User talk:Elinruby

Pétain's disability

Someone changed "senile" describing Petain's last years at Yeu with the following edit summary:

(→‎Imprisonment: The term 'senile' is an offensive and dismissive way to describe cognitive impairment.)

But I don't think the substitute wording means much to non-experts:

By the end of 1949, Pétain was suffering from severe cognitive impairment, with only occasional moments of lucidity.

I suppose this should go (if it warrants it) to the Pétain talk page, but I wondered if you or Mathglot or another of your lurkers might have a good idea of giving information without giving offence. "Senile" isn't offensive to me in this context (after all, the word is being pretty freely thrown around both candidates for the 2024 U.S. presidential election), but I could see how others might see it as offensive in the context of this article. And on this day, don't forget to remember where Marshal Pétain was on 11 November 1918. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't something I would want to be called or even be ;) But I don't think the word has been declared offensive, although it might be anyway to readers who have family members with the condition and might find it hurtful, I guess, but I'm not aware that it's all that derogatory.

Maybe we should consider rewording though? Because we can?

Some thoughts

• Well. The statement is sourced (apparently) and he's a long-dead public figure, so no BLP concerns.
• I'm pretty sure the statement is true -- I had to check to be sure I didn't write that text, and I know I have previously expressed the opinion that he was a Ronald Reagan and never really was the one running the country, it was all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons....But no. I didn't write it. Pretty sure I have read it though, and I've definitely thought it.
• I didn't check the history, but I don't recognize the source. I don't suppose you have it, eh? but if indeed the statement is true, then he wasn't exactly an obscure figure, and we should be able to verify, using another source if need be. And since the wording has been challenged, we should probably do that regardless, as an exercise in due diligence if nothing else.
• If a source specifies a name for his condition, great, that solves that problem by giving us better vocabulary, but I think it's unlikely he got a specific diagnosis in the late 1940s.
• Alternately, do we lose much information if we do this:

  By May, Pétain required constant nursing care, and often suffered from hallucinations, e.g. that he was commanding armies in battle, or that naked women were dancing around his room.[70] By the end of 1949, Pétain was suffering from severe cognitive impairment, with had only occasional moments of lucidity.

  (?)

What do you think? I usually try not to be dismissive if I can manage that, but I don't think it's like the article had an egregious flaw that we overlooked or anything. But now that someone has pointed out the word maybe we should think about it Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

apparently it's unquestionable: he was replaced in 1942, but remained in office as a figurehead. [1]

19th-century Montmartre

@Piotrus: Some algorithm or other asked me if I was interested in this: this, probably because, as we discussed a while back, there are some mentions there of the painter you asked me about, the friend of the Polish poet. The mentions weren't real substantive but made me think he probably came up a lot in society pages about the salons. He might make an interesting mention in an article on Montmartre in the late 19th century, or as background for School of Paris or one of the articles about Impressionists. There is probably room for an article like that, or even one about emigres in Paris; the sheer density of artists, writers, playwrights and such is notable, should somebody feel like writing about it. Maybe I should start gathering sources Elinruby (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. And I still am toying with idea of translating his biography to French Wikipedia - maybe someone there will be able to expand it better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

PS. Actually, I did so, since it is so short: fr:Charles Pétiniaud-Dubos. As usual, if you'd like to double check my French there, it would be appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

the proofreading can happen. I actually spent a fair amount of time looking for him and am confident he isn't in the usual databases (BnF, Gallica, Persee, Scholar, etc) beyond the brief mentions discussed above, but there may be an art historian out there who has done a study of the period. French wikipedia is Like That sometimes. I think we would need to look at contemporary periodicals. Would there be anything on Polish wikipedia about artists in Paris? I know at least some of then School of Paris were Polish, but I am not clear on the absolute numbers. There were also Russians, Belarussians and Lithuanians, I know, and I didn't fact-check nationalities; I don't think I quite understood how the borders were then. Maybe still don't. Anyway, sure, I can also start some notes on sources for a broader topic.I am sure there are huge articles on many aspects of the impressionists but School of Paris is probably still start class. That and the emigres may take some digging, as there was antisemitism in the name, which was intended to be derogatory, and the French are still trying to come to terms with World War 2; the earlier homegrown xenophobia would be harder. Maybe track what was going on in those countries, in hmm the turn of the century? If t0hat's confusing don't worry, I am thinking out loud and it will be clearer once I start the timeline. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought I answered this. There are no glaring errors in the translation but I would have worded some of it differently. And it seems that Montparnasse was the neighborhood of choice btw. Pinged you to a very rough sandbox list of School of Paris artists. A LOT of them were Polish if that is of interest. Your guy is earlier than that, though. I am trying to tie up some loose ends but will see if I can find more sources by includinf Limousin as a search term and if so me rewrite the article a little Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Pétain, encore

Someone added "and statesman" to this lede paragraph:

Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Pétain (/peɪˈtæ̃/, French: [filip petɛ̃]); 24 April 1856 – 23 July 1951) was a French military officer and statesman who commanded the French Army in World War I and became the head of the collaborationist regime of Vichy France, from 1940 to 1944, during World War II.

Philippe Pétain was more than a military officer, but — unless "statesman" is generic and non-judgemental in Wikipedia (is Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Idi Amin a "statesman"?) — is there a better-focussed and less-loaded term for his rôle as Chef de l'État Français ? Or is any term needed when the lede sentence ends, "and became the head of the collaborationist regime of Vichy France" ?

@Mathglot: —— Shakescene (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Worthwhile question, but not here. Can you move this to Talk:Philippe Pétain? For the time being, I've reverted it, because whatever the right word is, 'statesman' is certainly not it. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

de facto leader? except see above, he apparently wasn't leading much as of 1942 (side musing: maybe that is why the policy on the black market change that year) The mental health issue is likely undue for the lede though. "Figurehead" is probably truest but still too different from conventional wisdom Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"Figurehead" might absolve him from the anti-Semitic laws he signed within three or four months of taking office. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I see this went to the talk page. FWIW I took a look at the lede and see no issue with the way it is currently written. Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

right. To the extent that my opinion matters I don't think we should, and more importantly I think the mental illness may have only recently entered the historiography. The source I found for this was *medical* remember, even though RS as hell. Pretty sure there would be a huge outcry and the sources wouldn't be accepted. I am not sure there is enough there yet myself. Even if he was stark raving bonkers as of 1942 he still had some power and agency before that and chose to appease the Nazis. But it probably rules out calling him a caudillo, is where I was going, and that's a South and Central American term anyway. I should re-read the lede before opining further, but I am inclined just say nothing atm. Does what is there after Mathglot's revert seem correct to you? All this moral ambiguity might be undue in the lede. By the way, no objection to my comment moving with the thread. Elinruby (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

actually, if people want I will summarize the above on the Pétain talk page later today, might be less awkward Elinruby (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration lite

Apparently, and not surprisingly really, people in Paris didn't know how to react when occupying German soldiers very courteously would ask them for directions. It troubled Sartre a lot, and there's an interesting short discussion of this in the Jean-Paul Sartre article, in the middle of the § World War II section. This reaction or syndrome seems like a worthy subject of serious study, and I wonder if there has been any. I wonder if there are papers on different "levels" of collaboration, from these incidents at one end, to Pétain, Laval, Lafont, or Vallat at the other. Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Interested. This is (or overlaps) the stuff I was talking about when I created that historiography section. Current writing about this seems very geared to daily life under the occupiers. According to my reading this approach was preceded by a period characterized by Vichy syndrome that followed the repudiation of the Gaullist narrative. Does that match up with what you have seen? We should probably do a written literature review, because reasons, and getting back to a related matter I've mentioned before, it would *REALLY* be cool if we could at least get the article category tree to distinguish between this and workplace collaboration software for enterprise remote workers. Elinruby (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot

I've long been toying with the idea (massive though the resulting work might be) if it wouldn't be better in the relevant articles to talk about Cooperation with occupying powers, rather than Collaboration, which may once have been a neutral, objective term, but has been a term of of moral condemnation since the 1940's.

Cooperation is something that can be described objectively without implying difficult moral judgements: if you give directions, or coordinate train schedules, or translate something (either way), or issue ration cards or remove bombs, you would be cooperating with your occupiers — but we wouldn't have to guess why. There's a whole spectrum ranging roughly from non-opposition to non-resistance to appeasement to acquiescence to acceptance to grudging collaboration to willing collaboration to enthusiastic alliance to exceeding occupier's demands (e.g. sacrificing children when the Germans only ask for adults).

The motives (ranging from fear to joy), on the other hand, are an important question — much raised in trials after the Axis's fall (and later after the fall of East Germany) — that Wikipedia can discuss but about which it need not render judgement.

We've discussed this before in relation to the Baltic states — can a ministerial act be seen as collaboration with Germany or with Stalin, or with both, or with neither?

