User talk:Szmenderowiecki

Put them in!

Wtrąć je!

Вставь их!

Note. This is solely a talk page here. No barnstars, no DYK/GA/whatever notifications besides such that would be needed for Wikipedia's administrative purposes (such as warnings, ANI discussions, RfC/article help etc.) You are always welcome to talk to me. But please let's keep order. Any contributions that I consider worthwhile are here.

Wikileaks RfC

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

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

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

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Till your reached 500 edits you are not allowed to participate in I/P discussions on various boards.I will strike your comments. --Shrike (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN not calling the lab origin a conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community sanctions notice on covid-related topics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

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

@Piotrus: Thank you for the information.

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

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

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- GizzyCatBella🍁 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute for Legacy of Polish National Thought has been accepted

Institute for Legacy of Polish National Thought, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

BLPN/ANI review

Long, so collapsible.

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on difficult TAs

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

Your GA nomination of In God We Trust

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article In God We Trust you nominated for GA-status according to the 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 Legobot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki – As requested, I have pinged and well as informed on your talk page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am looking forward to your review and suggestions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki – My pleasure. Please add Talk:In God We Trust/GA1 in your watchlist (if you haven't), so that you get notified of my comments there. Ping me whenever you've addressed the issues I just posted. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited In God We Trust, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington, KFOR and Doubleday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Warsaw concentration camp

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

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

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

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

Query

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

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

Question regarding Rolling Stone Close

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

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

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

Polexit: political positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re Enclaves

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

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

Re: modifying comments

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

Haaretz RfC

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI discussion

Hey Szmenderowiecki,

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

Hi Szmenderowiecki,

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

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

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

A note

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

WP:SNOW

Hi Szmenderowiecki,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maurice Duplessis

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

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

Thank you

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

technical note

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

Listing of Template:Le Touquet weatherbox at templates for discussion

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

Warsaw Concentration Camp and Haaretz article

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

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

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

Translation question

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

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

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

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

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

Pig War (1859) / Casualties (revisited)

If you are going to write a close that is basically consensus against inclusion, then you might as well state as much. Just ignore !votes because they are just that: (not)-votes [See WP:!VOTE].
I obviously don't agree with your close, but I would prefer if you are to actually close the discussion, you do so keeping in mind the guidance provided in WP:NAC. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:NACPIT does list traps to avoid, but I didn't find any !vote to be against policy or made in bad faith - more of them were either irrelevant, well-addressed by opposes or unsupported by the factual findings as presented in the article. I did think to close it as "clear consensus against", but I felt it would have been too controversial to close this discussion in this way, and I had no close that would be in the middle of "no consensus" and "consensus against". A recent RfC close on RSN did just so, where the division of options 1 and 2/3 was more or less equal, and the admins are now grilling the closer for what seems to be a supervote, so I prefer to be more conservative in judgments like this one. In any case, there was, in my view, no way that rough consensus could be formed in favour of inclusion, and that's the required threshold for inclusion. Thanks for asking, though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Deprecation RfC: CounterPunch

To clarify: Is there a consensus against depreciation, or no consensus for depreciation? BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: See short answer: no consensus for deprecation, and the RSP entry. I don't think I could call it "consensus against" because there were quite persuasive arguments (and a substantial amount of them, even if only totalling 1/3 of !votes) on the proponent side that would in most cases make the source appear in deprecated category; the opponents were also right in their arguments. At least my understanding of "consensus against" is about the arguments that are either rejected by an overwhelming margin or arguments that are patently not rooted in policy or rely on misunderstandings or misrepresentations, none of which, in my view, was the case (despite the allegations of cherrypicking). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarify. However, if there is "no consensus", as opposed to a "consensus against", shouldn't that result in the status quo remaining? BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No consensus for deprecation = we can't agree if deprecation is needed ==> it's not (yet) deprecated (I think that's fairly obvious), regardless of the result of the previous RfC; and anyway, from what I understand, it was agreed that the RfC I closed would serve as a re-run of the 2021 request for comment as the latter was compromised by several socks and its closure was therefore not considered representative of the consensus of the community.

Besides, later in my closure, I stated that I can say there is consensus for the publication to be listed as generally unreliable due to its indiscriminate publication of content, including conspiratorial and denialist pieces (emphasis in original). I think I couldn't have been clearer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

David Gerard, the closer of the previous RFC, stated that It's deprecated until it's un-deprecated and that We'd need an RFC of equal weight to reverse [the previous RFC]. To me, this would suggest that this wasn't to be considered a rerun, but a new RFC, that would require consensus to un-deprecated the source to un-deprecate it. This would also be in line with standard WP:NOCONSENSUS procedures. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

David Gerard's comments, in my view, suggest his misunderstanding, or lack of acknowledgement, of WP:CCC. No user can "anchor" their decision until it's overturned as "consensus against X", with the exception of specific points mentioned in WP:NOCONSENSUS. Amending the list of deprecated sources isn't what I see to be the amendment of policy (WP:DEPRECATED is an information page, not even a guideline). Besides, even though the question was a yes-no for deprecation, a much more suitable format was running the standard Option 1-2-3-4 template, which argument I have also taken into account when closing; as I said, David Gerard's closure of that RfC was disputed (therefore, the argument that the source was firmly deprecated before I overturned his decision has shaky ground); and, finally, the change from "deprecated" to "generally unreliable" doesn't mean much improvement in terms of quality, as in both cases, the source is considered generally unreliable; the difference is essentially preventing users from citing it using filter 869 and auto-reverting its addition in some cases. This is not to be compared to the change even from unreliable to no-consensus, at least my challenge of the closure of the WikiLeaks RfC fell flat and admins have in generally not intervened in that case, endorsing Eggishorn's closure.

I will also note that the question was not "Should the previous RfC be overturned?", in which case "no consensus" means essentially "not yet", but "Should this source be deprecated?" in which case "no consensus" means it's not deprecated. This is in part a shortcoming of the current policy, as nothing theoretically prohibits a user to manipulate the RfC question to make it harder/easier to overturn the status quo, but that's an aside consideration.

Based on the above, I think I will have to stand by my closure, or rather by my interpretation of the effects of my closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree. First, a discussion is anchored by default; it needs a consensus to overturn it. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare and don't include RSP, as evidenced by your WikiLeaks example - the difference between that RFC and this RFC is unclear, as the only difference is that was a discussion to switch from "generally unreliable" to "no consensus", while this was a discussion to switch from "deprecated" to "generally unreliable".

