User talk:Henia Perlman

Welcome![edit]

Frankly, it is very difficult for me, an old lady, to use wikipedia to ensure a neutral and not discriminatory narration of the Holocaust, based on reliable sources and not prejudices, as I experienced by one editor. On the other hand, I will appreciate if an administrator or chief editor help me with my edition, for the sake of neutrality and integrity.

Thank you all for your patience and hard work! Henia Perlman (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henia Perlman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you are not having an easy time at The Holocaust. Please don't be discouraged – it takes a while to get the hang of how this project works. One basic rule of thumb is: if you make an edit and it doesn't "stick", don't make it again; start a discussion with other editors instead. That should certainly be your next step now. Two possibilities: you could start a conversation at Talk:The Holocaust, explaining what you want to add and why, what sources support it, and how it meets our requirement of neutrality. Or you could visit the Teahouse, a sort of meeting-place for new users, and ask for comment on and explanation of what's been going on – I'll leave you an invitation below. There's a lot more to be said but I won't burden you now. If you ask a question here, on this page, I should see that you've done so. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Hello! Henia Perlman, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. It's a good place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please give it a try! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I truly and really appreciate that. I agree with you that Yad Vashem is partisan. I am also Rachelle (first name of my granma) Perlman, that I created when I as using my laptop, and didn't remember my password for Henia.I will now only use Henia (Hannah in Polish). Sorry about that. I do not wish to violate any rules, and not wikipedia rule. And I did try to learn how to cite - it's still too hard for me.

"if 250 Maghrebi Jews died in the War, that's very sad, but it has fairly minimal importance in an article on a mass-murder in which many millions of people, more than half of them Jewish, were killed> I completely agree with you, but there is no such a thing as "Maghrebi Jews," as after the emancipation in metropolitan France and its overseas territories, and the ruling of France in North Africa, North Africa ceased to exist as a political entity, and Jews were defined by their citizenship, and not the geographic area where they lived; and that's how they were sometimes treated during the "Shoah, the Jewish Holocaust." (Bauer: Bauer: “Let us be clear: … Shoah, Churban, Judeocide, whatever we call it, is the name we give to the attempted planned total physical annihilation of the Jewish people, and its partial perpetration with the murder of most of the Jews of Europe.”

All serious scholars now agree that the Holocaust was not an event, not a genocide, but a process, which resulted with genocide of the Jews, Roma-Sinti, Poles and others

The person who cite Bauer and others, in first paragraph in "Holocaust" should cite the book and page. I don't know how to ask that.

Gilbert, Yahil, Bauer, Longerich, Poliakov (in Yiddish) and others narrate the persecution of the Jews in Italian Libya and Vichy North Africa, as an integral part of the Holocaust in France and Italy, respectively.

The question: why wikipedia should only select some citations of the above authors, but ignore others? I still think that Wikipedia is promoting the views of some Holocaust scholars with a partisan attitude, like Satloff and others. Thank you again for responding promptly. Henia Perlman (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Holocaust as presented by wikipedia is not supported by primary sources at all, and reflect a distorted political view of the Holocaust.

I didn't copy from Satloff.

I did make very short quotations, allowed by wikipedia guidelines for quotations. My sources are reliable and come from sources mentioned in the article: Yad Vahem, Leni Yahill, and Peter Longerich.

Wikipedia administrators cannot pick and choose the quotations from same books that they valued, to present a distorted history of the Holocaust, narrated by Yahil and Longerich (and Yehuda Bauer for that matter) as a political process that took place in Europe, inclusive of European North Africa territories, and narrating the persecution of the Jews in Vichy North Africa (Poznanski) and Italian Libya as an integral part of the Holocaust in France and Italy, respectively.

Thank you for your kind attention, and looking forward for a more precise and relevant explanation for deleting my additions, all based on proper documentation.

Henia Perlman (related to the Perlman of Lomza, Byalistok, who perished in the Shoah) Henia Perlman (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a post like this might start some discussion at Talk:The Holocaust. In general, the briefer and clearer your remarks, the more likely they are to be read. A few thoughts on what you've written:

on the whole, Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources
the space given to aspects of a topic in one of our articles is (in theory!) related to its importance – please see Due and undue weight; so if 250 Maghrebi Jews died in the War, that's very sad, but it has fairly minimal importance in an article on a mass-murder in which many millions of people, more than half of them Jewish, were killed
Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources, and partisan sources such as Yad Vashem are used only sparingly, usually when discussing opinions rather than facts
this isn't the place to Right Great Wrongs; our aim is to present information in as neutral a way a possible. If you think that something is not neutral, you should explain why … on the talk-page of the article.

Since I'm here, can I ask you this: are you and User:Rachelle Perlman one person or two? If the latter, all's well; but if there's just one of you, you should choose one account and stick to it (we have rules about a person using more than one account). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just very briefly: OK on the usernames, thanks for clearing that up – and yes, please stick to just one from now on. The reference system in use in that article is one that I cordially dislike and find confusing and unnecessarily complex. What you have to do is (for example):

click the little blue "31" after the first Bauer quote
that takes you to "Bauer 2002, p. 48." in the References section
then you have to look in the Bibliography section below, which is alphabetical, for "Bauer, Yehuda"
the 2002 publication is Rethinking the Holocaust
it should, but doesn't, have an ISBN number to make it easier to find in WorldCat or whatever you use.

If after all that you really can't find the page number (it can happen), you can add {{Page needed}} (with the curly parentheses) after the citation. Got to go, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Rich Smith. I noticed that in this edit to The Holocaust in France, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations on The Holocaust[edit]

While some citations do indeed lack page numbers with their shortend footnote, you should probably read WP:Citing sources and Help:Shortened footnotes to see the citation style that is in use at the article. For long articles, we often use a shortened footnote system - where the actual citation has enough information to identify the source from a long list of frequently used sources at the bottom of the article. This makes it much much easier to edit the article and keeps the non-article text down in the edit window. Expecting to see "A full citation for every anuthor and book cited, with the number of the page is needed for reliability and neutrality" at each footnote/note isn't going to happen. Justlettersandnumbers explained above how to get to the full citation information - so asking for anything beyond page numbers isn't helpful when the citation is in the form of a shortened footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia Perlman, As my first step in helping out, and since you mentioned issues with citation formatting, I thought I would tackle your talk page first. I don't see a response to Ealdgyth's comment, so I've added a bit more info:

Basically, for a book, there should be a full citation (minus a page number) for the book in the The_Holocaust#Bibliography section and a short citation, like "Lang 2003, p. 3." formatted as {{sfn|Lang|2003|p=3}} - with the author, year of the book and page number.

For newspapers and other sources, long citations are used in this article, like: Frankel, Max (14 November 2001). "Turning Away from the Holocaust". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 September 2012., which is formatted with a template: {{cite news |last=Frankel |first=Max |author-link=Max Frankel |date=14 November 2001 |title=Turning Away from the Holocaust |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/specials/onefifty/20FRAN.html?pagewanted=all |accessdate=1 September 2012}}

If you have some content that you'd like to add, a good way to start out is copying the paragraph or section to your sandbox and I can help you with formatting. Then, when it's "ready for prime time" it can be moved over to the article. That's a good way to start out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

Good morning,

1. I have edited end of first paragraph on 'Holocaust' from "French Jews ..." with a more precise paragraph that better reflect the contemporaneous historical realities of the period. Somebody keeps putting back the old version.

2. An editor has incorrectly paraphrased Longerich about his interpretation of 11 million Jews mentioned at Wannsee, and has deleted the continuation of my quotation of Longerich about the Jews of French North Africa included in the 11 million. This editor uses "UK" and US, when Longerich writes the United Kingdom, and does not mention the relevant Longerich's statement about Jews of French North Africa, which included French Algeria, an integral part of France.

3. Can you help me please a. add the map of Wannsee and map of Nazi conquests and ?spheres of influence" b. a newer map of Holocaust Jewish victims posted at the Aushwitz state museum that I visited.