Of course, this is too big a question for just one User's talk page, but I'm interested in your thoughts. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

fwiw I don't know of a better place to discuss this. it doesn't relate to a specific page, and yes, these is a recurrent problem of definition in the topic, plus the issue of someone(s) misusing "collaborationist", the question of conscripts or gang-pressed prisoners, horizontal collaboration, the fact that sources call buying on the black market "collaboration", and editors want to limit its use to countries, as in our old Arbcom friends "Poland never collaborated with the Nazis" and "ok, the Blue Police were Polish but they were recruited at gunpoint", not to mention "anyone who was in a German unit of any type was a collaborationist", recently seem at AE and I could go on. One end of the spectrum would be appeasement as in A thony Eden, and there was also doing business with Nazis (IBM, Hollywood, art looting, Joseph Joanovici (sp?) And the rescue of Danish Jews with the help of Dr.q Best.,.) I started a bibliography in a sandbox, is all I can think to do. surely we aren't the first to notice this; surely some political scientist has attempted a taxonomy? Getting back to Sartre, what about a waiter at one of the five-star Paris restaurants the German officers frequented? Farmers whose crops were seized by Germans? Shakescene note that sources at Black market.in wartime France definitely use "collaboration". Other suggestions welcome. Elinruby (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

For examples of the moral ambiguity of living under force, see Civilian life under the German occupation of the Channel Islands#Collaboration and German occupation of the Channel Islands#Collaboration. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Regency of Algiers article

Hello @Elinruby

First of all thank you for your massive contribution to this article Regency of Algiers, it's much more pleasent to read this way, and regarding your last modifications in the "Soceity" section, i relied pretty much on one arabic secondary source only, as it presented an overview of the Algerian urban soceity, so i had to translate some parts and rewrite other parts, yet my english is still a bit rough, so i think that your contributions are much appreciated and more sources will be added if need in this section.

Best regards. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It is much better with Arabic sources and ideas than when I worked on it a while back.

What I meant by "vague" is that it is very difficult to find a source for something like--i forget what I took out -- "the city had many amenities" for example, especially in English, and the French felt strongly that they were bringing civilization and in the 18th century were.pretty sure that civilization looked like them.

I really liked the new stuff about the economy and idea the madrasas, except that were the sources for that French? It may be hard to not say they were low-quality because they didn't teach science yet not make them sound by hotbed s of religious zealotry, But go you, I am sure you can do it. I know you said the scholars were in Tlemcen (do I remember that right?) But...

I will talk about this more at the talk page, as I am getting tired and don't have specifics handy. But Muslims not selling alcohol seems unsurprising. Maybe talk about those coffeehouses instead. Were there any poets who hung out there? Or was it a military town only? No, right? The stuff about wheat from Russia was interesting, also the silkworms. What was the music like? All those slaves-- did they sell them? Make them do construction? See where I am going? Also you don't have to listen to me and are free to tell me to piss off, but I think you are better of with a vigorous but friendly edit from someone with a an interest and a little knowledge than an unfriendly edit from someone who is bored by gw topic. I'll take another pass in about a week how is that? I realize it's a work in progress but by the way, if you are using machine translation please don't. Unless there is really no other way. I guessed quite a bit, which is why i want you, who knows what happened, to make sure I didn't guess wrong. If you *can* translate from Arabic by hand, even to French, the results will be much better. But don't put French in the article! If you want go through French, ping me and we'll figure out where to put the French.

Don't worry, be happy and thanks for working on the article ;)

Château de La Ferté-Imbault

Hi,

I've been chiselling away at "Château de La Ferté-Imbault" in a very disorganised way, but I think I'm beginning to see progress. There's still a lot more to do, of course.

One issue I've had is with the interlanguage link to fr:Duché d'Aerschot. English Wikipedia actually has a page "Duke of Aarschot" which contains less information than the French page, but when I try to add the French language link to the sidebar of that page, I encounter a problem: the English page is in the Wikidata category Duke of Aarschot, while the French page is in the category Duchy of Aarschot. I'm tempted to merge the categories, but I don't want to break anything. Any suggestions?

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

looking ... There is a difference in the category tree. But Let's start here: the original problem is that you want to ILL to fr:Duché d'Aerschot? Because it has the most information? it's weird, on the Fr side the hierarchy is:

• Catégorie:Duc
• Catégorie:Duc d'Aerschot
• Duché d'Aerschot
  • Dans d’autres langues
  • Català
  • Nederlands
  • Русский
  • Українська

But in English

• Category:Dukes of Belgium
• Category:Dukes of Aarschot
  • Links to Catégorie:Duc d'Aerschot
• Duke of Aarschot

This is a worthy thing to fix both are at the same hierarchy level under the Duke, but can't we just display text that isn't "Duke of Aarschot? Or do I still not understand the question?

Apparently I am overthinking again because Duché d'Aerschot works too but won't if you link "Duke of Aarschot" to *Duché d'Aerschot" in the side ar (or someone else does, then the links above will go to Duke of Aarschot, which is what you don't want, right? Let me let the cat in and look at the article history

Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

My thinking was that since we have an English page "Duke of Aarschot", I should link to that, and anyone looking for more information could follow the link to the French article from the sidebar of that article ... except that the French article wasn't linked from the sidebar. It's not a big deal either way. I haven't any experience of editing Wikidata, and it's getting a bit late for me to start experimenting this evening, but the interlanguage link will do the job for now, and I can always expand "Duke of Aarschot" from "fr:Duché d'Aerschot" in the future.

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I was confused, in part because I edit on a phone a whole lot and forget that sidebar is there on other platforms. But it's a link like any other, I've done those.

Just cautioning you while that linking Duke of Aarschot" from "fr:Duché d'Aerschot wouldn't *break* anything, I don't think, since they each have the Duke as a parent category except it will break your ILL. (but @Mathglot: knows more about categories than I do) but would if you do that you will have to work around the English page you don't like. It might be easiest to expand the English page, but that depends on how much is involved, how much time you have, and how many other associated pages need expansion or creation.

meanwhile: what else is in Duke of Aerschot besides the page? and it trips me out that the french put the Duchy under the Duke. But back to your answer, there isn't a rule that says you "should" link to the English article rather that the French, and a much better or longer French is a good reason to go the other way. But if the link goes in the sidebar the ILL will go the to the English article, and the system people frown on the fr:article title syntax you used above, because while it works it doesn't get tracked. But your call. Feel free to discuss anything else here if you like; always ready how overthink something. I'm just glad you're working on that article. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

When the US wanted to take over France

Some interesting stuff in this article in Le Monde Diplomatique (in English) about US plans for France post-war: When the US wanted to take over France. I knew about a lot of the antipathy between FDR and CDG, and I knew it was dicey whether France was going to be considered a 'Western Ally' post-war (and thus to be counted as among the victors, with all that meant, including, for example, getting a piece of Berlin) but I didn't know it went this far; and although I knew about FDR's overtures to Giraud and Darlan in No. Africa, I didn't know about the connection between those meetings and FDR's post-war plans for France, and that he was apparently thinking about it that early. I can think of half a dozen articles where bits of this may be relevant. Anyway, sorry to keep dumping ideas on you, but I'm stuck on a bunch of things, and just wanted to get this written down somewhere before I forget, so don't feel like you have to do anything with it. It's an interesting read, though, so enjoy it. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This totally went over my head; I assumed you were responding to someone else in that comment. This post was merely a link to an article with a bit of the history around the FDR-de Gaulle tension that I thought would interest you, and I hope it does. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It kinda was to someone else, but it two months ago, and it was never deliberately posted let alone to you.

My deepest apologies, because no. you did not deserve that. I was trying to get it our of the phone buffer when I was moving text earlier.

It's about some editor endlessly banging on about what a terrible editor I am, look at that page block, and ooh look at this too, and he was going to have somebody straighten me out unless Igave some respect his admonishments about a purportedly erroneous and/or malicious cn tag from 2020, ffs, on a hot button article, like it would even still be undealt-with in September 2023,

I finally had to template him. Three times before he stopped. It isn't inappropriate for you to object to it now you undeservedly saw it, so I am not going to remove what you said, but I wish you would, or at least the diff, lest it lead to more of that shit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what this means, who "he" is, and I don't know what you mean by "objecting" to something. I'm mystified, as I'm not objecting to anything, and this discussion is strictly about linking an article from Le Monde diplomatique which I thought might be of interest to you; everything else has gone completley over my head, and I am clueless about what it means. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

((tq|This totally went over my head...etc}) is what I am apologizing for. But fine. I haven't read the article yet but I do have thoughts from past readings. Apparently the question of whether France was an Ally or just got rescued was apparently why de Gaulle was so insistent on joining up with the Alled Army and why he wanted that column to liberate Paris, ie French participation [don't you dare[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I also seem to remember reading that de Gaulle had a lot to do with the FFI jumping the gun here: Battle of Vercors. Didn't we have a conversation about what an idiot the Allies thought he was back when we were doing Liberation of France? Seems like we did; I was pretty shocked, national mythology getting debunked and all.

Reading now Elinruby (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

quite a bit to unpack there - mythologies crashing indeed. I liked:

The US depicted De Gaulle as a rightwing dictator and a puppet of French communists and the USS

• The US depicted De Gaulle as a rightwing dictator and a puppet of French communists and the USSR

LOL

Also who though France would agree to be the same country as Germany?