Second, if your interpretation of policy suggests there is a loophole, doesn't that suggest that your interpretation might be incorrect, and that "no consensus", outside of the listed exceptions, results in no change from the status quo? BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

First, if you scroll down to WP:DEPREC, we have There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source, which would imply that the source should not be deprecated if there is no community consensus for that. My determination is that currently there is none.

My divagation about question manipulation was nothing more than an aside note, and I do not imply that the question was specifically manipulated to make it easier to overturn consensus. However, with the question asked the way it was, I had no choice but to answer "no, there's no consensus for that". In the more appropriate 1-2-3-4 framework, the consensus seemed to be for option 3 but not 4. I don't see how the existence of the loophole I argue exists impacts the considerations about which RfC is the controlling one - it simply is an aside note that the wording of RfC may impact the result of the closure, which is why I rather followed the standard template.

For any further discussion on the topic, I'd propose you publish this for the attention of administrators at WP:AN, but I don't think I will have much to say beyond what I already have said. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably won't, but I suspect others will. The other thing I will mention is that WP:INVOLVED might be relevant; though the fact that you prefaced your comment in the first RFC with I will not really submit a vote here reduces that concern somewhat. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also this closure in which no consensus for blacklisting/deprecating overturned the blacklisting (though it was argued that the article shouldn't have been in the blacklist in the first place, so this discussion is also a bit different from the one here).

Regarding my apparent involvement: since I in fact did not know the source (I still largely don't) and was among the first who commented in that RfC, the comment was intended to guide the discussion, rather than opine on its subject.

Feel free to challenge it yourself if you think it's necessary - I won't be offended. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noting for others reading that the relevant sentences of that close are Normally, a no consensus outcome in this situation would result in the deprecation and blacklisting being upheld as the status quo. However, it was pointed out in the discussion that 112.ua had originally been added to the blacklist following an RfC that did not specifically address it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The key here is whether "no consensus" refers to the action of overturning a prior action or whether consensus is established for a specific option each time the consensus is challenged (if there was any long-standing consensus beforehand). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Before commenting further, I just want to make sure I have understood you correctly. If the question had been Should CounterPunch be undeprecated? instead of Should CounterPunch be deprecated?, the no consensus result would have resulted in CounterPunch remaining deprecated? BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point, but only to a certain extent. I think that in this particular case, or in general in discussions about general reliability of a source for further guidance, we should rather stick to the 1-2-3-4 options rather than asking such questions whose formulation may be manipulated.

And in particular we should not ask questions like "Should source X not be deprecated?", as the answers may be "Yes, it shouldn't" or "No, it shouldn't", which will mean the same whatever the intention of the !voter. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to continue on this point but I want to be absolutely clear and so I would ask for a yes or no answer: If the question had been Should CounterPunch be undeprecated?, would the RSP listing for CounterPunch still be "deprecated" rather than "generally unreliable"? BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In this particular case, no, because the question should have been different in the first place, and several users have noted just that or used the standard template notation to support their votes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a very poor close and there was certainly no consensus for general unreliability. You have less than 2500 live edits and are clearly inexperienced to close a contentious discussion; please vacate the closure and let an admin reclose. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  Go overturn yourself, or discuss it on WP:AN, it doesn't matter (but do remember to actually act on review and not simply let it be forgotten in the archives). I'll note that I've received a few thanks notifications for my RfC closure, including from an admin, Rosguill (see log), so it doesn't seem to be as obviously bad as you suggest. Or so it seems from my viewpoint.

  As a side note, if you say that something is bad, you can just as well explain why it is so - after all, if you say that inexperience led me to an inappropriate closure and you are experienced enough to say this, you may just as well point to the mistakes so that I can actually learn from them instead of simply saying "it's bad because I say so and you don't have the necessary edits anyway". The place to do that, given the fact that several editors seem to have agreed with the closure, is AN. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not participate in the discussion but I have looked at it and I believe Szmenderowiecki did an acceptable job, and deserves thanks for patiently answering questions and remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I just came here to say you did an exceptionally good job closing this mess of an RFC. I echo Peter Gulutzan's comment above: Well done for a well-reasoned and nuanced close. Thank you. Mvbaron (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

About Talk:2022 Burkinabé coup d'état

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Talk:2022 Burkinabé coup d'état a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Talk:2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 09:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Closure on Chinese CDC paper

• Liu J, Zhang L, Yan Y, Zhou Y, Yin P, et al. (February 2021). "Excess mortality in Wuhan city and other parts of China during the three months of the covid-19 outbreak: findings from nationwide mortality registries". BMJ. 372: n415. doi:10.1136/bmj.n415. PMC 7900645. PMID 33627311.

I was trying to close this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. So far as MEDRSness of the source was concerned, I was able to establish rough consensus for reliability, at least according to my understanding of policies and guidelines and the arguments presented in the discussion. However, I struggle to resolve the primary/secondary dispute, as the PAGs appear to contradict each other and interpretation may differ based on the point of reference which you take for the paper. Maybe there is no diverging interpretation, or I've messed up back at the time I've closed the previous discussion, but that closure seems sound, and I stand by the draft as proposed below.

Some admins will almost surely criticise me for long-winded closes, but I want to make clear that all arguments have been considered. The passage I have doubts about is in italics.

Rough consensus for reliability, source type impossible to determine.

Before I proceed with my justification, a question arose about whether excess mortality estimates, and allegations of undercounting, are biomedical information. The relevant passage says: Population data and epidemiology: Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc. Estimates of excess mortality thus squarely belong to the biomedical information and WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should be used only. As to allegations of undercounting/cover-up, journalism may deliver some good information on that subject but that is not the case where the WP:NEWSORGs override scholarship as what has been shown is that there is reason for caution (attribution is recommended in this case), but not evidence of falsification or fraud. There has been concern about undeclared conflict of interest regarding the interference of censors, but the BMJ article still stands without correction so far, nor have any examples from other scientists been provided about the problem with the paper that trace to the Chinese censors. We should only dismiss the paper if hard evidence for wrongdoing appears, and we are not peer-reviewers and shouldn't substitute their judgment for ours, as a few editors have noted.

A lot of !votes unfortunately conflated reliability with primary/secondary concerns. Secondary ≠ good, primary ≠ bad. It's true we should generally avoid primary sources for MEDRS content, but that's separate from reliability. Therefore, as for reliability, several editors have noted that the BMJ is a respected publication for MEDRS content, and indeed it is given as an example of a good journal in the guideline; no peer review or accuracy issues were presented as published by scholars, other than the general speculation about Chinese scholarship's suspectness due to COVID-19 censorship. Mere suspicion is not enough, however. So this source belongs to MEDRS, unlike, say, The Economist or the Financial Times.