Thank you for your hard work, and looking forward to your answers

Henia Perlman (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a content issue which should be discussed on the article's talk page at Talk:Holocaust.
That also seems to be a content issue. Personally I don't see much of a problem with "UK" instead of "United Kingdom" or with not explaining the French figure in detail, but that by Longerich's account the US apparently wasn't included in Heydrich's number is an important distinction.
Images are somewhat tricky due to issues of copyright.
1. Wikipedia already has maps of Wannsee and of Nazi Germany at its peak extent, I believe, and they should be freely licensed, so there's no copyright issue for these (e.g. File:Berlin-wannsee.png or File:German Reich 1942.svg). I don't think the former would add anything whatsoever to our readers' understanding of the Holocaust. The latter might be more useful, but we already have several similar images in the article. The WP:Picture tutorial explains how to display images in an article.
2. This raises copyright issues; likely the museum owns the copyright for that map. That would make it difficult to add an image of the specific map to Wikipedia. If you know of a published source for the information, you're of course welcome to create a map of your own that displays the same information - or you may want to ask at the WP:Graphics Lab; people over there are rather skilled at creating maps.

I hope this helps Huon (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoah redirect[edit]

Hi Henia Perlman – just noticed that with this edit back in February, you added __STATICREDIRECT__, __NOEDITSECTION__ and __DISAMBIG__ to the page. Is this correct for a redirect? For example, the __DISAMBIG__ makes the redirect appear in articles as a link that needs to be disambiguated, and it also appears in the list at Special pages:Pages linking to disambiguation pages. The problem is that Shoah links to The Holocaust, which is not a disambiguation page. Was wondering what your reasoning was? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 22:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the question, and what I did. So sorry. Henia Perlman (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added "behavior switches" to the redirect that caused the page to work differently than other pages, for example the way the __DISAMBIG__ changed things as I explained above. It just left me scratching my head, that's all. Nothing is broken, so we learn and continue editing. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 03:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and Missing Elements in Holocaust[edit]

The article can be better by being more organized (for example there are two paragraphs in separate places about the ghetto; T-4 should be described as per the chronology. What about Resistance by the White Rose and German army? Maybe I missed that in the article. I have no doubt that this article on Holocaust can be better.Henia Perlman (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you meaning to write this to someone in particular? If so, then you should use the {{ping}} template with the name or names (separated by "|" -- see the link}}. For instance, if you wanted to ping me, the code is @CaroleHenson:, which looks like {{ping|CaroleHenson}} in code.

If you want this read by the people that work on and watch The Holocaust article, then it should be added to the Talk:The Holocaust article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Editing The Holocaust Article[edit]

I am new in wiki, and will appreciate help in editing and following rules.

Please, notify me if somebody edits the article and explain the revision. The article needs improvements. Let's do it together with a consensus.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no requirement to notify you when someone edits an article. This is why there is a personal watchlist for each editor - see Help:Watchlist for more details. Also, discussion of content for an article properly takes place on the article talk page. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. And it is very very helpful if you would read the edit summaries and read the help pages and guidelines that are pointed out in the edit summaries ... so you do not keep making the same editing errors over and over. Please direct comments about article content to the article talk pages where all of the editors who are watching and working on an article can see them and comment. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that currently I am going through the article on The Holocaust and verifying every single citation to make sure that it directly supports the information it is connected to. This is something that is very very tedious but also very necessary, as I'm finding when I check sources that many of the citations to not actually WP:VERIFY what they are supposedly sourcing. Please understand that others can and will edit your edits - and that as a new editor, it is (again) probably best if you make your mistakes on much less vital and trafficked articles - you will have less issues with being reverted because you're making mistakes. When you make mistakes over and over, it gets very wearing on the other editors to fix your mistakes, so you're very likely to run into friction. I see you're asking for someone to help mentor you - this is a good thing, and I strongly suggest you wait on that for help. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again.

"I'm finding when I check sources that many of the citations to not actually WP:VERIFY what they are supposedly sourcing." I also found out that. Henia Perlman (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next?[edit]

Is there something that you'd like to start working on in your sandbox as an edit to The Holocaust? Something else?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help how to put citations and insert a map. Thank you for following up!Henia Perlman (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we copy the content that you wanted to add to the sandbox?

Is it from your most recent edit or set of edits to The Holocaust? If you want me to set it up, I can get it started.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to the article. Based upon the issues that you've had, I highly recommend that we work in your sandbox and I'm happy to help set that up. Then, we can work out issues, ensure the content is properly cited, etc.

If you don't want to work that way to get a good rolling start, I suggest you see if you can find another person to help out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox is fine - I really would like to work with you; I am old and very slow.

What do you mean "you reverted my edit? Which one? I am starting to get lost. Thanks!Henia Perlman (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back, because my edition is as per the link to "Final Solution." Thanks. I have to be clearer, and I will use sandbox.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied that to User:Henia Perlman/sandbox2, since I see you already have something in your sandbox. And I have a question for you that I will post at User talk:Henia Perlman/sandbox2.

The point is not to make sure that it synchs up with the other article, it's to ensure that it synchs up with cited content in the Holocaust article.

Please, let's talk these things out first. Due to the issues that you've been having, I'm trying to help you make the next step forward a good one that will stick.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my question on the talk page of sandbox2. If you hang in there a little bit with me, we'll get rolling pretty quickly.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, it seems that you don't want to be mentored by me. I totally get that you're a subject matter expert on the content and I was hoping that I could teach you the Wikipedia ropes so that you could be more successful. There wasn't too much we needed to get through, but my style may just be too direct or abrupt for you. Anyway, good luck.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole, please don't leave me. I requested from the adoption department to have

THREE people ready to adopt me, and I will have many cries for help.

PLEASE, teach me "the Wikipedia ropes" so I "could be more successful." It's not your style, but me - I have felt a big ZERO, when dealing with some people in the French wiki, who criticize my French and my inadequacy with wiki.

Please, stay with me! You will notice I made another edit, that will cause, I know some to cancel it. But I provided the source of Jacobson, and I have his book that I bought in Israel. My old neck hurts and I have to stop.Henia Perlman (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have a wonderful offer - and received wonderful input and advice. I wasn't leaving you, it looked like you preferred not to work together. I think you'll have much better luck with Simon. It is a bit of a mind-shift to work on a collaborative, consensus-driven environment, but I am sure that you have a lot of areas where you can provide meaningful input. Good luck.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some kindly advice my dear[edit]

Dear Henia. I would be very happy to help you if you are interested in joining Wikipedia, but I am troubled. I do not think it is wise at this time for you to be working on the Shoa. I feel you or others close and dear to you have suffered from it's horrors, and I would beg you to stop editing there, until you know how this place works better. There are so many other subjects, nearly 7 million articles on here! There is much Jewish history and cultural articles that I am sure would interest you, and it would give me great joy to see you as a regular here. But please, I beg you not on the Holocaust. Not at this time. I am Jewish, and I too have a family history from that time of horror of horrors. Please believe me when I say that the article is well guarded by some of the best minds on Wikipedia. Please work with me on some other, less tragic things for now. Trust me. Shalom my dear. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hania, I have used something called Rollback. I had to to keep the stability of this critically important article. Please please do not edit the article until we have discussed certain things. Please trust me on this. You can leave me a message any time on my talkpage, or if you wish privacy, you are welcome to email me. My email is on the left hand column on my user page. That is if you wish to discuss anything of a sensitive nature. Your friend Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canceling my edition to Holocaust by Simon/Irondome[edit]

Can somebody explain to me what is "Roll back" as ised by Irondome/Simon.

Mr. Irondome/Simon, I am using same sentence as Rich Smith: I noticed that in my edit to The Holocaust, "you removed content without adequately explaining why. It would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just need a cup of tea, and I will explain all Henia. I want you to go slowly here at first, so your introduction to the English Wikipedia is as smooth and stress-free (for you and others) as possible. I will explain more thoroughly soon Henia. I suggest you have a beverage too, it helps. Call me Simon. Irondome (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canceling my editions[edit]

Thank you for your patience. As per Wiki rules I provided a verifiable source for my editing, and 38 areas are bigger than 20, which lessen the scale of the Holocaust. Looking forward to read your explanation and learn more how to use Wiki.