Elinruby (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There was certainly a lot of disagreement in the US about how to handle de Gaulle and the role of France post-war, and what with FDR being head of his administration and the executive branch, I guess it makes sense to say "the US depicted <this-or-that>", as long as it's clear that there were major figures on the other side of that debate. Such as, for example, Eisenhower, who the article never mentions and had a more pragmatic view about CDG, which was essentially the prevailing one post-war, not FDR's view. One wonders how things might've turned out for France, had FDR lived another few years, but now were getting into fabulist history. Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

French elites supported the idea: they clung to the Vichy regime, which had restored privileges taken away by the pre-war republican government

Do you know what elites and what privileges they are talking about there? It almost sounds like the aristocracy, but surely they didn't have many privileges de jure by the Third Republic? Tax breaks maybe? Elinruby (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brazil in World War II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salvador and Nata.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Elinruby :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal theory of Italian witch trials

Hi, E., since both you and @Mathglot: have some interest in arcane legal history, one or both of you might be interested in this Ref. Desk question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Legal_system_of_early,_15th_century_Italy

—— Shakescene (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Russian Volunteer Corps

I've been around here for a long time, and not once has the Random article link in the left sidebar ever led me to anything really interesting, even though I keep trying, every few weeks or so. Until today, that is, when it landed me at Russian Volunteer Corps. I thought you might like to add this to your watchlist. Interesting article; I never heard of them before. So, tell me: what's your most interesting landing page from 'Random'? If you don't use it, try it in the top group of tools under 'Main page', or just click here. I clicked it myself, and it landed me at Jónsi, an Icelandic musician. Each time you click it, it will take you somwhere else; usually, entirely forgettable articles. But Russian Volunteer Corps is worth a read. Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

i will look. I am off grid though and will be for the rest of the weekend. Not really in charge of the schedule either. May have time to read that article while eating lunch here. Don't really use Random Article but I was pretty much doing the same thing with WP:PNT until I gave up on it also. I think my reasons were different than yours though. Elinruby (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

interestingly, one of the articles I was thinking of mentioning was Harbin Russians. Elinruby (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

has Bellingcat said anything about this? Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen them say anything directly about them, but in searching, I did find Bellingcat talking about another group I never heard of, a Russian "esoteric neo-Nazi" or "esoteric Hitlerist" group called "Wotanjugend". There's three mentions of them in Wikipedia articles but we don't have an article about them. Not clear if there's sufficient sourcing out there for them to be notable or not. If you search, you'll find a bunch of music results; that's not a different group, that's related to them. Related searches: 'Alexei Levkin', 'National Socialist Black Metal' (NSBM), 'M8L8TH', Hitler's Hammer. Mathglot (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

My crude impression — from a couple of BBC and/or PBS news accounts way back — is that the Corps' leader does indeed call himself a fascist, but that his force is open to any Russian who's against Putin or for the Ukraine. I suppose that this might be roughly parallel to Vlasov's volunteers who were anti-Stalin but (I think) not necessarily either pro-Hitler or pro-German. See Mark Mazower's "Hitler's Empire" (Penguin).

Historic Russian fascism (such as the Russian Fascist Party and the All-Russian Fascist Organization based in Putnam, Conn.) is a slightly different (though perhaps overlapping) subject; they did support a fascist future for Russia and were organized on fascist lines (with the inevitable bitter clashes between those competing to be Leader).

See Erwin Oberlander's essay on "The All-Russian Fascist Party" in International Fascism 1920-1945 in the Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 1, no.1, edited by Walter Laqueur and George Mosse (reprinted as a Harper Torchbook in 1966. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Welp, originally I was skeptical because I wasn't familiar with the sources, nor was I certain that this was a good enough reason to be skeptical. In no particular order I wondered about false flags and false false flags and the prevalent practice of militias in the area of identifying themselves with a cloth tied around an arm. Some better-known sources have since been added by people I recognize from other articles. I am certain that the meticulousness you two are known for +at least by me) could only benefit the topic area. Interesting that White Russians keep coming up.

I am only in for a minute and apparently my bibliography for the Arbcom request is throwing errors so I gotta fix that. Be aware that you will probably be accused of glorifying Nazis or whitewashing them or whatever if you investigate. Working on the part where doing that should require some relationship in the facts. I did find the sourcing mother lode for collaboration typologies, motivational analysis and the relationship to resistance but my notes are too verbatim to put up yet. Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Bryansk Oblast raid relies heavily on TASS, which is discouraged if not deprecated, just saying. I also see references to Azov, so what I said above goes triple, given the Russian propaganda and the fact that at some point the group did indeed call themselves Nazis. The above refers to Wotanjugend btw, which seems pretty separate from the one that collaborated with the Chinese. It should be noted that from some people anti-communist is synonymous with Nazi and reams and reams and reams have no doubt been written about this, but little of it in English. Those sources that do exist tend to be of the "call your senator and tell him" variety though. Also, if you are going to swim in those waters, the original writing often seems to have consistently been sourced to the first item in a Google search. I had to take the first sentence to RSN three times back in the day. I think the topic has improved a bit since Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

However, apart from the people who may have something in the topic watchlisted, there does seem to possibly exist an untold story; for example there is also Iron Wolf (character) and Iron Wolf (organization), which are topic-adjacent...maybe what's needed is a dab page, but even that would be pretty fraught. Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

[2] Sample hijinks in Russian Volunteer Corps; either of you have time to verifiy this? Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Check out My very best wishes fighting the good fight in #Removal of ideology and its sources. He's a native Russian speaker who is probably being polite when he says he can't umderstand it. I could say more but I better not. In my opinon the topic might be notable if real but PoV is being pushed pretty hard either way and MVBW is probably the best person to deal with it.

EHRI

Looks authoritative and all [3] until you realize it's quoting Wikipedia. Verbatim and cited all legit, but not a source Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

mira tambien [4] Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Source Removal

I see you're systemically removing reliable sources with the justification "do not meet sourcing standards", such as [5]. Can you clarify what "standard" you're enforcing here? "Not academic" isn't a sufficient rationale to remove a source in most circumstances. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

VQuakr there's an Arbcom decision about the Holocaust in Poland, several years old. Most editors in the topic area already know about it. I can see why you would question it though; i did the fist time i heard about it Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you link the decision please? VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes but not right now.Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

VQuakr there are seven cases about the Holocaust in Poland; I think the restriction is in [6]; if not it is currently being discussed in a request for amendment that would extend it to Lithuania. Let me know if that doesn't answer your question. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

actually that's the amended current version but should still answer your question Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's just WP:APLRS. Neither the NBC News nor Gazeta Wyborcza sources should have been removed from articles based on that, as both are reputable institutions generally recognized as reliable. BTW going forward if you're going to cite a standard please do so up front rather than a handwaving at "sourcing standards". VQuakr (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I believe you are mistaken, since I have previously tried that argument with respect to the Washington Post and the New York Times, which are certainly respectable. Conceivably the people I was talking to at the time were mistaken, but I don't think so. Consumer news publications are excluded; these wiki articles merely predate the decision. I think "respectable institution" -- note it does not say "respectable publication" -- is intended to mean Yad Vashem and the US Holocaust Museum. The intent of excluding news publications is that some editors use their verbatim quotes in an unbalanced manner. As for the second part of your remarks, perhaps, but the topic isn't usually patrolled by people unaware of the sourcing standards. I suggest you read the entire decision if you are unclear about this. As for your erronous reverts, the articles have been unbalanced this long, oh well. Status quo stonewalling is usually not worth fighting. I am giving you a day to read this before I delete. Elinruby (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You were so vague I couldn't be sure what you were referring to even though I'm familiar with that ruling. NYT and WAPO would be fine as well; can you link to a RSN discussion that said otherwise? Maybe re-read WP:AGF, too. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I just linked to a whole Arbcom decision that says otherwise. I tell you what though; I already asked for clarification of "respectable institution" in the modification request I am doing research for. I will reiterate my request that they get explicit about this since someone on my talk page refuses to drop the stick. It would probably be faster to just read the decisions you are misinterpreting though Elinruby (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Actually some one has just asked about the New York Times and was told BilledMammal academically focused is just as important as reputable publisher. So major universities' presses are examples of what passes. Beyond that I think it unhelpful to clarify in the abstract. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) so on second thought I decline to beat this dead horse at Arbcom on your behalf. You really should self revert, or at a minimum read the decisions, if you want to pursue this. Elsewhere, please, however. I feel I have been very patient about this Elinruby (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh look more needling, how helpful. I'd be curious to know what you think "impatient" looks like if this is your idea of "patient." Yes, I can self-rv. If you dislike follow-up on your talk page, use an adequate edit summary instead of a handwave in the first place. Simple cause and effect there. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You should really read the case. But as far as I am concerned you're somebody else's issue now. I gave you a link to the guy who drafted the last Holocaust in Poland decision, defining exactly the term you are confused about, and don't know what else to tell you if you're not convinced. And btw "go elsewhere" doesn't mean ping me three times with exactly the same question I already answered here. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I am convinced, I self-reverted already and continued discussion as directed by that AE. This is a collaborative project. If you remove sources citing (or in this case thinking of) a standard that states the next step is talk page discussion, it is a reasonable to assume that your participation in that talk page discussion will occur. You are the expert on why you thought those particular sources needed to be challenged. The questions posed on the article talk pages, which are specific to the sources and content being discussed, are different than the one posed here. "Go elsewhere" very much does mean to take it to the article talk page to invite your take there. WP:CIVIL is policy, BTW; not sure what's with the attitude but it would cost you nothing to be more pleasant. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Heh. That was me being unpleasant was it? Ok well. (Clears throat). Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: added a convenience link for you since I went over there to check something else. Elinruby (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good source for French slang

I have my usual go-to sources for unusual, rare, or obsolete French words, but they don't do well with slang and popular expressions, verlan, hip-hop, all that sort of stuff. Well, I just ran into LingQ.com, and based on the words I decided to look up while watching a French film with tons of slang, it does really well. Here are a few:

• taf – work
• pécho – hook up with (have sex)
• Beauvau – Ministry of the Interior (which is on Beavau street)

I understood taf in context, but wouldn't have sworn I knew it. The others, I never heard before. Thought you might be interested. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

/me squints: pécho isn't a french spelling, which is not to say that french can't import words, but it doesn't usually. Is that a verb or an action or... ils ont fait pécho? Not really doubting it, but no, not familiar with it. Beauvau is more than plausible. "Taf" could simply be from tache (should be accent circonflexe) esp in the south. If it's a noun. Looking to see if there is an etymology. Elinruby (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Pécho is native, not imported (the way toubib and kif-kif are imported). A lot of it (but not all) is from verlan, and lots of words in verlan are not particularly French-spelling archetypes (meuf, keum, relou, zarbi, etc.) I'm almost certain that pécho is double slang: first, from the regular slang word chopé, and then verlanized into pécho. As far as taf, one unreliable source says it's an acronym (from: travail à faire), but that sounds too much like a folk etymology, and I'm not sure I believe it. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should add French Wiktionary to my list; they also had pécho, and I never thought they would, and it confirmed my theory. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find that impressive also. Not that you need me to, but I can attest that chopé does mean all those things, and verlan seems plausible. I want to finish Henri Lafont, wah, I liked that first narrator. Aziz? Anyway so pécho, this thing is a verb that doesn't conjugate? Invariable? Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure, yet; only just learned that one in one context, but I'm sure it will come up again. If you have Netflix, you can amuse yourself with some good writing and acting in the Netflix original comedy series "En place" (Represent), while learning tons of slang at the same time; see the YT trailer. Enjoy! Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks Elinruby (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Morning

Morning @Elinruby: How things. Happy New Year. Whats your plans? Plans within plans. scope_creep^Talk 09:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Morning. I found a.bunch of sources on historiography of collaboration but some of them are disputed or contentious. This very second trying to determine the reliability of the Polish IPN, but I fundamentally don't care and i want to get out of the topic before i go from objective to jaded. I want to do something French. Countesses comes to mind, but i had pretty much decided to get at least one of the books. There's still the law project but for something less dry, i really enjoyed the 1940s underworld. Maybe something rhere ? Maybe the escape lines, even the Rednl Orchestra really. Elinruby (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: by the way I like that Complicated Complicity source you sent me; I used it in Lithuania. Trying to disengage from that though; it's a mug's game to try to fix it. I've managed to convey that there is more.than one source on each side, gonna call that a win I guess Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Amazon archaeology

[7] Mathglot I think this might have something to do with Montegrande (archaeological site). Elinruby (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I just looked and the Upano Valley sites are about 500 min away but if i am understanding the scale they sound related although not identical. Elinruby (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, exciting find! Look forward to see what research and excavation turns up in the coming years, plenty more discoveries to come, I'm sure. Thanks for sharing, Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dhruv Sharma

Hello, good day could you help me give a more neutral composition and writing to Dhruv Sharma article and achieve compliance with Wikipedia standards? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhruv_Sharma_(singer) 57ntaledane9 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've dealt with and left a wee note. scope_creep^Talk 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Scope creep. I am up to my ahoulder blades in concentration camps sourced to Jewish Virtual Library and genealogy sites. Are you or Mathglot interested in helping with that? I'm trying to find alternate sources to help keep the inevitable firestorm at bay. I know less than nothing about Indian pop music, and before I started tediously correcting the capitalization I'd want to be certain the singer is notable in the first place. I need to get back to the sources that contradict and disparage one another in the Holocaust in the Baltics articles.Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Elinruby. I missed this. I seem to make a comment and then leave. If your do if your still doing it. I will be more attentive in the future. scope_creep^Talk 19:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: sorry, you do what? Want to help remove Jewish virtual library? Do source verification? You're a brave man if so either way, but there's a huge amount to be done if so; notably articles on the Polish and Lithuanian Holocaust need to use academic sources per Arbcom. We should talk a little before about the background before you get started but for an intro the "On and on and on" is about one such foray and is now part of an AE complaint titled "SMcCandlish". One big problem off the top of my head is the source misrepresentation at Holocaust in Lithuania, see my edit summaries in the history. I stopped there to figure out Wikiblame but while I gotten it installed I haven't read the manual. When I say fallacy of composition I mean that "some antisemitic Lithuanians carried out pogroms" became "Lithuanians participated in the Holocaust" which became "all Lithuanians were Nazi collaborators". It's a lot more granular than that, and depending on how you define collaboration it is also possible to say that all French collaborated or they starved. Shrug. Let me know. Going to be gone until about 9pm my time Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: ah you were specifically talking about concentration camps. Most of them were in Poland, but there is plenty of that too. More later Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw your entry at the Arb motion. I had a conversation with SMcCandlish back in the day, a couple of years after I arrived. I wanted to use European dates and all those MOS cronies wouldn't let me. I told them I was going to ignore it and they said somebody else is coming to talk and it was SMcCandlish. He said you can't do this, and you can't do that. A stern conversation. So I never took up the issue of European dates formats and never got to use them. When I read the initial version of the essay he wrote, it was more of the same. Keep of the Grass. Its all about control. I actually like SMcCandlish as he is forthright and direct, but the MOS control does my head in. He's turning what should be dynamic standard into a static standard. And that whole essay should be deleted. On the other stuff. I've not looked at the Holocaust in Lithuania. I see it is a GA article, done almost 15 years. Standard have changed since them. Ping me on it, when you start planning. It doesn't seem to have a lot of content. The Norwegian article has a ton of well-ref'd content, which may be good. I've been removing the "Jewish virtual library" everywhere I go. Count me in for more removal. If there is lot of articles, as in 10's to 100's it might worth creating a wikiproject or something so we can track it and work away on it and ad-hoc basis. I've got three articles that are ad-hoc. It's impossible to work on complex article all the time, so a nice simple article like this Cothenius Medal is really easy work on. Source verification I don't mind doing. One article at a time. Long and difficult work but over weeks and weeks a bit at a time. The comment above, was just in case you were still working on the Dhruv Sharma article and needed help. scope_creep^Talk 23:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh. No. I never touch pop culture, haven't the patience for edit warriors over whether something is emo or folk or whatever. I have no idea where the editor got my name. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually I think this was when I was trying to explain the sourcing requirements at RSN, so probably there. Are you working on this? More later. Elinruby (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

just took a look. Drmies is on the case. Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was. How is that person even notable? Also, Elinruby, it's emo-folk, you know. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: I know, right? I am also pretty certain that despite the urge to scream into my pillow I took the time to politely tell them that names are capitalized in English. Speakers of languages that don't use the Roman alphabet often have trouble with capitalization and punctuation, so I wasn't particularly fussed about this, but since I did take the time to point the error out, it's a bit annoying that the article still says "rapunzel", which is the name of a sing also and even more so should be capitalized, mumble, especially since it's allegedly notable. Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm now I feel the need to pull the old Beatsie Boy CD off the shelf: "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair, / So I can climb up and get into your underwear". Drmies (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Tausūg people

added links pointing to Lati and Luuk

Lumad

added a link pointing to Agusan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Concentration camp in Alsace

Could use a little love, and surely there are collaborators here. Not that France needs more material and strictly speaking this all happened on territory that Germany had annexed, but the skulls wound up at a French school of medicine. Anyway, discuss? Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Possibly useful

the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service is clear from records made public by the Dutch Argus foundation. Elinruby (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/13/arts/heirs-awarded-nazi-looted-art-are-still-waiting-17-years-later.html https://greekreporter.com/2024/03/13/germany-looted-greek-antiquities-samos/

Brazil

Hello! Since in the last year we've talked a little about the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, you may like to see this page: Planning for a coup d'état after the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections. Cheers, Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

thank you Erick Soares3; @Mathglot: is probably also interested Elinruby (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Elin, thanks for the ping; Erick Soares3, very important topic; thank you for starting this. I've already made a few minor improvements. English is very efficient in its ability to pile up nouns and adjectives without the use of prepositional phrases to connect them as in Romance languages, leading to the much more concise 2022 Brazilian attempted coup plot. I look forward to contributing more to this article. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot @Elinruby Thanks! There's already a proposal to move the original article into “2022-2023 Brazilian attempted coup plot” (Tentativa de golpe de Estado no Brasil em 2022-2023), but I had only seen it after having published the English version. I would be good to check into the non-Portuguese language sources for anything useful for the article. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And the "Operation Tempus Veritatis" started yesterday brought back this subject into public view - and this page may turn into the main way how the international public will be aware of what is happening. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

fine-tuning some English, feel free to check or correct my work. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Net tightens on Bolsonaro as police seize passport in coup probe Brazil’s former president Bolsonaro under investigation in probe into attempted coup

• Brazil’s former president Bolsonaro under investigation in probe into attempted coupElinruby (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby and Mathglot: If you guys are interested on Brazil's history, you may like to see the stuff at Template:Government of João Goulart; the biography of Paulo de Mello Bastos (I had to read several old newspapers online to create his bio); and more recently, VLS-1 V01, VLS-1 V02 (I made them in the same way as Bastos's bio) and VLS-1 V03 (this one I had to expand). Since @Mathglot has a good-to-advanced knowledge of German, French and Spanish, those might be some good translation options, at least as stubs (especially in Bastos's case). Cheers, Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

And there's the Assassination of Marielle Franco. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Erick Soares3: that should be on List of scandals in Brazil at a minimum and probably also Corruption in Brazil. Deserves more prominence for sure; interesting that one of the suspects lives in the same building as Bolsonaro but I am not sure what conclusion to draw from that.

