User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 65
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
German occupied Europe
I am not sure if you see Simon messages, so here it it for you too: German occupied Europe Suggestion without undue weight[edit source] Here it is:
German–occupied Europe or Nazi Europe refers to the sovereign countries of Europe, INCLUDING FRENCH NORTH AFRICA (ref. 1) which were occupied by the military forces of Nazi Germany at various times between 1939 and 1945 and administered by the Nazi regime.(ref. 2)
Ref. 1: Shoah - Block 27 http://auschwitz.org/en/visiting/national-exhibitions/shoah-block-27 Map of Nazi-occupied Europe (inclusive of French North Africa in map of Europe and in narrative) http://culture.pl/en/event/new-permanent-exhibition-at-auschwitz-birkenau https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/media-room/news-archive/opening-new-permanent-exhibition-%E2%80%9Cshoah%E2%80%9D-auschwitz-birkenau “ … the new exhibition, which is divided into several galleries. They are devoted to such things as Jewish life before the war, the ideology of the Nazis and the extermination of Jews within the Nazi-occupied Europe.” http://auschwitz.org/en/visiting/national-exhibitions/shoah-block-27 http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/news/shoah-new-exhibition-in-block-27-light-of-remembrance-for-avner-shalev-,1016.html “the story of the Jews that were persecuted and murdered, here and across the European continent”
“In November 1942, … French North Africa … this extension of Europe ...” Kaspi, André Les Juifs pendant l'occupation. Seuil, Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1991; p. 175.
- German Map of Europe of the German general staff dated 20, 1942; in p. 3 of article written by Dr. Norbert Kampe, historian and then Director of the Wannsee House, and published in SHALOM/VOL. XLI/PRINTEMPS 2004/PESSAH 5764
http://www.shalom-magazine.com/pdfs/41/Fr/KAMPE%20FR_41.pdf German map of Europe http://www.diercke.de/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100770-1&seite=62&id=15966&kartennr=1# Yad Vashem writes: “Under the French-German cease-fire agreement, North Africa was considered part of unoccupied Vichy France” http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205726.pdf
Ref. 2: Encyclopædia Britannica, German occupied Europe. World War II. Retrieved 1 September 2015 from the Internet Archive.
I just now read messages by Carole and Eadgylt (I think), and I am truly sorry. But I am trying hard. I also thought to share with you my research, as I am planning to edit more:
France, mentioned in the article, was and is a transcontinental country, which, during WWII included mainland France or the Metropole, and France d’outre-mer (overseas) which included the 91, 92, 93, 94 departments in French Algeria, an integral part of the French republic, and the two French protectorate of Morocco and Tunisia; according to Kaspi there were 700,000 Jews living there (300,000 in mainland France and 400,000 in French North Africa). Kaspi, André Les Juifs pendant l'occupation. Seuil, Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1991; p. 177
In his book Himmler A Life, Longerich writes that in December 1942, Himmler discussed with Hitler the destruction of 600-700.000 Jews of France: “… there are currently at least 1.5 million deadly enemies of the Axis living … in the previously part of France, namely 600,000-700,000 Jews… ‘The Fuhrer gave orders that the Jews and other enemies in France should be arrested and deported. This should take place, however, only once he has spoken with Laval about it. It is a matter of 6-700.000 Jews.’" in ch. 21. The Murder of the European Jews, p. 648. Longerich tells about the fate of the Jews in French North Africa as part of the Holocaust in France, in his “brief survey of the fate of the Jews in the countries occupied by and allied with Germany” and the “systematic murder of the Jews of Europe” (Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; p. 435, and p. 492). “Included in the 700,000 Jews for unoccupied France are those of the North African colonies.” p. 307. “… the Jews of French North Africa, who had already been included among the victims of the coming ‘Final Solution’ envisaged at the Wannsee Conference.” p. 391
A successor to the Madagascar project In his note for Himmler Eichmann wrote that this project would encompass ‘a total of some 5.8 million Jews’, … four million …Madagascar project. Planning had evidently been extended in the meantime to include German allies and satellites in Estern Europe and the Jews in the French colonies. p. 173.