Have a great day.Henia Perlman (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia, you were rapidly going forward with a large series of ambitious edits while others had advised you to concentrate on more basic things like correct formatting of citations, and WP:WEIGHT.In addition a colleague was going through (and is continuing) the thankless task of checking every source to see if they actually say what they are supporting in the main prose. This was causing frustration and it was for the good of all that I used the rollback feature to maintain article stability. It is a critical article on WP and is heavily visited. I am not saying your edits were 'wrong', just ill-timed. That was no one's fault. It is very important that you use the talk page if you are proposing a series of ambitious edits, (you will get a response from others) to see if they can gain WP:CONSENSUS, which is the very air to good article development. Remember there is no rush. (WP:DEADLINE is a very good read regarding viewpoints on our individual pace of contributions) I am unsure what you mean where you refer to "38 areas are bigger than 20, which lessen the scale of the Holocaust". If you are set on editing the Holocaust article, (and I have mentioned my reservations in my note to you in the above sections) then I would suggest minor edits for now. And please Henia, make extensive use of the talk page. Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advices on editing and improving article Holocaust[edit]

Thank you for your advices. You still didn't explain why you cancel my quotation about 38 geographic areas by Robinson, while the ushmm mentions only 20.

Can you or anyone help me put a more recent table with numbers of Holocaust victims, as the current one has wrong numbers and is outdated. I am requesting that because an editor asked me for a citation - I don't want to ignore that, and the table provide the citation.

Thank you. Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I hope you're having a good day today.

You left a message on my user page (vs. user talk page), which means I don't get a notification when a message is left (I missed the first post you added, for instance), so I thought I'd respond here.

I think your question about a rollback has been responded to, there is also more information at Wikipedia:Rollback.

Regarding working on The Holocaust, Simon is going to explain this more, as he said, but I fully support his suggestion. Theoretically, yes, you can be kept from editing an article if there is a pattern of problematic edits. I, personally, would have posted some notices, such as {{Uw-disruptive1}}, but you are lucky to be dealing with a very kind person who will provide more context in a softer manner.

I do think, though, that it would be helpful to look over {{Uw-disruptive1}}, not as a warning, but for informational purposes and context.

I am very sorry to have read that you are going through a difficult time personally. I am very heartened by your background and what you could bring to WP. Take care.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just checking in.

I am picking up from some of your comments on the article talk page that my points here may not have been worded as clearly as I had intended. I did not in any way mean to suggest that you don't have subject matter knowledge... and I apologize if it came off that way. It was really about the extent to which your edits are reverted because they don't meet guidelines, Wikipedia approach to delivering content, etc.

I don't usually suggest this, but it is seeming to me that it is not your style to write in the Wikipedia \ encyclopedia approach where there are separate, linked articles the delve into sub- and related topics: Have you thought about writing a blog, contributing to a book, writing newspaper or magazine articles, etc. about the topic? Another option is to start a new Wikipedia article about a related Holocaust topic, but that means following the Wikipedia guidelines and content delivery method.

It seems, and I have thought about it quite often lately, that there are plenty of contemporary geopolitical events that have parallels to the ways in which the Holocaust began that would be marketable or find an audience. (One of my favorite quotes / version of the "doomed to repeat it" quotes: "It's been my experience, Langford, that the past always has a way of returning. Those who don't learn, or can't remember it, are doomed to repeat it.") So, perhaps writing about the Holocaust from your unique perspective, might be very interesting work and content. Anyway, a thought.

Alternatively, would a paradigm shift be helpful? I have come to love the linked-article approach. One of the great things about the linked articles is that people with good understanding of a topic are turned off by delving into commonly understood subtopics... so the shorter and to the point the better... and those that are looking to explore an aspect at a time can do that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Holocaust article[edit]

My goal is to improve the article, in its current prsentation. It is very clear that the Holocaust (class B article) needs improvements in its content and its structure.

One must present a tentative definition of Nazism and its symbol, the swastika, which were not in the original article. The style: some sentences seem not to connect - I edited that, and I added a reference in "Ideology" that aonther editor requested. And how one decides which source is better than another one, especially when my editing rely on Bauer, Browning, Longerich, Gilbert, and Yahil.

I am new. I thank you all for your patience, and your help to edit with the goal of improving the article, Holocaust. I am sure we want to improve the article, so it becomes class A.

I will post this message in TALK so everybody understand that I am behaving in good faith.

Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Holocaust in France[edit]

In one of the passage about Jewish population in France, I specified "Metropolitan France" I now know that I have to explain the editing, which I explain to Rich and would like to share with you:

"So, I would like to discuss with you my editing: Of the 340,000 Jews living in metropolitan/continental France in 1940, In fact, it would be more correct to write: About 300,000 Jews lived in continental France. ... 77,000 ...

1. Why about: As Poznanski stated the French republic didn't do census based on religion/ethnicity; so most historians write "about ...) 2. I know that many historians write that there were about 300,000 Jews in France. But, as Charles de Gaulle and others specify: France is the Third Republic, comprised of la Metropole/Metropolitan France, and France d'Outre-mer (over-seas). Poznanski specifies that, when she uses the term Vichy metropolitaine, which leads to "Vichy Tunisia" (as used by the historical Tunisian archives), Vichy Algeria and Vichy Morocco. The three departments, 91, 92, 93, in French Algerianwere an integral part of the French Republic or "France" - term more familiar.

In fact, I read a source that counts the about 100,000 Jews in French Algeria, where, unlike in continental France, all its Jews were French citizens, which provides a total of about 400,000 Jews.

Kaspi states that there were 700,000 Jews in the French soil.

Wiki does not have to promote false views of "France" limited to the Metropole, especially when Petain and the Nazi regime didn't think so, and it does not reflect the historical realities of the period.

Do I make sense?

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Henia, what I said. Use the talk page. Use the talk page. It will not be seen here and will not generate discussion and useful thoughts by other colleagues here. Use the talk page. Use the talk page. Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

I think I am using the talk page. I go to the article "Holocaust" and I click "talk" at the top of the page. Is it wrong?

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is right. But the French figures material would have been good there. That is all I meant Henia. This kind of non edit specific talk like this should be here or on anyone's talk page. This is good for discussing general ideas for edits and links, citations, layouts and the like. Simon Irondome (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought[edit]

Hi again! I see that you are still not having an easy time at The Holocaust. As you must by now have realised, that's a particularly visible article, and not an especially good place for a new editor to learn how to contribute here, particularly as someone else is working intensively on it just now. I'm glad to see that you're getting plenty of sound advice from established editors. I wondered this: given your particular interest in the Holocaust in North Africa, had you thought of doing some work on pages such as Jews outside Europe under Axis occupation or History of the Jews in Algeria, or indeed any of the pages linked from History of the Jews in North Africa? There seems to be some scope for improvement (of sourcing, for example) there, and you'd perhaps be able to help the project without running into quite such difficulties. You could perhaps ask someone like Irondome to keep a friendly eye on the changes you make. It's just a thought. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==Someone Working on Holocaust==

I like to put numbers, as it helps me to focus:

1. "particularly as someone else is working intensively on it just now." How come one is working without discussing every section like I have to do?

2. "I wondered this: given your particular interest in the Holocaust in North Africa" My only interest is to improve the Holocaust article, which my 1000s of students had found very difficult to understand.

I have specialized on teaching, researching, training teachers, and publishing about "Holocaust history."

3. There was no "Holocaust in North Africa," despite the perception of some, as the Holocaust was a political process implemented by governments, "state-sponsored," (the ushmm) and evolving, in stages from one country to another (all historians).

North Africa had ceased to be a political entity after the 3 French departments of Algeria became an integral part of France, and the creation of the 2 protectorates of Morocco and Algeria. One should correctly use: "territoires d'outre-mer" - overseas territories for French North Africa, "as per the historical realities of the period," that one editor correctly stated that one must follow.

Looking forward to read your clarifications about "someone else is working intensively on it just now."

Thank you for your message. Cheers.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit. It responds to this comment and one you posted on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia, you can see who's been working on an article by looking at the article history. The revision history for that page shows clearly who it is who is working intensively on it at the moment.