By the way, is this a good source? [8] If this is true, I am making popcorn. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes! That's a good source. That's going to happen in the 22th, and Moraes even denied Bolsonaro's attempt to change his subpoema date. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

For the historical stuff, there's the VASP Flight 375 (zero sources and is easier to translate it from scratch), that even became a movie. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Magpie River - Legal Personhood

Hi Elinruby, the CBC has done a documentary about legal personhood and the Magpie River. Don’t know if you could access it by a streaming service or YouTube? Here’s a link to a CBC article about the documentary: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7100728 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I am interested and will look into it Elinruby (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Konrad Henlein

That was a lot of edits to article Konrad Henlein, so I suppose that errors naturally crept in?

In this edit you changed:

"Czechoslovakia had attracted little attention in Britain before 1938, but the few who watched"

into

"Few in Britain had paid attention to Britain before 1938, but the few who did"

Nearby there is a strangeness from 2017

"would then split up into various factions that could then be more easily handed"

which I'd think would be 'handled'.

Seeing these puzzlers, I'd love to see the text closely re-read by a subject matter specialist such as you, looking for any other oddities. I think the article would be improved. Shenme (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shenme::

Oh.

It took me three reads to see that I didn't change the second "Britain" to "Czechoslovakia" as I intended. I'll fix that. Or you can, if you are already there and would like to. I did a big push to clean up some horrendous WW2 stuff about that time and apparently was moving too fast there.

The 2017 thing would not have been me but I suspect you are right about that. I don't mind revisiting this article, as I have been meaning to use this man elsewhere as an example of an ambitious nationalist; thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll see what I can do about handed/handled and whatever else.

Possibly Scope creep could be convinced to lend a hand also.

I remember the article now; I am sure it can be further improved, because it was terrible. Does it still go on at enormous length about gymnastics? User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Stuff Norwegians say

Hello, did you mean to create Stuff Norwegians say in a sandbox? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: yes, is there a problem with that title? It's a machine translation (attributed) from the Norwegian Wikipedia. Since it's a highly sensitive topic (and certified CT) I wanted to examine the sourcing and otherwise work on it a bit to see if it is worth adding to the English article, which doesn't cover these aspects. Elinruby (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: I am not adamant about the title; it can be renamed if need be. It's just what came to mind. LMK Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's in main article space at the moment, but is not ready for publication yet. Would you like to move that to Draft:Stuff Norwegians say, or perhaps to User:Elinruby/Stuff Norwegians say? Wikishovel (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: ah I now understand why you are asking. I meant to put it in my own sandbox. My mistake; it's been several months since I did this. Fixing that now.Elinruby (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikishovel I have confused myself; please check to see whether it is in the right place now? It looks to me like it is, but you're right, it isn't an article (and wasn't intended to be one) and should be in a sandbox. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it from User:Stuff Norwegians say to User:Elinruby/Stuff Norwegians say, thanks. Looks like the beginnings of an interesting article. Wikishovel (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: Thanks, that is why I asked. I tried to do that, but got an error message. But I guess by the time I checked the page you had already fixed. Note to self: remember spaces.

Anyway, yeah, It's from the Norwegian Holocaust in Lithuania but there may be enough stuff for a subarticle; someone pointed out on the talk page that the Norwegian article was a lot more extensive (and the current en-wiki article shamefully doesn't say much about the Jewish experience of the Holocaust!) Anyway, thus the desire to take examine the sourcing in chunks and be sure this is the content I want to have a DUE argument over. Appreciate the help with my brain bubble Elinruby (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved it to User:Elinruby/The Holocaust in Lithuania (from no-wiki) to avoid confusion with an article about colloquialisms in Norway, which is what I thought it was about until I looked at it. Feel free to move it again as you have a lot of latitude in your user space, but under the old name there was no connection at all with Holocaust issues and you might even forget what it was about under the old title if you switch to something else for a few months. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Jenina Palace

The Djenina spelling led to an image on Commons, which we are using at Regency of Algiers, and to fr:Palais de la Jénina, which has an Arabic version of similar length. I find a number of mentions in books, a few sentences each; Google is mostly showing me writing from an aesthetic point of view, deploring the mistreatment of the building including the "bourgeois" colonial structures surrounding it, but that may be a response to my past reading interests. It was badly damaged in the 1716 earthquake; that ref also indicates there may be sources for Dar al Sultan. And that makes me wonder about Commons:Category:Dey Palace in Algiers. Have at it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much Yngvadottir Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Our Palace of the Dey article appears correct in stating that that was the successor palace, so someone should probably group the couple of images of Jenina Palace in their own Commons subcategory. I found the new URL for El Watan and note multiple usable articles on the restoration projects, but nothing indexed on the lost palace. You're welcome; this has been a lot more fun than checking AN for new brickbats. Now off to use the last daylight. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: copying this to a section I opened at Talk:Regency of Algiers, which I am trying to help through a GA nomination. If you are so moved you would be welcome as fresh eyes. There are a couple of subject matter experts involved, but the primary author reads English better than he writes it so I am trying to help with that part. One or the other of them is probably the most likely to do something constructive with this; one suggested that it would be better to have one article about the whole complex. Just an invitation if you are interested Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Unable to help

Hi. Unfortunately I'm not able to help you at this time and may or may not be in a position to help you any time soon. As such I suggest you seek assistance from someone else. Sorry, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Since I was given permission to talk about it I think that question has been resolved, but thank you for the answer. I hope all is well with you. I did see the notice on your page but you came to mind as someone I trust. Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor introduction, and maybe some language help, too

Hi, Elinruby. I recently have had occasion to interact with editor Blindlynx at a completely unrelated topic, and they appear to have some really interesting background and interests in E. European subjects, including such topics as Maidan Revolution, for example. Blindlynx appears to be a really good editor, and on top of that, is a native speaker of Ukrainian. Elinruby, meet Blindlynx. Blindlynx, meet Elinruby. You guys will have plenty to talk about, I'm sure! Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Seen the name. Thinking. Oh. Talk: Occupation of the Baltic States. Which I am trying to get back to. I didn't know you spoke Ukrainian. Do you mind being pinged for language questions? Please let me know if I can help you with anything. Have you met Manyareasexpert? Or My very best wishes? Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello!, thanks for the introduction! I'd be happy to help with language questions, though ironically I've been busy with translation so haven't been editing as much the last few weeks. What areas have you had uki language questions in? —blindlynx 15:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Usually source verification. Most recently Revolution of Dignity, because when they had it on the front page (on this day) they said the shooters were unknown. But it was in the article and even in the lede. Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

cool! let me know —blindlynx 20:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Just bumping this thread as a reminder, because I think there will be synergy here. Just a reminder; no need to respond if there's nothing active now. Mathglot (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks. Currently trying to get done with Feudal land use in Algiers before somebody picks that article.for its review. I agree that this sounds interesting. Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging

Hi. Per WP:MENTION, pings do not work if the edit alters "[..] any text outside your own comment". It needs to be a new comment entirely.
Thought you might like to know. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85: Yes, that is quite pertinent, thank you. I thought that it was the signature that fired the template? Troutman thanked me so I guess he must have been subscribed, then, but since I can't type to save my soul, this will no doubt arise again. Thank you. And thanks also for your other pertinent comments in that thread. 20:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85: Elinruby (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless the documentation is misleading (as in, maybe altering doesn't include deleting lines?). Also supposedly successful mentions show somewhere? (WP:MENTION#Successful_mentions).

Honestly none of this is something I can even check as an IP (we don't get notified). So, sorry if it was wrong, I thought that was how it worked.

– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I could test, by replacing WP:Sandbox with [[User:Elinruby]], if you'd permit me (also sorry for the slow response I walked away for a bit). – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to test but there is half-finished work in the main sandbox, gimme a sec. I will post here once I move it. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually it's harder to test than I thought. I'm pretty sure it needs to be under a section, and to replicate what you did I would have to make the system not recognize my signature as moved (yours wasn't) - but I think my signature is too big for that. Sorry. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Had a better, idea. Did it work? – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to be away for another hour, but the test ping I did was <this one> (at WT:Sandbox, I mispoke), which seems to have been a "deleted line added line" edit, like yours.

– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused about what this tells us. The link works but I was not notified. Does that tell us anything? Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess you are looking at a log? If it would provide information I guess I could ping Mathglot or vice versa but I would like to have his opinion of that first. Take your time, I need to get to something else also. Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you weren't pinged then the documentation is correct. It doesn't ping when you alter any existing text (which includes deleting other text).