As for the primary vs. secondary aspect, it appears that my closure was linked to this discussion. It is definitely applicable here, but I am at crossroads here as regards determination of whether this is primary or secondary for their estimate of excess mortality. Per this source (University of Minnesota), "data compilations" are considered secondary sources, and this paper is surely one; this is also what WP:SECONDARY would say, as they present their own analysis of China CDC, police, hospital, and other data - and that's why the previous closure I made came to an AFAIK uncontroversial conclusion that the political science paper was a secondary source. At the same time according to this source (Georgia State) this would be a primary source as an original method for estimation was devised by the scientists, and that fits the definition in WP:MEDDEF, as this is not a meta-analysis, it doesn't make concrete recommendations and does not provide "an overview of current understanding of the topic". In my view, the policies are contradictory and do not allow for a black-and-white determination of the type of source.

I will also add, outside of the closure, that allegations of undercounting by experts in their domain of expertise (virology/epidemiology) (i.e. not e.g. a researcher of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, see Boston Herald piece) may be mentioned, with the annotation that they are unproven yet, as no concrete evidence appeared that the data was totally flawed. The more recent the allegations are, the better, but the allegations should not be overriding peer-reviewed scholarship. The scientists who do not trust the estimates are free to present their calculations in peer-reviewed journals, and we will balance them accordingly.

Any thoughts about how to resolve it? Pinging all participants of the discussion: @Xoltered, Bakkster Man, CutePeach, Thucydides411, Alexbrn, Nableezy, Shibbolethink, Jumpytoo, VQuakr, TolWol56, LondonIP, Francesco espo, My very best wishes, NavjotSR, ProcrastinatingReader, Only in death, ScrumptiousFood, Adoring nanny, Compassionate727, Azuredivay, Davide King, Chalst, Valjean, Roxy the dog, and Pious Brother: Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"It's true we should generally avoid primary sources for MEDRS content, but that's separate from reliability" ← No, it's central to reliability. Much primary research is wrong, which is why the validating layer of an appropriate secondary source is generally required for any assertion of fact. Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not the ones who determine the rightness or wrongness of research, and that's why it's separate. As has been mentioned, a source may be primary but reliable, or otherwise secondary but unreliable. If the source is unreliable, then it doesn't matter if it's primary or secondary; but if it is reliable enough, then we may ponder on this question. The guideline says that: Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. It's not as if primary is automatically unusable, but we shouldn't devote much space to it. If, however, it is secondary - which is the issue - then we may use it more broadly. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course we don't determine rightness or wrongness, but primary sources and known to be unreliable, which is why they are avoided for assertions of fact in research areas. Deciding to include a primary source is usually an act of WP:OR as it means a Wikipedian has decided to notice and elevate a piece of research irrespective of what reliable sources do. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not my reading of WP:MEDRS. If it was meant not to include primary sources at all, it would say - DO NOT INCLUDE PRIMARY SOURCES, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THEY ARE OFTEN UNRELIABLE AND YOU ARE LIKELY NOT EXPERIENCED ENOUGH TO HANDLE THEM; instead, the guideline allows for limited possibilities for citing the source (and in fact, explicitly allows citing them for assertions of fact (as posted in conclusions), but to the minimal extent possible). The thing you are saying in the last sentence is more about WP:UNDUE (giving more attention than is due to the source) than WP:OR (making any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources). It doesn't seem as if the source is insignificant (in fact, we have 31 citations to it). The arguments that tried to prove the UNDUE point weren't strong as they were trying to use popular press (FT, The Economist, Boston Herald etc.) as counterbalance, and it is surely not MEDRS-compliant.

I'll add that WP:IDPRIMARY says In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. These publications, which may be in peer-reviewed journal articles or in some other form, are often called the primary literature to differentiate them from unpublished sources. This doesn't seem to clarify the situation, as it relies on data to derive conclusions about data (yeah, secondary!) which themselves may be considered data (oh, still primary). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS has, in bold, at its head "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". There are exceptional cases where a primary might be appropriate; WP:MEDFAQ attempts to list some. If primary sources were allowed for medical content, Wikipedia would have said vaccines cause autism and ivermectin cures COVID. My point here is simply to counter your assertion that the primary nature of a document is unrelated to its reliability. By some estimates, as much as 20% of published research is fraudulent. Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the type of source is connected with reliability but is a distinct criterion to consider; a lot of "Fails MEDRS" !votes said that because they considered it primary, they said it was not usable and not RS, but that's not a valid line of argumentation in light of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and there are in fact limited uses for primary papers, as noted in WP:MEDFAQ. Whether this paper qualifies for any of these exceptions is not something that RSN is about. DUE questions are for NPOVN.

The ivermectin and autism examples both concerned scientists reporting original data/making preliminary trials, which are all recognised as primary research - these are at best useful as historical background. I'm not saying we should cite primary sources on par with meta-analyses, but this paper doesn't seem to fit well into either category, even though it should. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

For biomedical content, in the general case, PRIMARYISBAD. That is why MEDRS exists as distinct from RS. To come back to my original point: a fact of primary sourcing is not "separate from" reliability in sci/med, it is central to it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: It's not that primary sources are right/wrong, it's that they aren't reliable in their conclusions. Take, for example, the standard statistical test for determining a result. About 5% of the time, the result will be due to random chance. See: relevant XKCD. This is precisely why we typically avoid primary studies, they produce unreliable results at least 5% of the time. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

My recollection of the discussion suggests that a majority of editors regarded this source as primary, but I don't have time to check the discussion right this second to verify that. Policy-wise, I would think that an article that uses "an original method for estimation" is not a mere "data compilation." —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I havent really been following this discussion for a while however a very important thing seemingly not mentioned is that the original discussion was about an attributed claim, stating things specifically said in the paper (i.e not original research or contradicting WP:MEDRS), furthermore given the of notability of the paper, it is probably justified to include it in some articles, note this quote from WP:MEDFAQ:

While recent research results are normally omitted, it is sometimes necessary to include it for WP:DUE weight. In this case, it is usually preferable to read and cite the primary scientific literature in preference to WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources.