Do you really honestly believe that Algeria ceased to be in North Africa (and, for that matter, in the Maghreb) just because France claimed it as French territory? Does it not occur to you that some Algerians, perhaps even some other people, might not share that truly bizarre view? Anyway, I'm sorry you didn't like my suggestion. I won't trouble you again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than to watch for edits, I won't trouble you again, either.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Holocaust, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The issue with the edit was discussed on the article talk page. –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Holocaust, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As has been mentioned, content needs to be properly cited with proper citations. There is information on this talk page and offers to help format citations properly. If you are unsure how to properly add content, please bring it up on the talk page rather than adding it to the article. For instance, 1) it is improper to add page numbers in the body of the article and 2) the citation information should be between <ref></ref> –CaroleHenson (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at German-occupied Europe.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please don't let this go to a higher level. See this edit for the reasons, all of which have been discussed in other instances with you. I will also comment on the article talk page. –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia I will mentor you[edit]

If you have any ideas for an edit, please post them on my talk page first. In that way I can advise you properly before it goes into an article and you do not get your edits reverted. If you would be kind enough to do that for the next week or so, I think much will be clearer to you, and I will understand also your reasons for adding material better. I am unofficially mentoring you from this point, if you accept. See WP:Mentor. This is to stop any misunderstandings which may lead to official sanctions. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Henia Perlman. You have new messages at Talk:The Holocaust.
Message added 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see from another posting that you are not sure how to see notifications, so I posted this here.

If you are on a computer, you should see notifications at the top of the Wikipedia page, just after your name. There's a "bell" icon or "inbox" icon which should light up if someone left you a message somewhere. (I don't see a message that your postings are from a mobile device, so I assume you're on a computer). –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminders[edit]

Hi Henia,

I hope you don't mind, but it seems like there are some things being repeated often, so I thought I'd summarize some things here that you can refer to. I am no longer a spring-chicken, and have disabilities that affect my brain processing and memory, so I hope that this appears as one person just helping another.

Talk page discussions

Use article talk pages — In general, if you have a comment about an article, then comments should be posted on the article talk pages. So, if you have a comment about The Holocaust, then comments should be posted at Talk:The Holocaust.
Ping people in rather that posting the messages in lots of user pages — In general, you should not add comments in lots of places. If you want someone to see a comment you've added, you can bring them into the discussion by pinging them: Add {{u|CaroleHenson}} for me, {{u|Irondome}} for Simon. Or change the name for other people that you'd like to bring into the discussion. When you save the edit, it will appear like: CaroleHenson, for my name. This highlights the name in blue and provides a link to their user page -- and issues a notification to saved and signed messages.
Work with your mentor — However, you have a mentor now to work with, so it is better right now to work with Irondome on any content you would like to add at his talk page at User talk:Irondome.

Summary: Please contact Irondome with any new content you want to add, but if you feel you do need to add comments that others will see, please add it once to the relevant talk page and notify others that you would like to see the message within the body of the message.

Content

Work with Simon / Irondome — Please don't add any content to articles at this time. As he requested, he has asked that you work with him on that.
- References — An issue that have commonly comes up is the need for properly formatted citations, which means that the references are generally between <ref></ref>, like <ref>{{cite book|author= |title= |year= | location= |publisher= |isbn=}}</ref> See WP:Citation templates
  - Update: I have seen that you've said that you don't think you could ever figure out how to format citations, so if it's a book and you can get me: book title, year published, and first author... that should be enough for me to pull the information together for a citation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: If it's another kind of source: generally the key information is the author, title, publisher, date/year and if on the web, the url. That should be enough for me to back into the citation information. For a website, I just need the url for the page that you found the info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Detail — There has been a tendency to provide too much detail, particularly where linked articles go into greater detail. Another example is where the obvious is being stated.

I hope that 1) this is helpful for you and 2) this could be added to overtime so that it's an ongoing reference for some key Wikipedia tips or hints that are germaine to you. If this is not helpful, though, please say so here. I'll see it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Based upon comments about not knowing about updates to articles, you can add articles to your Watchlist. You can also added user and user talk pages to your watchlist. For detailed info, see Help:Watchlist. Here's a short list of steps:

Your Watchlist can be accessed from the top menu. It's in the same row as the bell, inbox, and your talk page. This will show the recent edits to articles that you have selected that you're interested in knowing when changes are made.
To add a page to your Watchlist, go to the page you'd like to add... like The Holocaust.
- Click on the star just under the top menu to add it to your watchlist.
- When it's added to your watchlist, the star will look like this: . The talk page will also be added to the watchlist.
Then, if you click on your watchlist from the top menu of each page, it will show the most recent edits by page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on citation information above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of key points (work in progress)

Neutral point of view - Neutral point of view means that there is not one neutral voice for the article, but a reflection of prevailing points of views and no fringe theories.
Paraphrase - content from sources should be paraphrased and summarized rather than using information word-for-word from sources. Sometimes the intention to provide a lot of detail means that the content added to Wikipedia is a copyright violation or close paraphrasing. Many of your edits have been to modify good paraphrasing / summarizing of content.
Wikipedia articles and subarticles - amount of detail
Summarizing, particularly in overview articles
Draft content first
Proper sourcing of content

--Here's the start of the list, if you have something else you'd like me to address, please add bullets. Work in progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at The Holocaust.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You've been asked not to made edits to articles without a mentor and have gone ahead and stopped the mentor relationship. I am unable to verify the change that you made on the identified page number, so I have reverted your edits here. –CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did find it later, but the wording in the article is paraphrased. Your edit 1) eliminated summarization of the information (continental Europe and French North Africa) and 2) created a WP:Close paraphrasing / copyright violation issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia, this is why I asked you to transfer it onto the talkpage for a final check by other colleagues. I was rather taken up giving you other advice to notice the paraphrasing issue. It was an initial comment, but then I noticed you felt you did not need help anymore, which rather threw us. I am speaking for the others who have tried to help here, not just myself. I would implore you to slow down and don't get bogged down in detail. There are many blue linked supplimentary articles on the page, which deal with detail. Don't congest the sections. The article is meant to be the routeway, the overview of the Holocaust. A colleague has spent days trimming this article while striving to maintain and keep critical content in. A huge and challenging task. I think we should have the courtesy of allowing her to finish this work before any further edits to the article are made. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this appears to be "piling on", but just to be clear: I could have incremented the warning levels to the next level - level 4, which would be {{uw-generic4}}, which states "

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia." Then, an administrator gets involved to determine if it should be a temporary block or an indefinite block. My guess would be that it would be a temporary block, but there have been such an incredible number of messages to you about the issues, that I cannot say for sure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Holocaust. Again, you've been asked to work with a mentor or on the talk pages before making edits. I have reverted your edits. Please also see the article talk page for conversation, there about the edits. –CaroleHenson (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at The Holocaust, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Latest edit here was reverted. You attempted this edit earlier and it was reverted and issue explained on the talk page. –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not vandalize and I am acting in good faith[edit]

I am making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.

It seems to me that you are abusing me and threatening me, when I am acting in good faith.

I have been working very hard finding reliable sources to use on my modifications. I decided to be involved, because I retired.

I feel that I can positively contribute, because of my historical expertise and my experience with the average reader, with the true spirit of collaboration, and help with technology and wiki rules.

"When in doubt, edit! " And that's what I am trying to do, with use of reliable source, and actively listening to comments to my modifications.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to hear you using the language that you will "actively listen" to comments. As I mentioned on The Holocaust, I will summarize the points that have been made to you over time.

I am sorry that you are feeling that this has become difficult, but your intention to actively listen will help a lot. I also am happy to read that you're interested in true collaboration. Your goals for the article are very different than how Wikipedia operates, so collaboration before posting is key. Also, because of the citation formatting, wiki rules, technology, working on content before you post is also important.

This has been such a unique experience and have never worked so hard and been absolutely unheard, so this is really great news, Henia!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to improve wikipedia in good faith

I am trying to be thoughtful, and I do research, before I post my modifications.

I did write that I welcome editors to continue helping with formating, wiki rules.