Madagascar project … Rademacher’s August memo … he now estimated the number of Jews to be sent to Madagascar as 6.5 million, an indication that the Jews from south-east Europe as well as those from the French colonies in North Africa were to be included. p. 510.
Yehuda Bauer, Academic Advisor to YV, tells about the fate of the Jews in French North Africa in his section on the Jews in Europe in his book A History of the Holocaust, (1982), (p. 248): “ten: WESTERN EUROPEAN JEWRY, 1940-1944 FRANCE Algerian Jews under Vichy Rule (p. 256) In Algeria ... Cremieux ... Simialr measures ... in Morocco and Tunisia. ... Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001
I am going to sleep. Thank you Simon, Eadgy?, and Carole.Henia Perlman (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Henia Perlman (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Geoffrey Talbot
The article Geoffrey Talbot you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Geoffrey Talbot for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Alert...
Will be gone for a bit ... nothing bad, just have to go help encourage hubby's grandchild to get with the program and be born. Will not be around much, but have tablet. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Recent good article review
I have a concern about an editor whose article I just reviewed Sagecandor. I advised him that Good Article development takes time and is often the product of multiple editors working together. He became increasingly hostile and demanded that I not review anymore of his articles because I was "making up criteria" - my concerns were that the article did not meet the 1a criteria. I also do not know how I can judge stability on an article that has only one significant contributor and has only been live for a few days. He has also marked several articles for review, but because of the prose/style issues in his articles and his unusually hostile reaction when he realized I wasn't going to pass his article, I want to bring the situation to the attention of one of our most experienced reviewers. I also see that he has put up several articles for GA review, all created within the last week, and all of them suffering from the same problems as the article I reviewed (inlcuding overlinking and general prose style) - they are all for books by the same author, and I'm concerned it may be a COI situation. He has also since removed the GA review from the article talk page (I am not sure if this is allowed) [1] Seraphim System (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- No COI situation, sorry. I had an interest in one book by an author. That book was nominated for deletion. Then I researched more about that author. After my research I found their other books were notable, and I wrote articles on them. I do NOT appreciate baseless claims like this. And I do NOT appreciate a GA Reviewer making up Good Article Criteria that he personally feels articles-must-be-a-certain-age-old before they can be viewed as "stable". That's ludicrous and arbitrary and capricious. Sagecandor (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System:Please, just back away. I'd appreciate it if you stop pursuing this and stop making false baseless claims about me. And stop making up non-existent GA Criteria like required age of Wikipedia articles. There is no such rule "only Wikipedia articles written over one year ago may be nominated for GA". Please stop. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about COI because of what seems like a mildly promotional emphasis on the author in all the articles. I was also advised to directly ask admins for their read on a situation when I have a concern like this. Spotting COI is extremely convoluted and I am by no means an expert. I just want more experienced eyes on the situation- I have other concerns as well, and Ealdgyth is one of the best editors we have. Seraphim System (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- No promotional emphasis. Emphasis on NOT having articles get deleted. No more, no less. Sagecandor (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about COI because of what seems like a mildly promotional emphasis on the author in all the articles. I was also advised to directly ask admins for their read on a situation when I have a concern like this. Spotting COI is extremely convoluted and I am by no means an expert. I just want more experienced eyes on the situation- I have other concerns as well, and Ealdgyth is one of the best editors we have. Seraphim System (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System:Please, just back away. I'd appreciate it if you stop pursuing this and stop making false baseless claims about me. And stop making up non-existent GA Criteria like required age of Wikipedia articles. There is no such rule "only Wikipedia articles written over one year ago may be nominated for GA". Please stop. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Well; there's certainly no criteria that a GA has to be over X age since creation. Since this is four days old, and in that time, has been stable, I would agree that an inability to prove a negative is not a criterion :) and, likewise, I'm not convinced about the alleged COI- I'm not sure that's feasble on any available evidence. 'Fan' is the adjective we usually use in this situation, I suspect. However, Sagecandor the other issues Seraphim System raises about the article are, I think, reasonable, as matters of style, presentation and orthography. Incidentally I see this conversation is now taking place in- what, three locations?! That is highly unnecessary. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for acknowledging that Seraphim is making up criteria that do not exist. Sagecandor (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you O fortuna, had stability been the only issue I would have certainly waited for a second opinion, as I have done on all my reviews when I have been uncertain about something. I never said article age was a criteria. Due to the prose/grammar issues in the article, I simply advised him to allow the article some time to develop, and to have other editors work on it before renominating. I was trying to be polite. I also told him that many longstanding articles fail multiple rounds of review before passing GA, because I did not want him to become discouraged. This, he interpreted as "making up criteria." I do not feel that the "well-written" criteria was met. I will definitely defer to more experienced editors on COI, because I know its a complicated issue. I am also wondering if it is usual practice to remove the GA review from the talk page after the review closes? (I am asking so I will know to do this myself in the future if it is.) Seraphim System (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- The Good Article Criteria says: Stable. it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute No more, no less. The fact that Seraphim stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this, upon repeated correction, shows they should stop doing GA Reviews. Sagecandor (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you O fortuna, had stability been the only issue I would have certainly waited for a second opinion, as I have done on all my reviews when I have been uncertain about something. I never said article age was a criteria. Due to the prose/grammar issues in the article, I simply advised him to allow the article some time to develop, and to have other editors work on it before renominating. I was trying to be polite. I also told him that many longstanding articles fail multiple rounds of review before passing GA, because I did not want him to become discouraged. This, he interpreted as "making up criteria." I do not feel that the "well-written" criteria was met. I will definitely defer to more experienced editors on COI, because I know its a complicated issue. I am also wondering if it is usual practice to remove the GA review from the talk page after the review closes? (I am asking so I will know to do this myself in the future if it is.) Seraphim System (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm on the road, so I'll try to check this out later tonight, but it could be a while. For now, I tend to defer to OFM. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- OFM, LOL... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has wisely suggested I try to tone down my behavior a bit related to this. I can try to do that, and I sincerely hope that Seraphim can acknowledge he was wrong about WP:WIAGA Stability Criteria, there is no requirement for article age. Sagecandor (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I can continue with the run of good advice by advising against behaviour that can be construed as trolling other editors on their own talk. Noting that this can be up to and including usage of the 'thanks' tool. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 19:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm being sincere. I feel badly you regard it as trolling. I truly am thankful for your advice and input and your taking the time to explain things to me. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I can continue with the run of good advice by advising against behaviour that can be construed as trolling other editors on their own talk. Noting that this can be up to and including usage of the 'thanks' tool. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 19:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- OFM, LOL... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has wisely suggested I try to tone down my behavior a bit related to this. I can try to do that, and I sincerely hope that Seraphim can acknowledge he was wrong about WP:WIAGA Stability Criteria, there is no requirement for article age. Sagecandor (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia is taking a break, not reading message, but not ignoring you
Hi Simon, Ealdgyth, Carol, and other editors,
Ealdgyth, is it a boy/girl? I just had my 4th grandson; it was not easy, and that's why we called him Chance.
I am taking a break from wiki, and therefore not reading more messages. I am writing draft of responses to the Holocaust after 1939 (Evian, Kindertransport…), before the war, and after the war (Varian Fry …). I am not ignoring you, but Wiki says that it’s good to take a break.
Simon, I thank you from all my heart for your patient mentorship. I decided to end it yesterday, because you, Carol, Ealdgyth, and others who voluntarily have been formatting my sources, or commented on the pertinence of my editing have helped a lot, but I feel that, because of my old brain, technology will remain a challenge. I also know from my personal experience that I learn better by doing and improving with guidance and discussion from many different editors.
I thank you in advance for your patience, ollaboration, and letting me edit, without “biting” me. Wiki states that newcomers who are experts on the subject are a positive addition in editing.
In good faith, I started to edit in a thoughtful way, using source, and attentively reading your guidelines that I printed, and wiki material. I explained the editing in the summary and the Talk of the article.
I didn’t delete “North Africa” “as a matter of principle,” but after I had checked Longerich, where it does not appear. I also found out that Kershaw wrote almost the same sentence, like the one in the article, with the incorrect inclusion of “North Africa” in the 11 millions, in p. 35 of Niewyk’s book, The Holocaust. I remembered that, because I thought that Kershaw maybe confused. I also copied from Yad Vashem and didn’t put quotations marks. I noticed that sometimes, not in the case of the long paragraphs of Yad Vashem, after 20 yrs of Holocaust study, I know sentences of scholars, by heart!