It should also be noted, there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the paper, some editors have seemingly mixed and matched unjustified reliability concerns and the concern of it being a primary source as if they are the same when they are obviously not. Xoltered (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the goal of closure to accurately categorize the study and determine the policies to apply in determining appropriate use (ie. primary/secondary study, BMI or not), or to determine precisely how it gets used in the pages attempting to cite it? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The former. The questions raised were whether the information must use MEDRS-quality sources, whether this paper qualifies as a MEDRS source and whether this is primary/secondary. The closure was not intended to dictate the way this gets cited (other than attribution is recommended due to general concerns about Chinese science). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm against dogmatic application of MEDRS. If MEDRS leads us to mishandle this very important question, it's time for an IAR close and an update of MEDRS, which is unwieldy, bureaucratic, and compares unfavourably in terms of applicability to BLP. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • MEDRS can't really be "applied" because (unlike BLP) it's not a policy. WP:V is the policy which requires content on Wikipedia to be supported by reliable sources. MEDRS is guidance on how to decide what is reliable in the realm of biomedicine. If there's going to be a close which invokes WP:IAR that needs to be explicit. However, the job of closing is to evaluate consensus, which should always be based on the WP:PAGs. A closer deciding to invoke IAR would look like a WP:SUPERVOTE in line with the closer's opinions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• While I agree that IAR closes need to be handled carefully, the issue with supervotes is typically one of simply discounting valid opinions: closers should and are entitled to exercise discretion in how they approach policy. Note that a range of arguments both in favour of applying MEDRS and warning against its appropriateness were made in the discussion; I mentioned IAR not because I think it is necessarily required to do the right thing here, but because I think there is the risk of being excessively deferential to what is not among our best-crafted guidelines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is my opinion that IAR closes in RfCs as split as this one must be limited to three-admin closes, to avoid supervote concerns. Admins are supposed to be experienced enough; if a three-admin panel agrees that IAR should be in place, this should more or less settle the question. Besides, I don't see any reasons to apply IAR here: whatever the final decision, the source may be used: the difference is that secondary sources will get to be used freely while in order to use the primary source, the one seeking inclusion will have to form consensus that any of the three MEDFAQ exemptions are met. At least in this respect, I see no need to fix anything in the guidelines. However, the conflict between WP:SECONDARY/WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDDEF has to be resolved (and yes, MEDRS is still part of RS, even if it is somewhat distinct in the scope of application and some definitions).

  It is also my belief that we should apply guidelines as they are written, and, if problems arise, seek consensus to change a portion of the guidelines and, if successful, change the outcome of the problematic RfC appropriately, rather than deciding for yourself which way the policy would sound best, because you may be alone in your opinion.

  I am listing this at WP:CR. Maybe more eyes will do better to resolve this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Szmenderowiecki: thank you for your close but I don't think it was necessary and I don't even think the RfC was necessary. Primary sources should not have been interpreted to "settle the question" about China's alleged undercounting of cases and deaths. The allegations were fully attributed and any further disputes should go to OR/N, not RS/N. LondonIP (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi LondonIP, you're glossing over the dispute about whether this is PRIMARY. Please do not continue to assume the source is primary, and rather provide evidence for why it is primary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  The BMJ source is PRIMARY, but its a moot point as it doesn't even contradict the allegations of deliberate undercounting. LondonIP (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comparing closes

I'll note I much prefer Szmenderowiecki's first proposed close of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 369#Is the specific study this discussion originated with (BMJ) reliable? to the close of Amadeus1999 that we eventually ended up with. The fault here really lies with the unintended consequences of measures in MEDRS intended to eliminate poor quality sources that in fact interfere with our ability to apply our neutrality and verifiability policies. I've been meaning to propose changes to MEDRS for approaching a year now; perhaps this outcome will concentrate minds on the failures of those guidelines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the ping. I'll gladly defend my closure/vision of the consensus if need be, as I don't see any other way to interpret the community consensus. Not trying to be confrontational here or anything. Also, my closure is indeed based on how MEDRS is now, I couldn't and can't change the interpretation based on a whim that the guideline is not sound. Whether we should change the guideline is a whole 'nother mess. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• While it's not the close I wanted, Amadeus1999's was a competent close and I would expect it to hold up if it was challenged. The problem is that MEDRS, intended to ensure quality sourcing to avoid promoting quackery, is in this case leading us to eliminate a top-quality source and prefer poorer quality sources. We have the curious case of skilled editors who are usually MEDRS sticklers now unhappy with its application. That's the kind of territory that justifies IAR closes, but given the amount of heat on RS/N, I can sympathise with admins for not wanting to go there. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that the most important thing in that closure was to determine whether it was reliable and the exact type of it (primary, secondary). While I would have let the discussion go further on the talk page to determine if any of the three exceptions for primary MEDRSs apply, I don't think the closure was a bad one and no one has as yet challenged it, so I will leave this topic alone. Also, it bypassed my dilemma, which might have been artificial.

Also, Chalst, if you want to open a policy discussion on MEDRS proposing certain changes while pointing to the two closes and explaining why you prefer mine over Amadeus's (in terms of how the policy should look like), you are free to do so. Before this modification happens, we are bound to the policies/guidelines as formulated at the moment of closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• With respect to the primary/secondary determination, this is the main reason I preferred your proposed close: the article presented findings and novel analyses, and is primary with respect to those, but it also had a substantial literature review which was high quality, and this part functions as a secondary source. One of the failings of MEDRS is that, in its enthusiasm for presenting hierarchies of research quality, it fails to make space to discuss the actual nature of research articles, or discuss the confidence we gain from peer review and post-peer review.

Simply discussing MEDRS is easy and I've done it many times; actually proposing changes that have a worthwhile chance of adoption is another matter, but I think time is ripe to put something together. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For biomedical content, in general the "secondary" parts of primary sources are not regarded as useful, because they are typically selected and framed in support of the primary material. Actual reviews are preferred; see WP:MEDASSESS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chalst and Szmenderowiecki: While I totally agree (with my nursing history and background) that WP:MEDRS has its failings in terms of possibility for critical analysis, I also think it's pretty dangerous and good take should be taken when we try to form consensus for changes to the guideline. We'd have to come up with such a phrasing so that the 'right kind' of primary source can be preferable to an 'obviously lacking' primary source, now I don't want to imply that was the case in the discussion I closed, I won't comment on that matter personally as to remain impartial, but it's more a theoretical. The problem I foresee with such a change is that it becomes insanely difficult, more difficult than it already is, for the community to 'vet' sources for medical content on Wikipedia. The general editor (and voter on discussions) is not a (prior) medical professional or an expert in biomedical research analysis. What I mean to say is, I don't think we can expect or even allow editors to interpret research content and conslusions, and if we do, we better do it right. Not doing so could have disastrous outcomes with even potential loss of life down the line (due to uninformed people taking Wikipedia content for medical advice) Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 13:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[4]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Vit A DYK