There are some editors who appreciate my positive contributions, and didn't mind formating my citations. I think that I did it right, last time!

You are welcome to annul my modifications and explain/comment,

in plain English, please,

in the talk page of the article.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that too many of your edits require work. I don't go around posting warnings to new editors... it's actually fairly rare that I post warnings. I only do it when someone is not listening and continues to do the things that have been mentioned in edit summaries, talk pages, etc.

You have been asked to work on changes with someone before you make edits to articles. Even minor changes have punctuation, link formatting, etc. issues. Before you post, can we work on it, first?

I know that you've not really liked this so far, so that's why I was so happy that you're really wanting to listen and hear what is being said. That makes me very hopeful. This has been so much harder for everyone than it needs to be.

I am not having a great day today, but intend to keep working on the summary. Will that be helpful? If you really won't find it helpful for me to continue, that would be good to know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited content[edit]

Henia,

Why did you add uncited content to The Holocaust? I told you I would help you format citations... you just need to give me a little information and I'll figure out what information is needed to complete the citation and I would format it for you?

I feel so bad because I don't think it's your intention to be disruptive, but you aren't doing anything to improve the quality of the content that you're adding... regardless of how much help is offered to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to do. I submitted a block request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request block of User:Henia Perlman.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia, if you wish to reply at ANI, please add your comments beneath the ones in the current section, not remove the section. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia, if you are having trouble with citations have you considered using Zotero, it makes everything very easy and will keep all your research organized. Once you get it set up you only have to add the ref tags and drag and drop the citation into the editor, and it will add the filled out template automatically. (Though for the Holocaust article, you should follow the regular editors advice about shortened footnotes, I don't know what the standard citation style is for that article, but I noticed you didn't have the citations on hand for some of your edits, and it's nice to have them organized in Zotero whenever you need them.) But I would agree with Irondome above, Holocaust is going to be a challenging article to work on as a new editor, and shortened footnotes + sfn template may be confusing for a new editor. There are so many articles, that it may be a good idea to take a break from this one and work on other things for a while. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a tant des gens qui veulent bien vous aider, mais...[edit]

Hello Henia, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed the kerfuffle going on at ANI and Talk:Holocaust, and on your talk pages here and on French wikipedia.

I am an experienced user here with some interests similar to yours, and I also speak French. I came here to offer you mentorship and help. However, I see you have already received kind offers of help already from Irondome and others here, as well as from Lebob on French wikipedia. My offer stands, should you wish to take advantage of it.

I just wanted to add a few things to what Irondome, Justlettersandnumbers and others have said. Getting involved with Wikipedia is like moving to a different country, something I'm quite familiar with: there's a new language, a new culture, new rules, everything is different. But it takes a while to learn the language, the customs, and how to get along with others and learn the way things are done around here. Failing to greet the boulanger in Paris with a smiling "Bonjour, Monsieur/dame" will probably get you a cold stare and icy service. Greeting the baker in Manhattan in the same cheery way might get you a frustrated expression of "Why are you wasting my time?" or as my Mom experienced when she first tried that approach at a New York City bakery, a simple cry of "NEXT!" from the busy counter person who ignored her kindly meant but slowly pronounced greeting and simply skipped her and moved on to the next person in line.

So when contributing to Wikipedia, consider yourself in a foreign country where you have to learn the language and the customs in order to get along. What I see happening here, is that you are assuming that your credentials, your knowledge, and your passionate desire to share them to help enlighten others is sufficient, and that everyone will appreciate your efforts and throw open their arms to welcome your wise contributions. But that is not what is happening, and the baker at the counter is is grumbling to herself and is about to shout "NEXT!" and is even thinking of maybe locking the doors and not letting you come in anymore.

I know that you have much to offer, especially in the areas of your passion, and I am convinced that you can become a valuable editor here at Wikipedia. But right now, you have been breaking lots of rules simply because you are new and unfamiliar with them. Some people have tried to explain, but it takes time to assimilate all this. In the meantime, you have broken enough rules enough times that it is starting to become a problem, and people are noticing, and are not happy about it. In your sincere desire to contribute and help, by not understanding the process and the customs, you are often slowing other people down and understandably, they don't like that.

I do have some specific advice for you about how to become a successful editor here, and I'd like to share that advice with you, if you want to hear it. But a prerequisite to becoming a successful editor here, is not getting the doors locked on you, and there is already discussion of that possibility at WP:ANI#Request block of User:Henia Perlman, and you certainly don't want that to happen.

If you'd like to hear more, you're welcome to continue this conversation at your French talk page in French, or here in English. (You see, here's another of the myriad rules around here: at English Wikipedia, conversations should be in English so others can participate, and in French at French Wikipedia for the same reason. So now you know one more rule. I cheated a bit, with the section title above, but I wanted to grab your attention.) But even if not, please pay careful attention to what others are saying here, because it seems like a lot of people are trying to help you, but it doesn't seem like you are hearing them. You are very close to having the doors locked; don't let that happen. Listen carefully to what others are saying, and take heed.

I hope it works out for you, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC) ou bien : (fr:Mathglot (fr:Discussion) )[reply]

Henia's request: please, do not block[edit]

Henia is respectfully requesting not to block her[edit]

Thank you all for your thoughts and support.

Carole, I am respectfully asking you to cancel your request to block me. You could see that my request for your help with template conflicted with your request to block me. I thank you for your infinite patience.

Mathglot, I welcome your help, so I can continue to be involved in the Holocaust articles. I have improved, slowly, but surely. I sincerely mean that.

I have been learning to collaborate in a constructive way, and reading wiki rules. And I am trying to do things slowly: Today, I saw that Ealdgyth 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, and ask Eadgyth if they are appropriate. 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 Ealdgyth asked about “euphemism” (I think that I did find a full sentence for that!)

I did truly show “intention to try to work with others”, and get along (I have moved a lot in my life!): I notice when people corrected my formatting or statements, and I thank them publicly. If I am reverted, I don’t put back my contribution, but discuss it in the Talk of the Article, as Ealdgyth told me to do. After my change of “German-occupied Poland” was reverted, by Ealdgyth , I admitted I was wrong, because I remembered that Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Thank you all for your kind consideration.

Be well, and be grateful for everyday.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes, right now there are two options being discussed instead of blocking at the ANI page. There is one proposal by Rivertorch and another by Mathglot. Please look at those proposals, one of which is to submit request for edits to The Holocaust to the talk page. The other is a little bit of a learning period with Mathglot before getting involved in contentious articles, like The Holocaust. Either way, it would involve working on content with someone / the talk page before content is posted to the article. Your thoughts on this would be very helpful. Could you post your thoughts there?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that someone removed your post. All that you really need to discuss is which of the options that you're more comfortable with.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Henia Perlman: To post at the ANI noticeboard, please keep the discussion in this thread instead of starting a new one. The one who removed your thread was an administrator. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 01:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the latest posting into the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_block_of_User:Henia_Perlman. You cannot add it to the bottom of the page as a new section, because there are many ongoing discussions.

What you need to do is: go to that section

Click [edit]

Go to the bottom where you want to add your discussion

Add your response. You don't need to add a new section.

If this is too confusing, let me know and you can type your message here and I will copy and put it there for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sure is awesome support

. —Paleo Neonate - 01:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put a happy face? It's so nice!

I will try Henia Perlman (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:smiley}} (there are other available ones too there). —Paleo Neonate - 01:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PaleoNeonate!{{subst:smiley}}Henia Perlman (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia I really did not want it to come to this, however you have had multiple experienced editors and admins advised you of your edits. You continued to do so after these warnings were placed here, and as such I've had no other choice but to block you for 31 hours. After your block is over, please take the advice of all of us to ensure you can continue editing collaboratively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivertorch and RickinBaltimore: Henia left a message on my talk page (with this comment) that she:

"agrees not to edit the article directly for a predetermined interval (at least the remainder of this month), instead proposing all of her changes on the talk page. If after the end of the month, more time is needed, I agree to review the situation."
welcomes help "with citations format, content relevancy, and conformity with wiki rules."