I guess Troutman was subscribed like you said (or just saw the post). Sorry for overcomplicating things. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Always happy to help someone nerd out on something ;) Did you delete the stuff in the sandbox? Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to chime in any time. Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Black market France

Are you the one who asked for the undelete of Draft:Black market in wartime France/translation in progress? Because it's just been brought back, and if you didn't ask for it, then I don't know who would've. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it hit its six months. I think this is something a confused NPPer did at one point but I wanted to see what it was. I can stick it in a sandbox if it's in your way somehow.Elinruby (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh hey while I have your attention I found an extensive open-access discussion of land tenure and OUP and put the link in the Agriculture section of the talk page Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Link to Brazilian translator

I pinged you from the discussion, but just so you can find them again if and when you want to, the link to this prolific, fairly new editor translating Brazilian topics is User talk:Racnela21. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: consider this person also Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Link? Mathglot (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(patiently) @Mathglot:you need help with a Brazilian topic, right? In this section right here you recommend an editor for Brazilian topics. Elinruby (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thought you meant someone else I hadn't heard of, and forgot to tell me who. Sure, there's, Racnela21, and there's also the IPv6 from Parana state on my Talk page at #Helpful IP 2804:F14::/32. Thanks for the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

{Sticking this here temporarily) in view of the constitutional postulates of procedural typicality and strict legality, the adoption, to the detriment of the person being investigated, the accused or the defendant, of unnamed or atypical precautionary measures is prohibited. [HC 186.490, rel. min. Celso de Mello, j. 10-10-2020, 2nd Panel, DJE of 22-10-2020.]

Noam Bettan Notory

Hello, what do you think about the article Noam Bettan which I am currently working on? It is Relevant! I think so.--Acartonadooopo (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

see

http://char.txa.cornell.edu/influences.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7TIO5AGUa4

Turkish folk dress

Tupip frenzy

Just FYI that page exists at Tulip mania! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back Thanks for trying ;P But by the time I saw your valiant attempt to prevent that particular mental short-circuit from being immortalized, they already had a template up saying close in progress, don't touch. I was pretty sure they thought we were ALL idiots, and that this would not be the thread to try to explain to admins who don't know me that I had been trying to remember the phrase "feeding frenzy" and wound up typng the word "frenzy" three times in one sentence. LOL. I really really do appreciate the effort though. Feel free to try to stop me from doing dumb stuff whenever you think this might be the case. I may wind up disagreeing with you, but I will always at least listen and appreciate the thought. Lol. And kudos for even recognizing that term out of context, actually. I am quietly impressed ~~

Talk:Regency of Algiers

Hi @Elinruby: Can you fix the talk page. That latest cot/cob you put in has disapeared the checkpoint section. scope_creep^Talk 12:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't do it, just got overwritten twice in a row. I haven't collapsed anything. Let me look at history. Was wondering if you are looking for something to do? Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it. A missing bracket, deleted accidently probably and kicked off a whole series of changes. Really weird. So you need a summary for the diplomatic visit. Probably tommorrow. I'm still jaked from yesterday's tree planting. scope_creep^Talk 15:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries i have some steam left tho not much. Will be gone a while hours when I gp but I will get what I can done first. 15:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be this beta thing that supposedly resolves edit conflits

I just got 13 notifications lol. If not I do not know. If not I don't know. Going to go turn it off. Meanwhile If you *are* wondering what needs doing maybe check the manufacturing section, I am not certain I finished it. 13:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC) rn

(trying again) ok so I just turned off the supposedly new and shiny discussion tool. Maybe the thing to do is archive faster, or finish up some of these threads. I am going to go see what good I can do in the article. Ping me if you need me. There were some sources that I didn't have and maybe you do? That's another suggestion. Meanwhile I will confine myself to ticks and stickes till we talk about this again. work for you? Elinruby (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Work notice:End of shift

Hi @Elinruby: I noticed the WP:NPP sprint is starting in May, which I intend to take part in, so i've only got a couple of weeks on Regency of Algiers before I bail out. I do plan to work on a couple of my own articles I'm developing so it won't be the full two weeks. I intend to spend the full month on the NPP sprint, so i'll only be showing face occasionally. I've finished reviewing up to architecture, which is fine section. I want to try to get those section I've checked, reviwed. I'm hoping they have been updated. Lastly, remember to sign your comments!!! scope_creep^Talk 18:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: you have definitely done way more than you signed up to do, and thank you. Probably would not have gotten this far without you. I have all sorts of things I need to be doing myself. I will leave off the coffeehouse problem for now and see how we are doing on the checklist. I am uncollapsing it because that works better for me. Go ahead and re-collapse it when you are back if you feel the need. I was planning on going to town tomorrow but maybe I will just put things off one more time (!) and do another marathon. But this is not sustainable. It has taken me several days to recover from the last one. I guess I have one last big push in me. Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Morning @Elinruby: I know what you mean. Its been a ton of work getting done. And I don't intend to disappear, I'll be in everyday. Its close to the weekend. I would take a break if you need it. I know you mentioned going away for a day and a night. Its progressing really well. I'll start checking trans titles tags today. I have the next three days off, so can dodge along. scope_creep^Talk 08:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

yeah it is 1:30 Friday morning here. I fell back asleep after posting that. I will save you some trouble -- French trans titles are not all done. N seems to have done all the Arabic though. I set out to fix that once and lost a bunch of unsaved work. I think I have been at what you called death of brain strength the last couple days. Gonna try for an hour or two more sleep. Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't check in on my behalf. I am done trying to prevent the next GA fail. Elinruby (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Uppsala Conflict Data Program

Do you know about the Uppsala Conflict Data Program? I didn't, until I just ran into it, expanding Draft:List of criminal gangs in Brazil to add an entry for Terceiro Comando, a Brazilian criminal organization, and up popped the Uppsala CDP. It's basically a world conflict database, and the scope is everything and everybody that isn't a state actor, so prison gangs, mafias, private militias, and so on (but not militaries, state militias, etc.). Terceiro Comando's page is here. They also have "dyads", so Terceiro Comando's interactions with the Comando Vermelho gang is here. The country page for Ukraine is here, and there a dozens of links you can try on that page (but not Azov, as they are out-of-scope as a state actor). Anyway thought this could be a really useful resource for you on a lot of the stuff you do, either as general background and research, or to cite. Here's a sfn-style link and full citation you can copy to save reinventing the wheel:

Terceiro Comando are bad dudes from Brazil, and so are Família do Norte.

References

Works cited

• Schützer, Karolina, ed. (2024), Uppsala Conflict Data Program (v2.01 ed.)

Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's somewhat reminiscent of InsightCrime, which I think you may have told me about, but a bit more database and search-oriented, and seems pretty complete. Still discovering its features. P.S. The Draft has been released, and is now at List of criminal gangs in Brazil. That was just a side-track that I needed to complete, before continuing with Draft:Brazilian criminal justice, which can now move forward again. Mathglot (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

shiny object ;) Elinruby (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I am quite interested in that draft and will probably move there next. I stumbled across somebody's orphaned labor of love at Edgar Haynes and after formatting the references a bit better have been amusing myself with categorizing it:

• Category: Confidence trickster
• Category: Congregationalist minister
• Category: American newspaper executive

etc. ;) Not going to do a deep dive though, even if the man does seem to have been a piece of work. Needs an incoming link however and I am pretty sure if I do it from Congregationalism there will be howls of protest. LOL. Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Edmonton and the lt gov Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Willis, Florida prod

I had a little fun digging into newspaper archives in an attempt to find anything that could make this unincorporated place notable but all I found were a couple criminals. 😂 Zsinj^Talk 16:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zsini: I am not necessarily against criminals as you can see in the above section, and while that guy is not in the usual categories, he's notable enough in my opinion, at least as somebody's labor of love. But Willis..> I am a map nerd and once upon a time I lived in Jacksonville. I am not actually convinced that there is such a place there. at least any more, although I did see the the first mention you found. if he *lived* there and was particularly dastardly that might qualify. But not if he was only born there and just robbed a bank somewhere else once...that single exception thing, you know.

But I am not particularly talented at AfDs even though I lean inclusionist. Once or twice, though, I have concluded that there really truly was nothing there but a railway siding. You know who likes a challenge, though, is @Yngvadottir:; pinging her because you sound regretful. Or if either of you wants to play with the Congregationalist efficiency expert and embezzler slash newspaper publisher above, be my guest -- he's kinda fun and still needs categories and de-orphaning. I'd be amazed if there isn't a book out there somewhere, also. But Willis? Pretty sure I drove through there a few times and it's the kind of place where you hear banjos (cultural reference alert) but never see a soul. Pleased to meet you btw. ;) I don't usually AfD, but I usually have a suggestion if you are looking for something to do. Let me know. Elinruby (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zsinj: sorry mangled the username Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi both. I had looked before and just looked again. I think this is a case of a former settlement that coalesced around a Willis family, but has vanished. A lot of the roads have yet to be Streetviewed (some are still dirt), it's right at the county line, which complicates search, and this is after all the Florida Panhandle, but Google satellite view suggests the coordinates are misplaced if there's still a settlement. From a Willis Bridge over the Chipola River mentioned here as having been flooded over in 1994 in Tropical Storm Alberto (Willis Bridge Park is on County Road 274 nominally in Chason, way out of town to the east) and geological references to the Chipola facies being exposed "vicinity of Willis, on the Chipola River" and "4 miles south of Willis" (1953, pp. 38, 58, also mentioned here, 1962) I suspect it may actually have been or be on the river, between State Route 73, where the coordinates put it, and State Route 71, which runs roughly parallel a bit further east, with the river between them also running roughly parallel. This leaves open the possibility that it still exists as an informal locality, and I can't see The Heritage of Calhoun County, Florida (2010), but I'm simply not getting hits except for Willis Bridge: Calhoun Liberty-Journal 2007, via Google News Archive. (The Arcadia Calhoun County is about the Texas county.) Zsinj, it looks to me as if you did a bang-up job searching. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you for looking. I always feel like I am strangling kittens or something, Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed both the depth (and humor) of your reply and the additional incredible research into where Willis might really be/was. I was indeed regretful because the two references are incidental and don’t speak to Willis as any kind of subject of those newspaper articles. I welcome the inclusionist approach if it results in a perma-stub and bonus points if it really does exist in a different area than the single home at a crossroads on SR 73. Do we have notability, or no? Zsinj^Talk 01:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zsinj: are you asking me? I would be happy with anything coherent at all that could be said about the place that can be referenced even if it's as an example of a bygone family ghost compound or whatever. There is probably a story there somewhere like what was the elevation and what did they do about alligators and mosquitos... I really can't even figure out where this place is, beyond "backwoods Panhandle". Within the amount of effort available over here. But if you want to try to make it an example of Florida nowhere, sure, or the redoubt of hardy pioneers or a criminal hangout, I am all for it and would be happy to unprod as long as you are actually really going to work on it. Have you looked anywhere besides Newspapers.com? I'd suggest Google Books or JStor on the county name, and pick up some key words from there. Is the criminal record for either one of these criminals available? That might get you away from One Event, shrug. Even the house might be fine if there's coverage for it. I just think the current article is ridiculous.

