also be put on said list. The article by CNN even mentions that there have been multiple fires of this sort: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/03/europe/st-petersburg-fire-intl/index.html

Sorry I am just a bit confused. Any help is appreciated :)

--Der Overmind (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

@Tamzin Am I blocked or the discussion is still going on? Can you explain the situation to me? I'm confused to be honest. Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for 2 months. This is because you made 2 reverts to the same page in a 24-hour period, and your response at AE acknowledges that you did so willfully (This seemed to me to be wrong and against the rules, so I restored the Polish name again with three sources, emphasis added). The block length is due to your history of edit-warring (and on the shorter side, at that). The discussion is still open because other admins might think a lengthening of the block or further sanctions are appropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, let me clarify: I did not do the revert willfully, I thought that since it added a new source (and C was undermining the previous source), and I did not remove any content, it was a new edit. Otherwise I would not have done it. However, on reading P's submission I realized that it was a revert and I accept that and apologize for exceeding the restrictions placed on me. This is simply an example of what I wrote in my appeal: "It's just very uncomfortable if you have to wonder if every edit can be interpreted as a revert or not". I generally accept any punishment. Please remove this entry if by writing it I am exceeding the block imposed. Marcelus (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what happens with the proposal below, I strongly suggest you need to take more responsibility yourself for your editing. What I mean by this is, for an editor still very new to Wikipedia, we can perhaps understand when they don't realise what they are doing is a revert. But when you've been hit with a specific revert sanction due to historic edit warring a sanction which you've had for long enough that it's been reduced from 0RR to 1RR, this is not something that should ever happen. You need to properly understand what a revert is and always be conscious of whether you're reverting. Do remember when it comes to reverting it doesn't really matter how "right" you may be, or how "wrong" whatever it is your reverting is, you still need to obey your restriction. Normally I'd mention

WP:3RRNO, but in a case like yours, I'd actually suggest you mostly forget about that and instead treat your restriction as applying even it's technically not edit warring. (The exception you should remember is that reverting your own actions doesn't count.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To be honest, I feel ashamed that I got carried away and did not think through my actions, although as you rightly point out I should have been aware of what I was doing. Avoiding completely reverting is good advice and I'll try that. Marcelus (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

@Tamzin I wonder if I could offer mentorship to Marcelus, and with this we could reduce the lenght of his block? I did find his edits in the articles I looked at generally constructive and helpful. His comment above seems to recognize the problem and show willingness to address it, IMHO.

In either case, Marcelus, I hope you don't mind my input. As Tamzin pointed out, your edits were very clearly a revert (restoration of something removed). Adding references to such an edit doesn't change the underlying classification of the edit as a revert/restoration.

Other than claryfing this, whether you accept any mentorship or not, and regardless of your appeal(?) outcome, my primary advice for you would be to take a break from the Polish-Lithuanian topics for few months, as this topic area is one you seem to get too wiki-emotional, and clearly, some other editors in it are more than happy to take you to admin boards (and perhaps vice versa). Finding a different area to edit peacefully will demonstrate to the community that you are productive editor who does not need any restrictions on their account, but this will take time. Think of it as a voluntary topic ban or like, and you can always take me up on my mentorship offer and ask whether your planned edit or engagement in a particular discussion in this topic area would be fine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Piotrus for the offer, I would certainly welcome such support if you don't have a problem with me bothering you. This would certainly help me avoid similar situations in the future, and avoid conflicts.

As for the Polish-Lithuanian topics, I had already largely moved away from them after the last report on me (April 5, 2023), as can be seen in the list of my edits since then: link. The edits in Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force and Povilas Plechavičius entries were my biggest involvement in this area. Marcelus (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, @Tamzin, @HJ Mitchell: Let me answer here, because I can't in AE. Thank you for reconsidering my case. I gladly accept the Piotrus offer of mentorship. But I also have to agree with him that editing under 0RR is like walking through a minefield, so stressful that it actually equates to a ban in my opinion. And to answer HJ Mitchell: it seems to me, that I made and continue making progress. I admit that I screwed up, but look at it this way that I managed to edit successively under 0RR, and for some time under 1RR. It's not easy, believe me.

The other thing is that I feel cornered and I know that any stumble on my part will end in an automatic report. So, from my point of view there is not much difference between 0RR and a ban, it will mean suspension of my activity on en.wiki. At the time of the previous 0RR, I made the decision that I would try to edit regularly to show that I was capable of doing so without EW. Now I don't think I will be able to do it.

As for my email: I wrote it mainly to show you the context of my edits, and also to ask you to pay attention to this little section of Wikipedia. I made the decision some time ago that I would not write reports on other users, I don't fully understand how they work, and things that I feel are wrongdoings often turn out to be in accordance with Wikipedia rules.

So once again, thank you for considering my case. As I said before I accept any form of sanction.Marcelus (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite

Eastern Europe topic area

.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

As discussed in the AE thread and above, Piotrus will also support you with mentoring. I encourage you to appeal the 0RR afte a few months of active problem-free editing. It's also worth noting that if there is further problematic from you, including breaching this revert restriction, it is likely that you will be topic banned or blocked for an extended period of time. I'll unblock you shortly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick mentor idea, Marcelus: best way to avoid revertion is to... create new articles :) There are still zillion of articles to be created or translated from pl wiki. Even in the Polish-Lithuanian history topic. Try to ignore "what is there" and just enrich Wikipedia with new content for the next few months. Creating content is FUN! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You can use Wikidata query to generate a list of articles in a given topic area (by category, etc.) that are not translated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc and @Piotrus: Thank you for information and the advice, I will try to be careful and to engage in feuds and problematic editing. But just to be clear, am I now on 0RR in EE topic area, and on 1RR everywhere else; or is it 0RR everywhere? Marcelus (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0RR is just in the EE topic area. Normal edit warring & revert rules everywhere else. Given you have this restriction and previous blocks its likely that any sanctions for edit warring in other topic areas will be quite heavy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So in theory 3RR applies to me outside of EE topc area? Not that I plan to use it, I just want to be certain. Marcelus (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:3RR

applies to everyone, everywhere (on wiki).