And, I agree to help her.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Henia, so that I only had to post this one place, I typed {{ping|Rivertorch|RickinBaltimore}}.

A few of the key other people who may be interested include @Mathglot, Irondome, and Ealdgyth:. You have been very kind to help and with your offers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia, you can post a message here, or on my talk page, when you want to get started, and then when it's ready, you can post the requested addition or change on the applicable talk page (as part of our discussion here. If you don't mind, I will help with the first couple with the formatting of the talk page message to keep them short and to the point.

My goal and hope is to help you be as successful as possible, within wikipedia guidelines and the nature of the page (overview article, subarticle). I will be so happy when you find yourself to be successful, effective, and happy here!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia agrees to Rivertorch's thoughtful proposal[edit]

It seems that there was a consensus with Rivertorch’s thoughtful proposal:

Henia agrees not to edit the article directly for a predetermined interval (at least the remainder of this month), instead proposing all of her changes on the talk page. If after the end of the month, more time is needed, I agree to review the situation.

I welcome your help Carole, if you still have patience with me (I reread my posting from the start, and I couldn't believe how slow I am!), and from others, if you wish not to help me anymore, from other editors with citations format, content relevancy, and conformity with wiki rules.

Thank you for your time, and patience, and Rivertorch for your kind intervention.

I would also like to thank Simon/Irondrome, Mathgloth, and Ealdgyth for their infinite patience and help. I really don't have time to write thanking them, as I was again sick (contagious for my grandchildren), postponed my trip, and leaving today, Saturday.

I must admit that I was happy to "get into Talk"! It's a nice hobby!

Have all a great and wonderful week-end! Henia Perlman (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Henia, and your decision to follow Rivertorch's proposal is a good one. I have some "homework" for you, if you accept.

As part of your continuing "Wikieducation" may I recommend that you start to improve your technique on Talk pages, including this one, before you move back editing mainspace articles. ("Mainspace" is Wikipedia jargon for talking about all articles, generally; as opposed to, say, "User space" or "User talk space" and so on.)

One thing you should work on is how to respond to a Talk page conversation (Hint: not by creating a new Talk page section, but by using threading) and how to use indent. I mentioned this to you here (04:51, 22 June) and recommended you have a look at Help:Using talk pages, especially the section Replying to an existing thread, and understand how to use colons (' : ') to indent your replies properly. For more about using Talk pages, you could try the tutorial at H:TALK.

When you make a reference to something here on your User talk page, it's a courtesy (not a requirement) to add a Wikilink to it. For example: above, where you said, "Henia agrees not to edit the article directly ..." a new editor coming to your talk page might wonder what article you were talking about. It is a courtesy to wikilink that to the article you mean. As this is your talk page, per WP:TPO it's not appropriate for me to edit your words, but you can. So as a "homework assignment", if you accept, please modify your post above, and link your words "the article" above using a "piped link". You can read about piped links at MOS:LINK and at Help:Link. (If you open this section to read the wikicode, you will see that "Help:Link" in the previous sentence is a piped link.)

The same thing applies, when referring to Users by name, you should link their names which will cause Wikipedia's Notifications system to notify them. The first three paragraphs here explain how to do this by simply linking the user's name in your post. So for example, anytime you put {{U|Mathglot}} on your talk page, I will get a notification that you have said something and wanted to alert me to come have a look. Now, since you were merely thanking a bunch of users, I don't think it's necessary to alert them all; some of them are busy users and gets lots of notifications. But, if you refer to a user by name concerning some topic they should be aware of, and certainly any time you criticize a user or call their behavior into question, you should always link their name so they can respond if they wish to.

A second part of your "homework", if you accept, is to respond to this Talk page conversation properly, by keeping your response in this section, and by using the proper level of indent. In order to let me know that you have replied, please use Template {{Reply to}} (or any of its aliases) in order to notify me that you have responded. Somewhere in your response, please use the {{U}} template described in the last paragraph with Carole's userid, so she will be notified.

So, here's a summary of your homework assignment:

Update your comments above, in order to link the words "the article" using a piped link to the proper article.
Respond to this comment, alerting me by using the {{Reply to}} template.
- Keep your response here in this section, do not start another section.
- Use proper indentation in your remarks. (Please have at least two paragraphs in your response to make sure you understand colons and indentation; they can be short paragraphs if you want.)
- Alert Carole by linking her userid inline somewhere in your response.

Whether you do or don't feel like trying this "homework", in my opinion a firm grasp of Talk page etiquette is a prerequisite before you go back to editing any article in mainspace or its talk page. So, my recommendation to you would be not to edit the article that got you blocked until you are fully comfortable with fundamental Talk page usage and guidelines, and have demonstrated a basic level of competence on your talk page, or on mine, Carole's, or Irondome's (or anyone else who has agreed to work with you).

Again, welcome back, and let's hope it goes better this time around. To avoid another block, it's important to listen to what other editors are trying to tell you. Thanking people or admitting fault like you have generously done numerous times is nice, but it's not as important as, or a substitute for, avoiding problem issues as much as possible by paying attention and fixing the behavior that got you blocked in the first place. Obsequious mea culpas and multitudinous expressions of gratitude won't stop you from being blocked for a longer period the next time. So while your gracious thanks and non-defensive acceptance of fault are admirable, please concentrate on learning the things you need to know in order to be a good contributor, so you can avoid those situations in the future.

There's no urgency about responding here, and if you are not feeling well or are otherwise busy with RL^{("Real life")}, then just wait until it's convenient for you to do so. We're all volunteers here. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very thoughtful suggestion, Mathglot. Henia, It will make you appear more polished, it will make it easier for people to follow the threads of conversations, and make communication with others easier for all involved. They are also terrific skills to build upon and necessary for communicating on article / mainspace talk pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion[edit]

I see that you've engaged in talk page discussion and have made progress based upon the suggestions from Mathglot. Of the steps:

Keep your response in the section, do not start another section. - Done, recent edits show that you have engaged is an ongoing discussion without creating a new section.
Use proper indentation in your remarks. (Please have at least two paragraphs in your response to make sure you understand colons and indentation; they can be short paragraphs if you want.) - Done, recent edits show the proper indentation of the conversation in several paragraphs.
Reaching out to others, one person and topic at a time. - Done, nice job!

Other steps for future conversations:

Link the words to an article using a piped link to the proper article. For instance, if you are referring to The Holocaust, put brackets around "The Holocaust" to link to the article, like [[The Holocaust]]. (That way, people can know exactly what article you are talking about and can click on the link, rather than having to search for the article to bring it up.)
Respond to the comment from Mathglot, alerting Mathglot by using the {{Reply to}} or {{u}} template. To do that, you would type {{Reply to|Mathglot}} or {{u|Mathglot}}
If you want to communicate with multiple people, use the {{ping}} template, much like the u or Reply to template, except that you add multiple names separated by a bar (|). For instance, I earlier showed you an example, where the typed characters were: {{ping|Rivertorch|RickinBaltimore}}

Great job, Henia!

(I see that you like smileys, and so I used variations of {{smiley}} and {{emoji}} templates)–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle vs. Henia[edit]

I see that you are also using the User:Rachelle Perlman user name, which is fine. It doesn't matter which one you use, but it would be nice if you could stick to one or the other. For one thing, you don't want to give the appearance of engaging in WP:Sock puppetry.

Just so that I can follow what's happening a little easier, do you have a preference which one you use going forward, Rachelle or Henia?

(By the way, I noticed that with the Rachelle user name that you engaged in conversation on the Talk:The Holocaust page properly, by indenting your comments properly, which made the conversation much easier to follow. Thanks for that!)–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia / Rachelle Perlman,

I am surprised to see some of your posts. It is looking like you are wanting to use the Rachelle Perlman user name from this post, are seeking help from ONUnicorn based upon this post, and misunderstood that the direction regarding talk page processes meant that I was going back on my word to help you with The Holocaust or other articles, which was not the case. Mathglot offered some kind suggestions... and worded it that way... to help you be more successful.

I am wondering, did you not see my posts here and the subsequent post about how I would help you, based upon what you had posted on my talk page?