I read in Wiki: After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.
I welcome your understanding of my shortcomings, your good faith collaboration, and your objections. I will listen to all of them attentively, “try to understand why, respond politely and assume good faith.”
I sincerely apologize for saying that the article is not neutral and acknowledge the hard work of other editors; I should have explained that it was what my 1000s and members of the public, who came to my Holocaust lectures, told me. That’s why, upon my retirement, I decided to be involved and collaborate in improving it.
I will “take the time and effort to explain why I think my suggestion(s) might be preferable, and “resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. Please remember that we are all here for more or less the same reason . … Wikipedia is not about winning
1. “If someone disagrees with {me}, I will make sure {I} try to understand why! Listen to the others, and take the time and effort to explain why {I} think {my} suggestion(s) might be preferable.
2. assume good faith for as long as possible.
3. Take it slow (that’s why I didn’t answer immediately to your messages, and went zumba or did other things, as suggested by Wiki). There is no time limit for a discussion.
4. It is easy to misjudge other editors' moods and intentions, especially when disagreements or discussions are heated. {I will} Make {my} proposals and responses clear; listen carefully to opposing arguments and/or criticism, and be prepared to prove that {I am} listening actively - concentrate, understand, respond and then remember what is being said. … Because everyone has different memories, the speaker and the listener may attach different meanings to the same statement.
Ambushing occurs when one listens to someone else's argument for its weaknesses and ignore its strengths. if one finds that the other party understands, an atmosphere of cooperation can be created. Listeners need only restate, in their own language, their impression of the expression of the sender. ... Still, learning to do Active Listening well is a rather difficult task (I have told you that I am slow and thank you for your patience)
5. Assume the best about people whenever possible – this includes assuming that others are doing likewise.
6. I sincerely apologize, in good faith. 7. 8. I will take a break, and read your messages later – I am not ignoring you. Go get some fresh air, and go more to the gym.
Remember that Wikipedia is a hobby … Keep a good community spirit up and make good edits as a community.
I am not always right, and I know that I don’t know.
… Wikipedia is not about winning ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Thank you and have a good night! Henia Perlman (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Peter Dinklage
Hello, I'm in desperat need for someone to do a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Dinklage/archive1 that I have nominated for FAC, If you have time, could you have a look? So far it has three supports and no source review as of today. - AffeL (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Great job editing The Holocaust. You get the 100k award for reviewing and resolving sources and condensing this overview article from 300k - a very ambitious effort! –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds) 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 Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Another alert....
Leaving shortly to actually SEE the grandchild, who was born last night safely. Mother and daughter are doing fine, but will be out of touch until Wednesday morning probably. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the new baby! Glad to hear that all is well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Baby girl
Big mazal tov! Congratulations!Henia Perlman (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Citations. Holocaust denier: not by you
I mentioned Holocaust denier, only because I read that he/she was blocked from Holocaust page, because of accusation of Holocaust denier.
Today, I jis saw that you couldn’t find some sources, and deleted sentences. I made some research and I think that I found sources supporting the deleted sentences.
Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, I will present my citations in the Talk of the article. Not today: because I want to think about them, and make sure that the citations are historically relevant, and “actually supports ALL of the information in the sentence”, like you asked about “euphemism” - I think that I did find a full sentence for that!
Be well. Henia Perlman (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- So sorry! Did I cause again conflict of posting?
.
- So sorry! Did I cause again conflict of posting?
I read your message, and I asked Carole what she thinks about my proposal: to continue, but first, to check with her. I hope she will agree.
I copied the happy face, because I like t!Henia Perlman (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Reverting the new definition of Holocaust posted by Henia
I think that we should discuss your reverting in the talk page of the article. Henia Perlman (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I already replied there. Frankly, you need to take on board what others are telling you because at this rate, you're going to end up blocked. I'm not advocating for it, but your behavior is starting to become quite disruptive and you're displaying a strong tendency to not listen to others. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
:)
Twisty lying monk Bede writes his History of the English-speaking Peoples IN LATIN! HYPOCRITE! Can't trust the mainstream Chronicles. Sad!