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns/comment about the Vitamin A DYK. (I could not find "etiological". Thank you for the DYK review and the prompts to improve the article. The GA reviewer had mentioned that this was their first GA review, and I had been worried much was missed. I dropped that person a note to look at the DYK as a lesson. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for missing that first bullet. I replace the uses of the Oregon ref. There is a problem I have to follow up with at the Wikipedia article for the beta-carotene cleavage enzyme. Ref Wu2016 and also Lintig PMID=23053509 each distinguish between dioxygenase (coded for by gene BCDO2) and monooxygenase (coded for by BCMO1), with the first responsible for asymmetric cleavage and the second for symmetric cleavage. Howeverm the Wikipedia article Beta-carotene 15,15'-dioxygenase states that it is coded by the BCO1 gene and does symmetric cleavage of beta-carotene AND asymmetric cleavage. A search for Beta-carotene 15,15'-monooxygenase redirects to the dioxygenase article. Another day. David notMD (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. Keep up the good work. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

There's no template for that, but please don't do that again. There was a good reason to remove the IP's comment (it's entirely non-constructive). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RandomCanadian There is a limited catalogue of cases when you may remove someone else's comments. Since you said it was a personal attack or "entirely non-constructive", the relevant guideline instructs that Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. (the guy reverted your edit and you insisted on the removal regardless) and WP:RUC says that It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. (it wasn't obviously vandalism or trolling; it could be just geniune belief in a certain (misguided) theory that an IP sought to push on the talk page). There's also the fact that Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. I didn't see any ad hominems there, just incivility (rather mild in my experience of talk pages) and off-topic rants.

For "non-constructive edits", the better solutions are to collapse off-topic rants or move them elsewhere; deletion is only for very obvious cases, as WP:TPO says (and it was far from obvious).

Besides, I also left you a short notice besides the templatised message. I strongly encourage you to stop wasting time on talk pages and get to editing, as this is much more productive and will likely earn you less (justified or not) accusations of incivility/other dubious behaviour because you will be editing instead of brawling.

I hope you've got the message. In case of any problems, a ping is enough. I try to avoid contentious topics such as this one (limiting only to assembling good sources in the template), and I also have other stuff to do, but be sure that I'm within reach, just ping me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Let the gaslight burn bright! seems like a rather clear accusation of gaslighting, and given the IP's otherwise non-collaborative behaviour (they seem more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, and haven't presented a single source despite multiple requests), and given past disruption in the topic area, their comment is hard to distinguish from trolling, even if it might not be "obvious" to an external observer (context matters! what is "obvious" trolling is not quite the same thing everywhere...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Precisely because this is not obvious to an external observer, you should think twice before removing/editing someone else's comment. You must try to distance from the discussion and assess as objectively as you can whether the planned action is sound policy-wise - if in doubt, leave it alone and go editing :).

And yet an even better thing to do would be to ignore the IP, you needn't have the last word in the discussion and posturing on a talk page does not improve the encyclopedia. For example, I try to only intervene on the talk page when a) I just want to leave a passer-by message or b) it's absolutely necessary that I comment there, e.g. when there's a broader edit dispute, and even then I try to make sure I get the least engagement possible in a dialogue if I know it's counterproductive. Particularly given that it's the IP who is challenging content, it is in IP's interest that his proposal is accepted, but you aren't obliged to if you know it's bonkers and if the guidelines don't mandate a discussion on the talk page.

Also, as a Russian satirist once said, if you are arguing with an idiot, try to make sure he isn't doing the same. Keeping this in mind often helps not escalating needless disputes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to 2022 French presidential election: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Commune map

Hello, it's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talleyrand6 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it. Do you have that sort of automated program that fills everything within a region or are you typing the values manually and using shapefiles provided somewhere? If so, could you please post the links to shps you are using as well as json/excel links to the election result files? What I more or less mean is something like this, where the json file is provided in the description.

I'm afraid that I won't have enough time to process this manually. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov battalion

The RFC you have closed as a technical matter, fine, but directing the closer to take that RFC into account in the subsequent RFC is wrong, it is a different question and it is not part of the other RFC. Re your close of the split discussion, it seems clear that there IS a consensus, not to split? Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Re question 1, the question is in fact a subset of the question asked in the second RfC. If, say, the first RfC is closed by saying "yes, we uphold the 2021 RfC result" but the other goes "no, we don't mention it in the lede", then we have contradictory closures that can't be reconciled. We have to centralise discussions, and that's what I did.

Re question 2, pretty much yes, though even saying "no consensus" is enough, because the bar for splitting is rough consensus, which was obviously not met. On the other hand, whether that's "no consensus" or "consensus against" isn't of much practical difference in this particular question. Suffice it to say that the bar was not met, end of story. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Creating a problem to avoid a problem seems like a poor strategy. I will join the chorus of voices saying you made a bad close, yes it was a judgement call but your judgment appears to have been poor and your explanation of your close is lacking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Split proposal close, I would tell you Szm, that there is a slight distinction between "no consensus" and "consensus against." The second would mean that bringing up a repeat Split proposal within a short time period would be considered tendentious, whereas the first has no impact on any future split proposals. For this reason, I would request that you revise the close and restate the consensus as "against the proposal" as a more accurate closure summary. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure at Talk:The Wall Street Journal

Note. This section has been moved from the talk page of the article.

Szmenderowiecki, I think your closing is problematic in light of Peter Gulutzan's review of what Merchants of Doubt actually says. It does appear that the weight given to that source is UNDUE given the actual claims being made by the source. Additionally, by weight of numbers I do not see a consensus for content in the lead. At best this should be a no-consensus and probably a remove from lead based on possibly failing wp:V (I think that last one should have more discussion before concluding it's a WP:V problem). Springee (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Springee, given that each person said different stuff about Merchants in Doubt, I downloaded a copy myself to see the context of all statements about WSJ to verify if there has been any cherrypicking (not only those pages mentioned in the ref). You know, it can't "convict" WSJ of science denial and say nothing relevant about it at the same time. The book's analysis, as I was parsing through it, showed across various topics that the Journal published editorials which downplayed or ignored scientific consensus, and repeatedly gave platform to authors who did the same, or, in one instance, published a summary of a bonkers climate change paper that was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, or indeed anywhere (p.276, 1997 article). What's more, I reached that conclusion using the sources in the body and provided here. This might also mean that more refs should support the science denial statements, but this is a generally accurate summary of all available sources (including notably the Climate Feedback reviews). The book is a strong source of information on that topic, but is not the only one.