It would seem that you no longer want my help, is that right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have misunderstood in the past, so I am just trying to be clear, but this is the very last time I am going to try to get clarity on whether you want my help or not. You are absolutely free to try to work this out on your own and/or find another person that will help you, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idea[edit]

Hi Henia,

I just had an idea. There are a number of red links at Bibliography of The Holocaust for authors, books and films... and even where there aren't red links for books, articles could be created for noted books, authors, or films. If there is a red link, someone has already thought that there should be an article.

Would you be interested in working on an article about one of the books, like Diary of a Witness, 1940-1943, Fragments of Memory (book).... or films like Daring to Resist: Three Women Face the Holocaust, Swimming in Auschwitz, or America and the Holocaust... or one of the authors... or another one of the books or films on the page that doesn't have a red link but is a noted work?

If any of these topics other books, etc on the page that are of interest to you, I would be happy to create a short stub article with some of the key points and all the Wikipedia necessities (lead, article sections, categories, etc.) and it could be something that you could work on... and build on... as you like and with the assistance of a mentor. That would be one way to 1) stay working on Holocaust topics, 2) build some expertise in Wikipedia, and 3) gain some positive experience providing meaningful content.

You could choose an author, book, or film that explores a Holocaust topic of particular interest to you. And, you wouldn't have to work with me... I'd just get you started with a stub article. This builds upon what Irondome and Mathglot have been saying, but gets you experience writing a Wikipedia article related to the Holocaust.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of a stub article about the Holocaust: The Girl in the Green Sweater: A Life in Holocaust's Shadow. See also Category:Holocaust stubs for existing stubs to build upon.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support the above strategy. It is very elegant solution Henia. It allows you to continue your WP engagement, if you so wish, and it will reinforce your standing here over the coming months. Irondome (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The block[edit]

I am so over reading about the block and how I quickly and seemingly with very little provocation implemented a block, which continues after you were asked to read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. So I hope to settle this once and for all:

You asked me to be a mentor (here) because you were having problems on Wikipedia and that people were upset with you (mentioned here, i.e. the problems were there before you even asked for my help). I ~~immediately~~ jumped in to help you, starting with this message. But ~~right out of the gate~~ you threw off offers to help, such as getting edits "article ready" and properly cited before posting them. I don't see that any advice or offers to help were assimilated from me or other people that you asked for help.
After you continued to make edits that were reverted, I talked to you about disruptive editing and asked you to read a warning message to understand the issue here.
In addition to discussion on multiple article and user talk pages about the issues with your contributions, I then posted multiple official warnings on your talk page here, here, here, and here.
After continued issues, I posted a message stating that the next level from there is block warning messages, which is here.
You then received a final warning and only warning message, which you ignored.
I took the issue to the Administrator's noticeboard and much initial discussion was focused on ways to prevent a block - and I stepped in to help make the one of the two options work for you, which you then backed out of. More information can be found at User_talk:CaroleHenson/Archive_13#My_decision_about_2_options and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Request_block_of_User:Henia_Perlman.
So an administrator, not me, performed the actual block - after several people had weighed in that it appeared that the block was now necessary.

~~Even~~ then, I threw out some positive input and suggestions... which you seem to think are additional examples of how I have wronged you.

So when you make statements about me, please make sure that you are following the facts of what really happened. I am the first to say that I make mistakes and I will own up to them, but to say that this was done unfairly (which in my world means that I didn't follow the right processes) is wrong.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out words that are unhelpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia, I was saddened to see your overture to User:HJ Mitchell on his talk page. While you certainly may appeal to any user you choose, calling for an "investigation" of the very people who have invested the greatest amount of their time trying to help you, is bizarre at best. Many editors here have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help you; in my experience at least, more than I have seen to help any other editor. So you have been fortunate, indeed. But you continue to reject those who have helped you the most, in a single-minded attempt, so it seems to me (perhaps I am wrong) to find an editor who will support your views against the views of many other experienced editors at Wikipedia who have selflessly given you their best advice. I realize that you are a retired expert in your field, and that we have much to learn from you in that field, and I look forward to that. At that same time, you are a new editor at Wikipedia, and yet you seem to reject the advice of those who would wish to help you here. That's what makes me sad, because I fear your intransigence in learning the ways of Wikpedia, will deprive me, and others, of your wisdom and experience concerning your area of expertise. That would be a loss to the encyclopedia. I hope that you are able to find a path that works for you, here. But to be frank, my assessment of the chances of that, is waning. We would be the poorer for it; I hope you are able to prove me wrong. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC) updated at Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, thank you for taking the time to tell me your thoughts.

Thank you also for all your links that I have carefully read.

I have been waiting for more than two weeks, for Simon/Irondome, who volunteered to be my mentor, but attacked me as a selfish person, to help me format a quote and post a map.

Rivertorch understood that I want mentors who were not involved in my issues.

I won't edit the Holocaust article for awhile.

I feel it is important, for the sake of the article, to provide Ealdgyth the sources that he couldn't find and that I found, and offer suggestions based on my Holocaust academic experience.

I will do that at the Talk page, as per wiki rules, so experienced editors at Wikipedia can also be involved in the formating and discuss my suggestions.

I think that I have now all the help I need. Thank you.

Cordially, and I mean that. Henia Perlman (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight, because you've said it several times after being asked to read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND: I don't see anywhere that Irondome said you were selfish. He did explain that he had some personal life things to take care of. This is a volunteer activity and it is perfectly reasonable for people to have real life matters. It seems to me that his communication with you has been very courteous. Please also see WP:Civility.

Regarding the map, he asked for input from someone due to concerns about copyright issues. If you are awaiting feedback about that, please go back to the post at User_talk:Irondome#Following your advices and ask for an update.

You may have forgotten, but Ealdgyth has stated that she is female (not a "he").

I am glad that you have a new mentor and wish you the best of luck with him or her.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, I will work with my mentor on other articles. I needed to hear your advice from my mentor, because I needed to hear from somebody not involved in my issues, and not because I didn't trust you.

Carole, I have to check again about Simon's statement about me being selfish.

I cannot anymore do typing.

Thank you all.

Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An offer[edit]

Henia, I see that after the postings at ONUnicorn, HJ Mitchell, and Ealdgyth's pages are going nowhere, you still are bringing this up. Please also bear in mind that you have had a test run at this, because administrators and experienced users have read your request for an investigation and no one has replied your posting saying that you have a case... But since you still want to talk about an investigation, I have an offer. But I'd like you to think about something first.

You were a teacher so maybe this analogy will help. Let's say you have a student who continually did the same thing, even though he had been asked not to. Let's say he went and wrote a message on the blackboard that included a nice message, but also a message that took you off track from your lesson plans and required you to explain the issue to him and the rest of the class... not a terrible thing, but something that was unhelpful. At first you asked him nicely to please not do that, then you began to give him warnings that he would go to the principal's office if he continued. And, he continued. So, you said, this is your final warning, if you do that again, you are going to the principal's office. He did it again. What do you do?

Similarly, you continued to post content that was not ready for an article and was not cited after you had been warned about it. I talked you to you about it on the article talk pages, like at Talk:The_Holocaust#Other_German-occupied_countries and Talk:The Holocaust#Shanghai without citations... and I have summarized all the warnings that you received at the top of this section. Please notice that the final notice says "This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at The Holocaust, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." You then went and added content that was not ready for the article and not properly cited.

Regarding Irondome, which is another issue that you continue to bring up, here's another perspective. I don't remember him saying you were selfish, I remember his communication with you as exceedingly kind, but I could absolutely be wrong - particularly if it was made during this whole block business. Let's say he did say that. If you open an investigation about him saying that... that opens you up to being reviewed for all the things that you have said against others at Wikipedia. I think that if that went to ANI, the harshest outcome would be a request to be civil - and likely you be included in that admonition.