— O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- LOL... is that a talk page comment somewhere??? Not that I'm a Bede fan-girl, mind you... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
"Truckload" of Mengele records
The "truckload" of Mengele records which was previously mentioned in the Holocaust article is also mentioned in Porajmos and there's a source given in the "Medical experiments" section which may be worth checking. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- I actually got that source in through ILL and it's of questionable reliability. Liftons a better more reliable source. It makes more sense that they'd destroy correspondence....because some of the specimens from other doctors at the camps continued to be used long after the war. Correspondence, however, would incriminate both of them. Biographies of Mengele I consulted also sided with Lifton on it being letters and the like, and no where was the volume specified. Proctor in Racial hygiene p. 307 says that von Verschuer had the files of the institute where he worked, including the twin research data, into the western part of Germany to prevent the Russians from getting it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, just wanted make sure. Good work! :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- So, since I was already downtown for a late lunch, I stopped and picked up an earlier edition of the book from the local library. The paging is a bit off, but what it says about the records is:
- In the front in the chronology section, under 12 February 1945 "Professor von Verschuer informs the general administration of the KWG [Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of the Sciences] that the contents of the KWI [Kaiser Wilhelm Institute] of Anthropology have been sent from Berlin to the West in a lorry. Before or after this move, all incriminating documents (correspondence with Dr Mengele, expert reports, memoranda) are destroyed."
- Later, in a chapter titled "The use of those who had been deprived of their rights ...", on page 73 of this edition (1988) the author states "Dr Mengele's letters and reports to Professor von Verschuer were probably destroyed by von Verschuer." and it's footnoted to a footnote in the back that reads "Univ. Arch. Munster, papers of von Verschuer. Among these papers, of which they are very many dealing with other matters, there is no trace of this correspondence [with Mengele]. His son, Helmut von Verschuer, told me on 12.6.82 that there are no other scientific papers left by his father. Since the contents of his institute were moved by lorry to the West in March 1945, the documents should have been preserved." So it's pretty clear that the statement "The full extent of his work will never be known because the truckload of records he sent to Dr. Otmar von Verschuer at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was destroyed by von Verschuer." is not supported by the source. There is no mention of Mengele sending a truck with records to von Verschuer, instead it's von Verschuer who sent the records in a truck. Nor is it specified how many records Mengele sent to Verschuer. And it's not definitively clear that von Verschuer destroyed the records, although it's pretty clear that he did. If I had more energy, I'd correct the Porajmos article but... I'm busy enough with what I've bitten off with the Holocaust article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- So, since I was already downtown for a late lunch, I stopped and picked up an earlier edition of the book from the local library. The paging is a bit off, but what it says about the records is:
- Okay, just wanted make sure. Good work! :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds)
The article Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds) you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds) 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 Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Holocaust edits
Hi, I am just curious about your plans. I see that you have embarked on the mammoth task of improving the Holocaust article (good luck!). Are you interested in improving other Holocaust-related articles? Since you wrote Jacob Gens, are you considering working on Vilna Ghetto? I'd be interested in collaborating on some Lithuania-related articles. Renata (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was debating the ghetto article. I'm trying to turn up information on the redlinked articles in Gens' article, but not having a great deal of luck. I will admit that my main focus has been the main Holocaust article - eventually I'd like to get it up to FA status, but I think that'll be about a year process. (I did a similar project with Middle Ages a few years back and it took about a year or so to take it from where I started to FA.) I'd also like to work on some of the extermination camps - Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec especially. There are so many topics and we all have limited time. Are there other biographies that are in woeful shape? I started on Gens because we didn't even have an article on him, which surprised me. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly don't envy you the task of improving the Holocaust article. It is a little too ambitious for my tastes... I can't even bring myself to get Antanas Smetona to a decent standard... But I am going to help help you with the ghetto article, if you do work on it. The article is in a bad shape & needs some tender love & care. Out of biographies that I am aware of, Karl Plagge springs to mind as a GA/FA-worthy article (many other suffer from the incurable lack of sources for the periods before or after the war). Another worthy bio is Elie Wiesel. Another interesting but ambitious article is Jewish partisans... most of info comes from the surviving partisans (and is, therefore, inherently POVed). Yes, so many articles, so little time... Renata (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI - I wanted you to know that I went in and adjusted some of the indents etc because the timeline/throughline had gotten somewhat mangled by the editor in question. I did not change the content of anyone's edits, I just wanted it to be clear to any interested editors who was replying to whom. Shearonink (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Article guidelines
Hi,
I have had a question spinning in my head for awhile about whether it makes sense to send The Holocaust to arbitration to determine if any Arbitration guidelines / remedies (minimum # edits to contribute, consensus required, revert rules, etc.) like those for other high-profile, contentious articles, like Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries and Talk:Donald Trump, might apply here.