If you were asking @Yngvadottir:, I agree completely, she is great. And knows more about the actual Afd process/criteria than I do. Let me go look at these references tho just for funsies Elinruby (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Eep, thanks; I try :-) I hammered pretty hard on Google Books. (And so hard on Streetview, I got a questionnaire with a view to improving it, heh). No, Zsinj, I don't think notability can be established. All we can show is that it was referred to as a placename in the 1st couple of decades of the 20th century, and by geologists in the 2nd part of the 20th century, and has given its name to a bridge and thus a park. The one thing one might do is call the local library (quite likely a county library), talk to the reference librarian, and see if they have The Heritage of Calhoun County, Florida and would be nice enough to look up Willis in it. If there's a little paragraph, so long as it doesn't say "old name for Chason" or something like that, anyone can remove the PROD template and put in a summary of what it says, with that reference. A really nice librarian might also ask people or look in the local paper and e-mail you further info. It would be nice to know where it was or is in relation to the bridge, and it doesn't really matter if there's nothing there now, but if the PROD is removed without a reference that's actually about the place, it will be AfD'd and deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah so it doesn't come un-AfD just because the template comes off? See, this is why I am asking you. Anybody try Wikipedia Library yet? And yeah, calling a reference librarian is a great idea if that is a possibility. Usually they are delighted. Or one in Tallahassee? Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

They're 2 separate processes. Anyone can remove the PROD template, but if no one does, an admin will come along after the 7 days are up and make it go "poof". If someone does remove the template, it can't be PRODded again. However, if the PROD gets removed without notability being established, it's pretty certain that someone will eventually start an AfD. And right now, I don't think it would survive AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Notability is not yet established, IMO, but I’m interested in the discussion if there’s grey area. Removing the prod doesn’t need a reason, but the next thing that usually happens is the PRODer starts the AfD. Zsinj^Talk 10:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that the article started with nothing other than a place name and still doesn’t. It was just a recent prod on WP:Florida and I chose to see if there was a rabbit hole at all. Zsinj^Talk 11:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to jump the thread right here but after my previous reply, that’s exactly what I did and will be following up with them during business hours today. I’m taking this rabbit hole all the way down! Zsinj^Talk 10:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am on a device that is running extremely non-standard software right now and cannot get results from either Jstor or or most maps. I also said some true but harsh things that I should really go reference at another article. I can look on Android later. Browser results are flooded with people named Willis who work for an entitle whose name begins with "Florida" but I mentioned a couple of leads from Scholar on the Talk page that would probably justify relisting the article.

This also seems to be convinced that is is what French whikipedia would call a lieu-dit and [this is extremely congruent with what you two seem to be talking about, assuming it's in the right place. Like I say I can look on my phone before I knock off. The statements I need to reference did come from sources that are already in the article bibliography so this won't take long. Things that would help me if you are seriously up for this are: names of the criminals (newspapers.com doesn't like my browser either) and a street address for the house you think is in the wrong place but the cooedinates taking you there. Or some idea whether that dairy is in the ball park. Like I say it is a common name. There was also a hint somewhere that the area was once in or near Spanish Florida, does that help? Elinruby (talk)

was on Andoid today. Nothing jumped out at me although I may be able to play with Advanced seach term. I saw it on the map also, That body of water -- is it a slough/bayou? Check for pirates and Spanish Main. WIllis ia hopeless as a search term even using minus signs. Got some hits about sandhill cranes and dig not see an author named willis. Worth looking to see if there are any endangered species in the area, or birdng destinations, etc. Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There's some progress! I like you bank robber. Yo should add more detail on him. always Florida State Road 73 but I dunno. I think that the proceedings of the county council i linked to on the talk page are a better bet. I just don't volunteer to travel through them but surely they mention Willis in *some* context. I am tired of what I have been doing and will attempt to rule the endangered species on or out, as well as to establish the geograhic boundaries of Spanish Florida Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zsinj: I should probably talk to you about this at the article talk page so that people see that thoughts are being think. I will copy this one over: it is indeed within the former Spanish Florida and if you are familiar with the names of Panhandle rivers you can probably do better than I. Odds are slim that there is something specifically in Willis though. The same is true of this link: https://nwdistrict.ifas.ufl.edu/nat/category/wildlife/page/4/ but witha map at hand you may get somewhere. I still think the proceedings of the county council are a better bet. 10:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great work on your improvements to Angelita C. et al. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Kindly, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide some information on this link?

Elinruby, you added a peacock link to Jordan Peterson's BLP [9]. Can you comment on the problem? Springee (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious. I guess you are here to tell me it's not? I'll go over there and do some more specific tagging if so. Probably tomorrow night PST. Possibly a little this evening, but I have something RL I should really be working on Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: the syntax of the parameters on the templates is a little mangled but the specifics you are looking for may be there. I have have enough of a chance to look at this to remember that it was the self-authoring suite that struck me most when I first placed the template. I see some other problems with rs and undue and failed verifications, but I think there are enough other specific problems highlighted there for now. I will however mention that Rachel Notley seems undue, and that some of the other claims are not exactly cited to the best sources.(Oprah? Sure, it's RS, but...) You might also want to investigate the move to deprecate the Telegraph on transgender issues. I have not dug deeply into that, but it's out there, at RSN I believe. I believe the RS tags are self-explanatory, and to be clear, when I say ABOUTSELF I am not complaining about the use of Facebook for the place of birth, although I suspect there is a better source that that available. Ping me from the talk page if you want to discuss this some more, please. I use this page as a running to-do and while I don't mind talking to you about this, it's not a primary focus, and it looks like there may be editing restrictions on the page so any conversation could be lengthy. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: someone has objected to the parameters and reverted me; apparently it is controversial to explain one's tags. So the second template is now in the section rather than at the top of the article where I was trying to put it, since it is about "the article" not "the section", but there you go. Such is Wikipedia. Let's take this to article talk page so I don't get more well-intentioned patrollers lecturing me on collaboration. PS I just did a couple of copy edits that I can't imaging being controversial, and added a failed verification tag Elinruby (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw you posted an awareness thing on Trakking 's page. Do you have an awareness tag on your own home page (see the top of my talk page for an example)? Springee (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression he was new at the time. i am on my phone right now. I think but am not certain that I marked myself aware of GENSEX, but feel free if you are so moved. Hell give me ALL the templates. Yum yum. They're just to keep newbies from doing stupid stuff but I am not going to get upset. Pretty sure I missed Azerbaijan, COVID and GMO, if it helps. Elinruby (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, regarding this sps tag [10], it's common to cite the original source/primary source in cases where the notability etc has been established by RSs. For example, if an article includes "Elon Musk tweeted [stupid thing here]" it's common to link to both the RS as well as the original tweet. Another example would be citing a RS talking about the interpretation of some part of a fiction book then also citing the book itself. That appears to be the case here as well. Springee (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: I am assuming good faith as to your whitewashing of mass murder but please do not push it by patronizing me about policies you clearly do not understand. Please get off my talk page, it is not your bitch, and I have already asked you nicely not to initiate discussions here that should be on the article talk page. 14:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's hard to assume good faith when you accuse me of whitewashing mass murder again. You already showed that you didn't understand 1RR policies and your use of tags suggests you also do not understand there use either. Springee (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What did I just say? Get off my talk page. Go re-read what you said and then educate yourself. As for my tagging, it has nothing to do with 1RR. Go re-read that too while you are at it. Elinruby (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Warning: Battleground behavior on Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

Previously, you falsely accused my of disseminating false news on Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. When I further verified the claims with reliable sources, you did not participate in further discussion, despite being pinged. Instead, you have repeatedly appended spurious CN and relevance tags, despite the context being readily evident and the content being appropriately cited. Your failure to engage in discussion, casting of aspersions, and apparent attempt to goad a revert with misleading tagging is all indicative of BATTLEGROUND behavior. I would encourage you to stop. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'll keep it very clear with you: you appear to have accused another editor of white-washing genocide on your talk page earlier today. You have also engaged in uncivil, procedure-abusing BATTLEGROUND behavior (something for which you have been repeatedly warned). I'm having a hard time seeing how this doesn't end with you at ANI. Cut it out, strike your personal attacks, and move towards treating this project as a cooperative one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See now, I tried to answer you politely, but you just did not want to stop threatening me and I had to do the whole EC shuffle. Here is what I was trying to say while you were threatening to take me to ANI for adding references to that article: I don't believe I have ever spoken to you in my life. I am not finding this first occasion very fruitful though. RSN is thatta way. If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice. The last version was a slight imporovement, but I invite you to be really really certain that everything you are saying well sourced indeed. I may escalate my concerns with them. Now please. I am busy. I don't like telling people they are not welcome on my talk page, but interrupting me just to threaten me is boring. The way to address those tags is to look at them in edit mode, where you will find the rationale parameters. Perhaps you didn't realize that, but I am also being fairly verbose in the edit summaries, so I don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement. Elinruby (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is probably going to end up at ANI. Please consider striking. I'll give you some time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Appending tags to everything you disagree with is really inappropriate. As is implicitly accusing other editors of racism and genocide denial, which you have now done several times.