What Callanecc was saying, I believe, is that while outside of the EE topic area your editing priviligies are not restricted, it would be a bad idea to edit war anywhere in the near future (or more distant one too, but stress is on near, also considering you'll probably want to appeal your restriction). Try to limit yourself to one revert everywhere (this is a good rule I try to respect myself) and ask me for

WP:3O as often as you'd like. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

PS. I've seen folks severly sanctioned at ArbCom for edit warring with evidence of them doing less than 3RR in some articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was intending. Thanks Piotrus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mortęski family has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I normally ignore this but you currently have used up all the patience I have available for your behaviour. They. I am a they. Thankyouverymuch. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for that, won't happen again. Marcelus (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glinka family has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Specifically here at Dispute resolution for Sergei Bortkiewicz. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding whether the Free City of Danzig is a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Invasion of Poland".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class, is awarded on behalf of WikiProject Poland and myself for your Poland-related contributions. Thank you!
		this WikiAward was given to Marcelus by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 12:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Union of Kėdainiai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish Livonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite

Eastern Europe topic area

.

You have been sanctioned per this successful appeal of your prior 0RR restriction.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information Marcelus (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i've added to the article Marceli Godlewski. I thought English language sources might help.

Great job!

I am contributing to you this

WP:QPQ so that you can complete the nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Bright Memory

. I did that review long ago, and it is unused as a QPQ. Feel free to use it.

I am blocked from writing in

WP:DYK, so I can't add anything on that page. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you Marcelus (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I substantially improved the text and the sources. I tripled the size of the article. They used my QPQ so that you are

Zero sum game

.

Oh well! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it at DYK, I was going to suggset nominating it. Keep up the good job writing articles - much more fun than discussing controversies :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marcelus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 95.160.159.96. Place any further information here. Marcelus (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been able to edit since making this request, meaning you are not affected. Yamla (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marcelus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 95.160.159.105. Place any further information here. Marcelus (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have edited since making this request, so you aren't affected by a block. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot I'm edited from mobile phone, which have different IP because it uses different internet connection. My PC is still affected by the block. Also as you can see the problem is much broader, it's the second time this week this happened. This comment is also written on my mobile phone.Marcelus (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you don't have a VPN in operation on your PC and your browser cache is cleared. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted you

WP:IPBE for 3 months. Please study the policy, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On 10 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marceli Godlewski, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Father Marceli Godlewski, known for his pre-war anti-Semitic activities, helped save the lives of hundreds of Jews held in the Warsaw Ghetto during the German occupation of Poland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marceli Godlewski. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marceli Godlewski), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14,000 page views Belongs in the DYK hall of fame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Marcelus (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really makes you want to make more such pages Marcelus (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. I strongly believe creating articles like this is much more fun then telling others they are wrong. And safer :P Please write more stuff like this - this my my advice for your wiki-future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcelus, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read
  the tutorial
  before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the
  HERE
  .
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's
  discussion board
  .
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I filled arbitration enforcement request against you.--Ed1974LT (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently added footnotes for something by Walczak, but there is no source for the reference. If you could add one, you'll get the page off the error list. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do asap Marcelus (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stanisław Smolka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Education.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 19:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Mykhailo Tkach. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor passing by remark: I read this tiny stub and I concur, currently

WP:NBIO is not met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Significa liberdade, @Piotrus: Yes, thank you. I had to stop working on this article, I also couldn't find the right sources. I rushed the publication a bit. Marcelus (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including

It seems clear to me that you and Elinruby are not getting along well. I would recommend avoiding interacting with them, and where this is not possible, ping me for mediation and I'll try to make sure things are smoothed out and don't escalate. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my approach for some time; I don't initiate any discussion with them, and respond only when directly asked or I see some accusation made about me by them. Thank you for your advice. Marcelus (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to you and Piotrus as I think both of you may be knowledgeable on the subject. I note there seems to be omittance or brush over of the events of the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia in some articles. If you have time can you have a quick look over the following articles to see if all is right: Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Eastern Galicia Volhynia, Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, and Jewish–Ukrainian relations in Eastern Galicia. Thank you 79.154.64.32 (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article

@Marcelus: Hey, just checking in, as it's been almost a week since I opened this review. Is this something you still want to work on? I think the article could still pass with some of the changes I suggested, I don't want to close the review after you've waited all this time for one. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst, yes I will work on it in the near future. Thanks for reviewing it. Marcelus (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: Could you give me an indication of when in the near future you plan on getting around to this? I notice you seem preoccupied with other articles, and per GA guidelines, I'm not supposed to keep unaddressed reviews open much longer than a week. But it's now been more than two weeks since I opened it. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst I will try to sort it out this weekend, please wait a bit longer. I had far less time thies week than I expected Marcelus (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst Once again thank you for reviewing my article. I adressed most of the issues you pointed out, but I'm not entirely on board with every change you suggested, I expressed my point of view on the article t/p, looking forward to hear your opinion. Marcelus (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cezary Ketling-Szemley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cezary Ketling-Szemley for comments about the article, and Talk:Cezary Ketling-Szemley/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst Thank you so much, for all the effort and time you committed for my nomination Marcelus (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]