My offer: If after reading this, you still think something should be done about it, I am happy to raise a question at the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard page - as a self-report about the blocking process and to get their advice about whether an official incident request should be posted. In it, I would be referring to this section and probably the latest of your postings here, specifically question #1. Do you want me to do that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the question yourself at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, if you want to, as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may have gotten frustrated at times, but I am not angry with you. I see that your intentions are good, and I value your knowledge and experience. I just feel bad that you continue to be upset about this and I would like that to get resolved as soon as possible so that you can be happier here. I have had to have my share of 'reboots' or 'restarts' in my life (as pretty much everyone has had over their career and many years of life) - and I have my challenges now - so (without knowing your exact circumstances), I know how disconcerting things can be at times.

But please don't continue to spread half-truths or misconstrued versions of what happened across Wikipedia - like the latest you made today here. That is not fair. It is not nice. It is not needed... because I want to work with you to work out a solution that you are happy with.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self report at WP:ANI[edit]

This has gone on long enough, so I self-reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dispute_about_block_warnings_and_AN.2FI_block_request. It looks like the talk page wasn't the right route to take, and it should have gone straight to being an incident.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust expert barnstar[edit]

Holocaust expertise

Thank you very much for your input at Talk:The Holocaust which I will be using for Jews escaping from Nazi Europe to Britain and another general article Jews escaping from Nazi Europe, still to be worked on. For instance, the sources you provided about Kindertransport, the Evian conference, Olympic games of 1936, as well as Chaim Weissmann's viewpoint about the emigration crisis are very helpful! –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Carole. Henia Perlman (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Henia.

Many users, me included, like to save their barnstars. I have my own page now (User:CaroleHenson/Menu - recognition), but I used to store them - as many people do - on the user page. If you'd like me to copy this there, I would be happy to start your list of barnstars there for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page maintenance[edit]

Hello Henia,

Your talk page is your own and you can maintain it as you wish, by either deleting content that you don't think is needed any longer, archiving it (which I recommend in the spirit of transparency and it has a search feature that is very helpful and that I use often to find previous content on my talk page), or leave the discussions out here.

Since the warning and block experience has been hurtful for you, if you want to remove or archive that, you are well within your right to do so. See WP:User talk pages.

I am happy to set up the archive for you at the top of the page... and then you just need to click the "Archive" tag that appears at the top and right of each section to archive the content. It would go into a new page, like User talk:Henia Perlman/Archive 1. And, an archive box would be installed at the top of the page, like this:

Archives

no archives yet (create)

I am happy to do that for you if you wish. By my placing the archive box here, you can now click the "Archive" tag. If I see that you have done that I'll post the archive box at the top of the page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new day[edit]

I am an eternal optimist (and a tenacious problem-solver)... and I keep hoping it's a "new day" for you where you find your niche here.

I thought I'd briefly summarize what I think are your current resources.

I believe you still have a mentor in ONUnicorn, who has an outstanding message for you at User_talk:ONUnicorn#Henia is asking you if you can mentor her. Your mentor is a wonderful resource to navigate your next steps.
The Teahouse is a great place to ask questions about how to do things.
Also see "Stuck" at Help:Contents for other avenues.
Mathglot offered to help identify articles to contribute to, when you mentioned on someone's talk page that you may want to contribute that way.
~~I am happy to help, so if you have a question, you can post a message on my talk page.~~
You may be interested in checking out Portal:Judaism... or Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history and it's talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history.

Regarding some of your open questions:

You have asked how you could be blocked for Talk page activity. If you are Civil and provide meaningful input, I don't see a problem. You may want to refrain from asking the same questions repeatedly at Talk:The Holocaust, I don't think that would result in you being blocked, but it's unhelpful.

Your mentor is your best resource to help you make meaningful contributions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I struck out the earlier offer as my input does not seem to have any impact.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this, and I agree with CaroleHenson on this one - I believe mentorship would be a very good path forward. GAB^gab 01:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust historiography of the last five years[edit]

Hi, Henia, I'm not sure what your intentions are at this point, as this sounded vaguely like a swan song, but in any case I do have one specific rquest for you about Holocaust sources if you don't mind. At this edit you said:

Historiography of Holocaust has been evolving very fast in the USA, especially in the last five years.

and I wonder if you wouldn't mind expanding on that a little.

In particular, if you could make a list below of the five or ten most indispensable works or articles of the last five years in your opinion, I would appreciate it. I'm particularly interested in your comment about "evolving very fast in the USA" and wondered what you meant by that. My city has a Holocaust library with 30,000 volumes, and I could recommend they acquire some new works, if there are any on your list they don't have. In any event, I'd like to know what you were referring to.

(Here's some help on how to make a list: H:LIST.)

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, last book of Gerlach (2016), incorrectly quoted in Holocaust article, may be helpfu.

Doris Bergen's latest edition of her book.

Changes in historiography were reflected in the last article I mentioned as a source, when I posted a new lead, YAd Vashem's new definition of Shoah (in video) that YV translates into "Holocaust" as the attempt to annihilate the Jewish people (mentioned in my lead proposal).

Holocaust in the US does not refer to Shoah - this happens, according to their website, only at the Memorial museum in Paris, France and at Yad Vashem.

There are a lot of issues of content, structure, etc... in the current Holocaust article at wiki.

The current reader will easily notice that, because of the internet.

I don't have the time, and health to deal a lot with that.

An academic friend of mine, who worked at same institution where I used to work, may publish an article on the Holocaust at Wiki.

Mathglot, I think that you are a smart person, and I wonder how you don't see the f faults in the current Holocaust article.

Sorry about delay as I am still traveling.

Be well.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Henia,

Just to be clear, are we talking about these:

Christian Gerlach (2016) The extermination of the European Jews
"...reflected in the last article I mentioned as a source, when I posted a new lead" - sorry, what was this reference, explicity, please?
Regarding Doris Bergen: are we talking about, The Holocaust: A Concise History ?
"...the last article I mentioned as a source, when I posted a new lead" - Can you repeat the reference here? Not sure what you mean.
"Holocaust in the US does not refer to Shoah ..." - Not sure what you mean, here. If you mean, "English and French have different words for The Holocaust", this is not controversial. Or, did you mean something else?
"I don't have the time, and health to deal a lot with that..." Swan song?
Regarding your comment, " I think that you are a smart person, and I wonder how you don't see the f faults in the current Holocaust article," the answer is simple: I have not been reading the Holocaust article, so I don't notice either the faults, or the strengths.
You said, "Sorry about delay as I am still traveling," but you don't need to let us know about that. Wikipedia is a volunteer project; this is not a job for you (or for anyone else) so when you don't feel like contributing, don't contribute. You don't owe anyone here an explanation for why you are not responding to their comments. You have a RL (real life) which takes precedence over Wikipedia,just like everyone else. So, no need to apologize about it.

Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia Perlman, an indefinite block was the consensus opinion of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dispute about block warnings and AN/I block request -- in order to protect Wikipedia from disruptive editing. Please note that after a six-month waiting period of not editing on Wikipedia, a Standard Offer is available to you should you so desire. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia has no plan to appeal the block[edit]

Message only to CactusWriter: It is very clear that there is a consensus, that I understand, to block me indefinitely. I have attentively read messages of everybody.

I do believe that you, the administrator, blocked me with good reason. I just would like to better understand the reason stated in the block. You wrote that the block is "for persistently making disruptive edits" I didn't edit any articles since the 31 hrs block. Here my question: does it mean that the current block is an expansion of the 31 hrs block? I am not lying: I have no intention of appealing the consensus block - I hope that I am clear. I just want to understand. Thank you. Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CactusWriter: (adding this to make sure the admin is aware). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth for your kind intervention - I mean that.

You are right: You shouldn't look for my sources about Shanghai.

I found them.

I would like to provided them to you, and also the sources that you didn't find - I do like to do research!

Do you want me to post them in my user talk?

I do truly want to help create a good article and respect policies and guidelines of wiki - I am reading a lot of them.

Thank you again Ealdgyth

Henia Perlman (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henia Perlman, the reasons for the indefinite block are well-outlined in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dispute about block warnings and AN/I block request as well as in the numerous discussions in your talk page above. For the general policy, you should read the guideline Failure or refusal to "get the point" and the essay Competence is Required. After a waiting period of six months during which you have not edited Wikipedia, you may apply for reinstatement of editing privileges as instructed at Standard Offer. Please note that I will not continue to discuss this with you further. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]