The weight of numbers did not matter for me. They were more or less equal, but the arguments were weaker on the side of removal from the lead, or that was my impression. Besides, some of the folks seem to have changed their opinion en route (see collapsed NOSUMMARIES section). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If you decided to do your own research then it sounds like you may be engaged in a wp:SUPERVOTE. That the book found examples over what appears to be a 50 year time span does not mean those examples are so overwhelming that we need to put the content in the article lead. Additionally, concerns were raised about those examples but your closing seemed to have discounted that entirely. As for numbers, while a RfC is not a vote, but I would point to a good, admin closing from a while back as something to consider [5]. This isn't a case of saying a source is or isn't reliable or asking if something is a BLP violation. This is as much an editorial choice as anything. We aren't saying the content goes away, we are asking how much emphasis to give it. In such a case numbers do matter. Ask yourself, if 20 more editors showed up and said "not in lead" would you still reach the same "consensus to include" decision? What if it were 50 more? It appears that editors were about even (without trying to do a detailed count) on including this in the lead. It's really a stretch to claim that is consensus, especially when we are talking about a subjective, editorial choice vs a clear policy based question. I think you should revert and request a more experienced closer. Springee (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Re sourcing: first and foremost, stop framing the debate as if the only source in question was the book, it wasn't. Second, everyone was doing some sort of original research by looking at the source and getting the meaning of it (or choosing sources that best fit their argument, or, which is the best course, looking at the sources and then making an argument) - that is the point of the talk, looking for sourcing to improve the article. Depending on how you frame what is being said, you may get to the opposite conclusions. Now Peter Gulutzan essentially said that this book is outdated, and even if it is true (and it is, since indeed most of the examples are from the 1980s-90s), I see other sourcing that says the same thing (Climate Feedback is one example, The New Republic and The Guardian are two another examples that are more than a passing mention, and are relatively recent). So if you want to ask about emphasis, it is justified, but more refs should be used than just Merchants in Doubt to reflect the current situations
• Re number of participants: depends on what these 20/50 guys had to say. If they were to repeat arguments not based in policy, e.g. NYT doesn't have a summary of controversy section, so WSJ shouldn't either, or arguments that were weak, e.g. a book with damning claims is a decade old, this is ancient!, then yes, I'd close it the same way, because !vote count is not important in that case. The argument with the analysis of cites in Merchants in Doubt was better, but given the sources already in the article plus some provided by XOR'Easter, the problem didn't go away. If any of you had provided sources saying that WSJ climate coverage has since improved, then the closure would have been different. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Our page numbers differ but I think when you say "bonkers" article from 1997 you mean the book's reference to Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson, “Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,” Wall Street Journal, December 4, 1997, eh? The book's wording is The “article” -- never published in a scientific journal, but summarized in the Wall Street Journal -- repeated a wide range of debunked claims, including the assertion that there was no warming at all.[footnote] It was mailed to thousands of American scientists, with a cover letter signed by Seitz inviting the recipients to sign a petition against the Kyoto Protocol. Frederick Seitz indeed sent out a petition along with a copy of the article. (The book refers to the petition in a prior footnote but the online edition http://petitionproject.org has apparently changed since then because it now mentions a later article.) I've seen the Wall Street Journal article described as an "op-ed", do you disagree with that? The book's statement that I've quoted does not say that the Wall Street Journal editorial board endorsed the claims, do you disagree with that? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sz, again now you are entering into the debate rather than being an arbiter of what was said. This further raises my concern that your closing was more like a supervote than a neutral closing of the topic. I'm now formally asking that you revert your closing. Springee (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

With the first, no, I don't, with the second, yes and no. The 1997 article is an op-ed. "Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author." This does not mean, however, that the newspaper must disagree with the view simply because it's an op-ed not an editorial; it simply means that the newspaper does not necessarily agree with what that person says. Now, as I said and as has been practice for major newspaper industry players (including WSJ), op-eds, even if they are not supposed to be the editorial board's opinion and are supposed to reflect all worldviews, often tend to mirror the editorial board's (and this is what WSJ itself admitted back in 1998). This, of course, was not considered when I was writing the closure as no one made that argument, but I assumed this statement as a fact that reflects the current state of the press industry, which apparently wasn't obvious.

In any case, it is reasonable to assume that the overall pattern of op-eds (not op-eds taken alone) reflects the editorial board's view, as has been mentioned by XOR'Easter, and if there is consensus for inclusion, it will be included (or in this case, it will stay). I found there was, so I closed the discussion accordingly.

Re Springee: I repeat the first and the last time: my closure was not made only on the basis of the book, as the analysis covered all sources present in the article and in the talk. I had to analyse the article refs because of assertions that numerous sources were present that corroborate the book's arguments. I have to inevitably justify all my actions, but justification for a close should not be confused for an argument for Yes/No side. You may question the weight I assigned to each argument, but that's a different story and is more about misjudgment than favouritism. I'm still not persuaded by the challenge.

Speaking of which: you don't have to post a request to retract/submit to review the second time. I read it, and I see no grounds so far to do that. But I will retract on the following condition: You make another edit as a continuation of the RfC which points to the reliable sources that contradict the notion that the WSJ's science/climate positions of the editorial board are not aligned with the scientific consensus, if you are able to find any. Then there may be some legitimate debate. If you can't find them, forget it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your request is a red herring. The question isn't "there is a debate about the editorials". The question is does the debate rise to the level where it should be in the lead. That is the part where editors do not agree and your claim of consensus is not well supported. Springee (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, indeed, it is about whether, and if so, where, the text should appear. It's true that there is disagreement about that, otherwise the RfC would either have not appeared or would have been promptly closed. But some of it is better founded in policy and evidence, other isn't. The evidence is the presence of editorials and the pattern of op-eds, which was demonstrated, hence the discussion.

Some arguments were fixing on the current version, cited to Oreskes, I took the text as a whole (what we have in the dedicated section, the lede, and the talk page sources). The gist of MOS:LEAD says that the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If it is present in the article in a meaningful way (it is), it should be summarised, that's it. Arguments that said we shouldn't summarise the stuff in the body were discarded. Weight may be discussed (see MOS:LEADREL), but presence is ordered by policy. Additionally, sourcing was provided/is provided to support the claim that "the editorial board has promoted", as some editors have disputed the phrasing. My finding boils down to two things: sourcing is there and is good enough (except for the lead sentence, which needs another more recent ref, e.g. among those in the article), and policy orders us to summarise everything in the text.