I would be happy to put together a case and/or post this on the Talk:The Holocaust page first for discussion, if this might be a helpful remedy. I didn't want to post anything on the article talk page until running it by you first to see if it seems like this might be an appropriate next step. (There's been enough drama, I didn't want to stir anything up unnecessarily.)
What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly? I don't think we really need them. Besides the issues with Henia, which are actually being handled reasonably well for wiki's dispute resolution systems, there really aren't any issues with the page. I've frankly been surprised there has been so little contention with my edits and stuff. I'd actually held off editing the article for a couple of years fearing that it'd be a nightmare .. it's really not been that bad. I've been involved in one ArbCom case.. and it's really not fun. If we can avoid DS/ArbCom and get by with regular editing, it's all good. We haven't even begun to hit contentious with Henia, honestly. Check out Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 5, Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 6, Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 7, or Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 8 for something like where I'd start worrying about needing DS. For that matter - the ArbCom case I was involved with is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. If nothing is needed, that sounds good to me. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
AN/I
As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.
Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI
Hello E. I thought you should be aware of this thread User talk:HJ_Mitchell#Henia Perlman is asking for an official full investigation as you are one of the editors mentioned in it. I know how frustrating this can be so I will add my thanks for your efforts here at WikiP. I also know that my post may be an annoyance so please feel free to remove it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, since HJMitchell hasn't edited much in quite a while, this should be interesting. I can't win - I put something about Shanghai in and it's suddenly awful that I did so. Whatever. I finished up citing every single thing in the Holocaust article today so ... I can weather any storm, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- You've been doing a great job and have been very patient in your responses on the talk page. Keep up the great work!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) Still stand by not needing DS or ArbCom for this ... I feel bad that Henia won't take advice to learn elsewhere where it's not so difficult, but I am beginning to fear that there is no compromise - and that she's got a distinct POV that she insists on being the only POV in the article. We just can't not call the Holocaust a genocide in the first sentence nor can we give it the very broadest definition as the first sentence ... it just isn't the mainstream view. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, I cannot answer to you in the Talk of the Holocaust article.
- I will try to address your issues.
- It's not about winning, mentioned in context of European Jewish refugees in Shanghai.
- After the block, I decided to limit my involvement to posting suggestions in the Talk of the article.
- Then, there was a talk of another block against me, because of my innocent use of two accounts while traveling.
- I also received a veiled threat that if I do post at the Talk of Holocaust, it is possible that I would be blocked forever.
- That's some of my reasons behind my request for arbitration.
- The real issue with the Holocaust article: It seems to me, that it does not reflect "a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation, and their cultural context," even after Ealdgyth's edits. And it can also be mentioned as an example of a wikiP article, which is not well structured (I read about wiki)
- The issue is not a new lead, despite the fact people usually start to read the lead.
- The issue is not that it seems to Ealdgyth that I insist on being the only POV in the article.
- I did insist to improve the article in collaboration, by mentioning that I can provide the missing sources that Ealdgyth couldn't find - Ealdgyth wrote that he just couldn't find them, reverted some sentences, and didn't ask the help of other editors; the Holocaust subject is a very complex subject to master, and collaboration is very important.
- Ealdgyth, I do have some legitimate issues with the Holocaust article, and some of your edits, all related to "a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation, and their cultural context."
- I do have some suggestions with reliable sources, to discuss with others at the Talk of the article.
- I also have legitimate issues with some citations, that Ealdgyth missed (like her, I am going over them)
- The sources from reliable Holocaust scholars, that I provided Carole about European Jewish refugees in Shanghai, are more suitable because of "their mainstream interpretation," than the current one.