I'll note that being a conservative in America does not imply being sceptical of science (it is simply having a statistically higher probability of being sceptical), so hiding the recorded pattern of promoting dubious scientific statements behind the label "editorially conservative", as some proposed without much success, is either an omission of content that should be covered or an insult towards American conservatives. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Here you again are illustrating a supervote. I think we agree that by the numbers editors were about even so you come up with a reason why editors who felt this wasn't of sufficient weight for including in the lead should be discounted, "Arguments that said we shouldn't summarise the stuff in the body were discarded. " The problem with that argument is that, with an article of this size we will have a number of topics that are covered with some depth in the article body. How do we decide which rise to a level where they should be specifically mentioned in the lead? A large part of that is exactly the group debate and consensus we saw in that RfC. However, you decided that any editor who argued that this content in the body hadn't risen to a sufficient level to justify inclusion in the lead was thus wrong on policy and thus must be discounted. That is supervoting. Rather than weighing the arguments your logic starts with a conclusion then finds the path to support it. Springee (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't have access to Wall Street Journal's Letter From the Publisher: A Report to The Wall Street Journal's Readers ... Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 12 Jan 1998: A21, which Szmenderowiecki used for "WSJ itself admitted back in 1998" (that op-eds often tend to mirror the editorial board's opinion), I believe that the only possibly-relevant sentences in the letter are: "Doing things differently also is a hallmark of the Journal's editorial pages. Here, we take opinion seriously enough that we don't offer a smorgasbord of it, but rather propound a view of the world for which we take intellectual and moral responsibility. We recognize that our view isn't the only one and do make room for other voices. But in our view, any attempt to create a debating page of diverse views quickly degenerates into a frivolous exercise. What we want to offer is a serious exposition of one serious viewpoint. We trust that in a world as large and diverse as today's, other views will find their own champions, and that in the end public understanding is best advanced by serious advocacy." This is of course irrelevant because Merchants of Doubt didn't say it, but I hope it's okay to make it clear what was actually said. As for what Szmenderowiecki "assumed" and declares is "reasonable to assume", I agree that Szmenderowiecki assumes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I request undo your close and let an admin do it as I think that Springee's points are valid.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I was involved and obviously have my biases, but it is pretty clear that the closer did as well, and an admin should be the one to end the debacle. Bill Williams 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I was summoned by the bot ([6]), but remained (relatively) uninvolved. I support Szmenderowiecki's closure and would like to be pinged if this closure goes to review. — HTGS (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

My count is 8 in favor of content in lead, 12 opposed. I will admit the confused mess of a survey section means I might have missed a !vote in the mix of discussion. Still, the argument here is that a 8:12 in:out is actually a consensus for "in" is very suspect. Springee (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, my count says 10 !votes in favour of A and 11 in favour of either B or C, but !vote count is not a point in this case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a close review here [7]. Springee (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warsaw concentration camp

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warsaw concentration camp you nominated for GA-status according to the 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 Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wee Sing

Just a heads up, I added three sources to Wee Sing. I think it easily passes notability now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Gordon Klein AfD

Hi, can you help me understand what just happened there? While I certainly agree the article should be deleted (I nominated it, after all), I only nominated it a day ago, so I'm confused by the fast closure, as I was under the impression seven days were usually required for non-admin closure. How does that work? Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Non-admins are allowed to close discussions when the outcome is obvious (and in this case it was). That said, non-admins do not have the tools to delete the articles themselves, and only admins may do so. In other words, this is to facilitate work for the admins by flagging the articles whose deletion is needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Deletion discussions that are to be closed as delete must be done by administrators, as per WP:BADNAC - I'd suggest self-reverting on any AFDs that you've closed as delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gordon Klein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gordon Klein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Szmenderowiecki. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Suwałki Gap

On 19 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Suwałki Gap, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Suwałki Gap is often described as the modern version of the Cold War–era Fulda Gap, a NATO vulnerability of historical importance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Suwałki Gap. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Suwałki Gap), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 19,790 views (824.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Szmenderowiecki,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13526 articles, as of 18:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

MH370 edits

Re this edit, I reacted to the article appearance on my watchlist, saw the typo and, in thinking about correcting it, read part of the surrounding text and reacted to problems I thought I saw there. I didn't recall that there was another mention of the flaperon and didn't look more widely so as to see that -- I should have. I've been interested in the article from the start due to its relation to some of my background and personal interests. I see here that I have edited it a number of times -- probably lately mostly, lately, in reaction to seeing it on my watchlist. There is really no reason I ought to be following it. I've removed it from my watchlist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, I believe that you are writing the wrong person. I have never edited that article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Boebert

Please don't continue to re-add that sentence to the lead. Doing so without an edit summary makes it look like you just tried to "slip it by me" 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Judiciary of Poland

On 7 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judiciary of Poland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Polish courts processed 14.38 million cases in 2020 while having fewer than 10,000 judges? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judiciary of Poland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Judiciary of Poland), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment

If THAT station has broken a max temp record, then the cited source will update it, and then you may update the table. But not before. You can write it down in a note so as not to forget it if you are very interested but foremost, please respect the integrity of the sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A big tough summarizing job nobody wants - any chance you would do it?

Hello,

You have tempted me with "All the power of convincing me to do more for Wikipedia in more needed subjects is nowhere else than in your brain and your fingers striking against the keyboard".

As you can see the history section of Ukraine is far too long. I asked on the talk page a couple of times but no-one has come forward to shorten it. Of course this would be a very hard task - but I suspect you have the skills to be able to do it. Any chance you could make an attempt - still useful and no shame if you give up part way through. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1, I do have some knowledge of Ukrainian history textbooks, so I'll see what I can do, but I think a more pressing concern is to have an decent main article about the history of Ukraine - if I were you, I'd concentrate my efforts there. You know, we are not a paper encyclopedia so whoever decides to say tl;dr can simply return to the table of contents and see the more interesting parts. But anyways, I will see what is more important and what is less so. I'll try to look to other countries with GA/FA-status labels to see more or less how much should be included or left out. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1, I have done what I could. -28KB of text, three or four sections removed, and I hope it reads much better. I also updated some info in the text and the article. The major changes were in the Independence section; elsewhere, I largely kept the text intact as I believed they were relevant to understand the historical processes. I made more accents on the economic history of Ukraine (serfdom, Industrial Revolution, oligarchs and so on). The whole section is arguably still too long but I don't think going shorter will do any good. (Germany, an FA, has a history section which is 52K long, and most of my length is references). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Closing DYK nominations as unsuccessful

Szmenderowiecki, I have just had to reclose three DYK nominations that you originally closed at the end of last month because they weren't closed properly, leaving some internal templates, fields and comments that don't belong in a closed nom. You need to subst the entire outer DYKsubpage template for the nomination to close the way they were designed.