- I have mentioned that I wanted to provide Ealdgyth with citations that she couldn't find; I didn't receive any request, and I feel too threatened to go to the Talk page of the article.
- We all want to improve the Holocaust article, but it should be done with "a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation, and their cultural context."
- I am aware that I am dealing with editors with a lot of experience, and its ramifications.
- "We always must value the project as a whole more than we value the contributions of any individual editor. ... The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation, and their cultural context are lacking.
"
- I have to speak up, like Holocaust scholar Y. Bauer urged us to.
- Thank you for your kind attention and patience. Henia Perlman (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Henia, it's obvious you copy-pasted this from somewhere... or it's just plain creepy that you're referring to me as "Ealdgyth" on my own talk page when addressing me. I think you need to stop and think about your communication style because it comes across as very accusatory and not very collaborative. Please stop throwing in quotes from .. I don't know where... but they aren't helpful. I've addressed your posts when they contain something actionable, but frankly much of this post is just aspersions and not helpful. I've never advocated for or against a block for you. I have tried to reply to your concerns, and incorporate your suggestions. You wanted stuff on Shanghai, so I put it in and now the fact that I put it in is being complained about. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- First, I truly want to collaborate with your, and first help out with sources missed or you couldn't find - I mean it. I think that I am starting to understand what's going on. I will address that later, as it is more important to deal first with sources.
- I sincerely apologize: I wrote your name, because I also thought to mention other people.
- Sorry: I tried to sound neutral, and didn't mean to be accusatory; will improve my style to show sincere collaboration.
- Please, also read this post, not to be accusatory.
- Quotes: well, I took them from wiki. I don't remember well, and I cannot go now to the source, because I can type only for a certain amount of time, because of eyes): Simon/Irondome or somebody else mentioned the possibility of blocking me for incompetence; I click on the link provided, and I think I found the quotes there. I do bother to click link to learn.
- As I mentioned, I will address my last post later. I click on Aspersions.
- I think I may have an issue with Carole Henderson's behavior - why the rush for everything?
- I know that you have nothing to do with my block. Five minutes (about) after I posted 3 or 4 sources to Carole, she rushed to request a block. This can be checked in wiki. Also the block went so fast - I cannot use my computer for a long time, and I try to think more before typing.
- You were indeed considerate. And I appreciate that you continue addressing my issues.
- Still, please, review your statements about the lead. It seems to me that you stated that you reverted my lead proposal (which is supported by reliable sources, and is very similar, to the one that used to be in same Holocaust article), because I didn't put sources. Later, it seems that you stated that the lead does not need sources (I didn't put the sources, because I noticed that you took all the previous sources). And RickinBaltimore wrote that I was being blocked for not providing citations, and it seems that he was referring for the European Jewish refugees in Shanghai and my lead proposal. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
- As I mentioned, I am going over all sources, and I think you may find one, that does not follow the criteria you mentioned in one of your post (edit must exactly reflect reference - I think).
"Etymology and alternate names The word shoah (שואה; also transliterated sho'ah and shoa), meaning "calamity" became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s, especially in Europe and Israel.[7]
- I checked the source: The biblical word Shoah (which has been used to mean “destruction” since the Middle Ages) became the standard Hebrew term for the murder of European Jewry as early as the early 1940s. End of quote. I think it is much different than: "the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s, especially in Europe and Israel." I trust your expertise to correct the current content in the article, so it reflects the exact meaning of the source.
- Again, my sincere apologies, and I am working hard, like you did, going over sources.
- I have to stop typing (problem with eyes is no big deal, but I have to be careful)
- Have a great week-end! I mean that!Henia Perlman (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Henia Perlman, once again you provide misconstrued information about me, so here is my response to you: on your talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Henia Perlman regarding your comment above:
I believe you are referring to my comment at User:RickinBaltimore's talk page, replying to you here. There was no threat involved there, but a sincere attempt to provide you with a path to successful editorship here at Wikipedia, which I still hope you are able to achieve. Wikipedia could benefit from your experience as a teacher of the Holocaust, and I still hope that will happen, although your attitude towards those who have helped you the most is a troubling indicator. Best wishes, Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)I also received a veiled threat that if I do post at the Talk of Holocaust, it is possible that I would be blocked forever.
- Henia Perlman regarding your comment above:
- Carole, I stand by my statement: I sent you all the citations to format and about 5 minutes later, it seems to me, you decided to request to block. I will address that issue and others (personal attack of Simon/Irondome, that I am selfish) later a, as my first priority is to discuss edits and suggestions with Ealdgyth and others.
- Mathglot, I believe you. I have been reading all the links provided to me by you and other experienced editors and administrators. Thank you all. But, as a teacher-trainer, I can tell you that in any subject, people learn in different ways. And I have been open to all suggestions.
- I won't edit for awhile.
- I will continue to go over the whole article, like Ealdgyth did.
- As per Wiki rule, I will now discuss suggestions and submit missing sources in the Talk page of the Holocaust article. Since, I have been following the new rapid edits, I may post many of my suggestions together. I understand, correct me if I am wrong, that some of you may be consulting some Holocaust experts. It's the right thing to do if we want a good project.
- But, I cannot everyday check the wiki pages, and quickly respond, like I couldn't keep up with the speed of the block process. Thank you wiki, for not having deadline.
- Thank you all and I mean that.
- Have a wonderful week end! Henia Perlman (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Henia, you're leaving out a few bits of information, like you added content without citations, for which you had been warned. But, I get that being blocked was hard on you and for that I am sorry.
- I see that you have not been doing anything that was against the original warnings, and you are doing much better at formatting responses on the talk pages. That's great and it's much easier to follow your conversations. I hope that the coming week will be much smoother for you and that you see that even though we've become frustrated at times, I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that we always only wanted you to succeed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
FAC reviewing barnstar
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the fourteen source reviews you did at FAC during June. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC) |
Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.
Technical news
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
?fuzzy=1to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term. - A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
Miscellaneous
- A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
- A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
- Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the USHMM recently released volumes I and II online, as a free download. It's available here: link. I found out about it today when I was putting together an article on the series (Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945), and thought that it might come in handy. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
6th Mass FAC review
Hi, Ealdgyth. Thanks for your comments on on the 6th Mass FAC page. I've done some work to replace/supplement sources. Was wondering if this helps rectify any issues in your view. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks again. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try to get to it today (I saw your pings but hubby was unexpectedly off Sunday so we worked on painting and Monday and Tuesday are his regular days off so we're working on ... painting) but we're moving our offices in preparation for painting so ... it might be Wednesday before I can get to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just checking in on this. As I've just had the fortnight from hell in RL, no problem if you are swamped! If you can't get to it, I'll see if someone can step in and check the responses. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's better, and to a point I won't oppose, but I'm still not thrilled with the sourcing. The problem is I'm not a person who really does a lot of plain-American history (the little I do is firmly orbiting around the horse stuff) so I'm not sure HOW worried to be about it. If this was a medieval topic, I'd be on firmer ground on whether or not there are better sources possible and whether or not the lack of recent coverage is because the older scholarship is sound or because historians don't think things happened that way or it could be some other reason. I just don't know. It raises red flags with me, but I do sometimes think that all the other reviewers think it's my job to decide on whether the sourcing is "high quality" ... when they need to chime in too, not just let me (or other source reviewers) carry the weight. I'll admit I started source reviewing again because I was really getting the feeling that standards were slipping a good bit... too much attention paid to the format of the citations without really addressing the quality of the sourcing. But to bring the quality of the sourcing up, we need to have ALL the reviewers engaging with the sourcing criteria - not just assuming that it isn't their job to review sourcing. (The same goes for images, but they are at least a bit easier to judge in most cases. Sourcing ... isn't so cut and dried.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just checking in on this. As I've just had the fortnight from hell in RL, no problem if you are swamped! If you can't get to it, I'll see if someone can step in and check the responses. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Walt Disney World Railroad
Greetings, Ealdgyth. I nominated the Walt Disney World Railroad to be a featured article, and its FA review page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney World Railroad/archive1. Its review is going well, but it still needs a source review and comments on criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c, per Sarastro1. I see that you are a frequent contributor to FA reviews, so any input that you can provide will be very helpful. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)