The instructions for closing a failed nomination are at Template talk:Did you know#How to remove a rejected hook. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them as best I can. Thanks for your work at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Szmenderowiecki,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Szmenderowiecki,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Current Events Noticeboard

Hi Szmenderowiecki, I highly recommend you review the link which I have posted in the discussion as the information may be relevant. Please let me know if you have any questions on the contents. Carter00000 (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000 Thanks for the link. As I said, I do not wish to escalate to ANI or else I'd have posted it on ANI directly after having some more chat with the user. Besides, as I said, a lot of Alsoriano97's work is indeed useful, so it's just a matter for resolving without escalating to blocks, unless this behaviour still repeats. Also, I've had no talkpage interaction so far that suggests something is wrong. So I cannot forbid you to pursue another sanction, but that's definitely not my goal. Just resolve some points of disagreement Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki Thank you for your reply. On the "unless this behavior still repeats" part of your reply, if you look at the previous ANI case, you will find that the issues covered in your thread at the noticeboard has been ongoing for many years, and has persisted despite many warnings from other users, hence my posting of the case in the thread. Carter00000 (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review for Kiwi Farms external link RfC. Endwise (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Szmenderowiecki,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Your GA nomination of Suwałki Gap

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Suwałki Gap you nominated for GA-status according to the 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 Legobot, on behalf of OliveYouBean -- OliveYouBean (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Suwa?ki Gap

The article Suwa?ki Gap you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Suwa?ki Gap 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 Legobot, on behalf of OliveYouBean -- OliveYouBean (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of AN/I noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The filing is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alsoriano97. Please provide any information on background or specific incidents if you would like to. Carter00000 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Suwałki Gap

The article Suwałki Gap you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Suwałki Gap for comments about the article, and Talk:Suwałki Gap/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OliveYouBean -- OliveYouBean (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about RfC closure

Hello, thanks for closing the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol. To clarify, does your closure mean that there's enough consensus to change "our Solar System" to "the Solar System" on Milky Way? That's how I'd read your closure, but I'm not sure since another editor seems to have disagreed. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Some1 That's exactly what was meant, and I don't think I could have been clearer that this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr seems to disagree, is edit-warring, and has made 3 reverts on the Milky Way article: [8], [9], [10]. They said their reverts: 1) that rfc never reached consensus, it was simple closed 2) for non admins, WP:RCON is not really a thing, otherwise, see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and/or take it to talk, and 3) Doesn't work that way, take it to talk per WP:BRD. There was no consensus, the closing (non-admin) editors remarks were simple another opinion (and slightly incorrect at that). There is no rule against uninvolved non-admins closing RfC discussions and you were well in your rights to close the discussion. Thoughts? Some1 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice if they presented their concerns here or at least started a closure review thread on AN and notified me about one. (Also, RCON and ROUGHCONSENSUS are one thing and from my reading of the text may be used by non-admins if appropriate? But anyway, if he wants to have a chat with me, he can always write here.)

If he continues reverting (he is not yet over 3RR), report to WP:3RRN. If he carefully avoids 3RR but otherwise disregards that close without sharing concerns here or on AN, take to ANI. Still, don't rush to the drama boards yet. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, 12-8 is no where near consensus and basing a decision on un-discussed aspects (ESU, NASA) constitutes a Wikipedia:Supervote and should have been inserted as another opinion, not as a closing summary of the discussion (since it wasn't). Anyway, either talk page is available for starting further discussion to try to achieve an actual consensus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, one by one. The issue was summarized this way because, outside of users' personal preference, the only strong PAG-based argument was MOS:OUR and WP:PRONOUN, which is based on it. Together with the (weak) numerical majority, this was the reason the discussion was summarized this way.

Then, the ESA/NASA part was to show that there wasn't a strong case to be made based on the notion advanced by some users that only "planetary system" is correct when referring to other Solar System-like objects. Some users questioned that (they just didn't discuss using specific examples but used their hunch instead), and indeed they appear to be right. If anything, that should benefit the side that argued for "our" in the articles, so it is odd to say this was a supervote in favour of the "the" option, as alleged here.

And for the record, it is a closing summary. It might be flawed, you may disagree with the outcome, but that's how I see the discussion went. I also don't see much possibility for altering the outcome as only three !votes were entered during the last four weeks of the RfC running. (2 for B and 1 for C; 1 B !vote and 3 Cs in the two weeks before that), so "actual" consensus-building doesn't appear of great interest for editors when speaking of this issue. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So, one by one, per your closing statement, no policy (NPOV) was violated. That actually kicks out MOS:OUR and WP:PRONOUN arguments, they are based on that policy. No guidance from the IAU, only observations of usage at ESA and no statements from NASA (link was simply an anonymous writer making an unreferenced claim on a kids page, and contradicting that usage further down the same page) leave us at no guidance. So it boiled down to a split of "I like it"/"i don't like it" arguments, with MOS:STYLERET thrown in. That's a "No consensus" or "leave it and let it close its self" result.

Per Some1 actions - please note WP:PROJECT ----> "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." So that brings us back to Talk:Milky Way where there are ample RfCs, although another one can always be started. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:PROJECT quote, this was a WP:Request for comment which happened to take place at that project's talk page, not some random rule or preference was that imposed by the project itself without any review. If you feel like your interpretation of the close/reading of the RfC discussion is correct, I suggest opening a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. Some1 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't start more RfCs on this topic. Enough of that.

I agree with you that ultimately there was no meaningful and strong guidance/consensus from leading organisations on the topic (though I do believe that if the information is on NASA/ESA's websites, they mean it).

I disagree with the NPOV part, though. I did say in the closure that NPOV does not seem to be an issue worth considering in this case; but again no one in the discussion replied that MOS:OUR only is an issue when NPOV concerns are present (which aren't here) - now this one is a novel argument that I cannot base my closure on. Why did I mention NPOV? Well, because some users have voiced purely academic concerns about Wikipedia being read by aliens.

Additionally WP:PRONOUN plainly says that Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective, which is unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader - hardly an endorsement for ever writing in first person, with the exception of quotes and some isolated cases. Those !voting for option C tried to say "our" could be used figuratively, but further arguments for using this exception were not developed; and no one indicated in the arguments that this was one of the isolated cases in which we should say the guideline does not apply. Therefore, I considered the MOS:OUR/WP:PRONOUN argument to be rooted in a reasonable interpretation of the guideline and I accepted it.

Because this interpretation appeared reasonable, I discarded the STYLERET argument because the general rule is clear and no one argued in a convincing way that an exception should apply here - most were arguing out of personal preference. Of course, if your belief is that MOS:OUR does not apply then STYLERET is a valid argument, but again, no one in the discussion argued that at all.

In any case, I stand by my closure. If you decide to ask to review it, please leave a notification in this thread. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we are getting into things that belonged at the bottom of a closed RfC and the other points you didn't see discussed here have been discussed to death at the last applicable RfC. Per User:Tercer, "This will generate a lot of drama for no gain", so this is where I plan to leave it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Long-windedness in closures

Regarding your closure of the SOC-8 Rfc, more long-winded closures like this, please. Good job; thanks for your time and your effort. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)