I believe you have something valuable to contribute at CIRSG. Please don't get yourself TBanned. Riposte97 (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: please see section below and consider yourself banned from my talk page for the next... oh call it 24 hours. After that feel free to... whatever this is. I consider the suggestion that I am IDONTLIKE it amusing. WHAT I don't like is people who publish unsourced racism. I think we should use sources, the best sources. I am emphatically not available to listen to any more aspersions. And will report any that appear here when I get around to it. I may report these. Who knows. TA freaking TA. @Riposte97: you too buddy. PS I have no idea what a CIRSG is. Maybe the problem is that you are talking to the wrong ... editor. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Public service announcement

Collapsing. El_C 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due to the recent overload of this talk page communication circuits I am declaring this page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours. If you have posted here today please comsider yourself banished for the the next 24 hours. However I have prepared a helpful FAQ. Are you mad because I am referencing "your" article? You sound mad GO Q. Why do you keep putting an RS tag on my thing? A. See thread at WP:RSN Q. Why do you think I should have to provide a source for saying that people committed arson? A. Because you do. See WP:BLP Q. But there's a source. A. The source says arson was 'suspected. Three years ago. Q. But it's a good source. A. Yes it is. It still only says that someone suspected something. Three years ago. Q. But a lot of people said Indians were burning churches down. A. A lot of people is not a source. Please see thread at WP:RSN Q. What's this relevance tag? A. If you eat a peach and a statue gets toppled are you responsible? Q. What? A. See WP:BLP Q. Why did you say I am white-washing genocide? A. Because you said it didn't happen Q. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO Q. Why are you insolently referencing that article? A. Because it needs it. See thread at WP:RSN There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Are you mad because I am being mean to a YouTube guy? please type you thoughts in the thread at WP:NPOVN

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing. Specifically, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in contentious topics (be they formally covered by WP:CTOP / WP:GS or not). Look, I saw SFR in passing yesterday tell you that: If you're finding yourself this heated you're going to want to cool off a bit before doing much more contentious topic editing. It's very easy to slip up and end up sanctioned ^(diff). And then I glance at ANI today only to see a new complaint ^(permalink) that shows additional problems since that warning. I'm looking at my warning to you from a couple of years ago ^(diff), but am not seeing an improvement. And generally speaking, you appear in log entries at WP:AEL too often for the time span. You continue to personalize disputes, you continue to pour gasoline on flames or embers, which the collapsed sections above perfectly demonstrates. You can't keep going like this. It is not sustainable. Since I'm not as available to follow up on this as I'd like, I leave it to any uninvolved admin to adjust this block as they see fit (including lifting it outright) in response to an unblock request. I need not be consulted or even notified. Thank you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@El C: I like you man. You are often willing to do what needs to be done when others aren't. I admire that. However, you're wrong on this one. As someone who has sometimes been the one who was actually right in a WP:1AM situation, you seem to be bad at recognizing the situation when it applies to others. Especially if you are not available to discuss (!) I have not been notified of an ANI thread so I can't speak to that. The "warning" for is for malicious referencing :) so was your warning a few years ago come to think of it. And RSN was agreeing with me. Here we have SPIKE being represented as more reliable than the Canadian government and hundreds of actually RS sources. Well let me amend that. The dispute at Azov Brigade was parallel in that the dispute was over whether the reliable sources policy applies to people we are calling Nazis. The warning was for butting into a thread at ANI instead of starting my own. I have previously said you kinda had a point in that yeah, I am sure that was annoying. But I think I disagreed with what you called it. I didn't bother to appeal because a) it was a warning and that would be weird b) as mentioned you had a right be be annoyed and c) if I was going to appeal anything I had better stuff to appeal. But that is why I say you failed to recognize a 1AM and with all due respect I think you are doing that again. Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I am available to a limited degree, but because another admin could undo the block if your unblock request is persuasive (per my final note above), it isn't actually required. Anyway, I've no detailed recollection of that incident from 2022 (as I've dealt with numerous ones since), but I don't think it's germane that I get into the weeds of it, or for that matter, this latest dispute. The issue is about you moderating your conduct to be less combative and less inflammatory. I also am not obliged to factor that user space essay, either in the way you'd like, or at all. From my perspective, the fact you were warned yesterday about toning it down, but you've done the opposite today, is a problem. You cannot continue to be issued warnings indefinitely, so something had to give, hence, this. El_C 01:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we can discuss Azov later. So as to this, let's discuss "this". Let us contemplate the fact that you "glanced" at ANI and on the basis of a warning whose specifics you cannot quite recall you have hidden a section of my talk page that is being discussed at ANI in a thread of which your block was my first notification and to which I now cannot reply because of your block, despite the fact that it does misquote me.

That's without getting into the content specifics or the fact that an editor of eighteen years and more than a hundred thousand edits is getting their very first block and cannot defend themself on the actual charge that they demanded RS that said three-year old arsons that must have had some sort of adjudication by now were in fact committed by specific people.

As for whether this block is preventative and required to teach me to contribute constructively, I would have thought my contributions spoke for themselves, but apparently not, if you looked at them, in which case ... What is there to say?

Let's stick to the TL;DR version. Your block was the first I heard of this ANI thread, and I was asleep at the time. There are things that should be said there and I would like to say them. Elinruby (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The time to discuss the 2022 Azov dispute is long past, so probably not. But for what it's worth, I remember giving you several informal warnings before logging that one. Speaking of that, as I mentioned, in general you are featured at WP:AEL entries excessively for the time span. Which I think is reflective of a problem. Sorry, I am not unblocking you so that you could participate in that ANI thread. Now, I don't want to get into a back and forth with you here. Your unblock request is up, so hopefully it'll get reviewed soon. Also, since you bring it up, your tenure on the project or the quality of your work does not exempt you from observing the same conduct standards expected of everyone else. El_C 05:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Standard practice for blocked editors is they post on their talk page and ask someone to copy it over. I actually disagree with this for reasons I've explained before but I'm not sure an exception is likely here given I see nothing which makes it special so suggest you follow it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@El C: perhaps it has not occurred to you that an editor who specializes in World War II might appear in Holocaust in Poland threads? Assuming that this is what you are talking about. The goalposts keep shifting. I plead guilty to being inflexible about insisting that Bucha massacre be called a massacre, if you are talking about that. But based on your post to the ANI thread, you seem to be saying damn the facts, who cares if the complaint is that I called someone a racist when in fact I said that an assertion was racist per FOC? But fine. You stand by your block. I still think you are wrong, but later for that. @Nil Einne: I am uncertain whether you are talking to me or to El C. Or what the exception would be. If you are saying I did the unblock request wrong, can you please clarify? Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The log entries at WP:AEL are not threads, but again, indicative of a problem. Again, I don't think it's productive to engage in a back and fourth here, especially since we appear to be at cross-currents. But I suppose you can continue to ping me here. As for ANI, yes, you could ask someone else to post there on your behalf. I've no objection to that. El_C 06:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@El C: We do seem to be kinda talking past each other but uh if you don't want to get into the weeds, somebody should. So how does that work? The guide to being unblocked is all about how I should understand what I did wrong and there in fact seems to be some fluidity about that; but without making this about what I think of the block itself at this time, as to the mechanics of it, I am gathering after some clicking that perhaps Nil Einne is saying that my answer to the ANI thread should be in the unblock request. Am I understanding that correctly? Elinruby (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't advise you on how to construct your unblock request, for a number or reasons, not the least of which being that I don't think you have a good argument for it at present. El_C 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I was replying to you. If you want to participate in the ANI thread then post a reasonable comment here and ask for it to be copied over. Generally editors are fairly willing to copy over comments from blocked editors who wish to comment in a thread about them copying over even stuff which is unlikely to help their case but obviously if an editor asks someone to copy over something with personal attacks or other clear problems this is unlikely to happen. Also to be clear you do this just by posting a comment and asking for it to be copied over, there are usually talk page watchers who might help but in any case feel free to ping me. To be clear, this means there's no reason to use an unblock template unless you are making an unblock request you want to put to the community or making an appeal for a general unblock to an admin, based on the block no longer being needed rather than due to a desire to participate in ANI. (I don't see why you would need to appeal to the community here so an unblock request should be directed at an admin.) As said I actually do think we should unblock editors solely to allow them to participate in discussions about them only but it's not something we do. Therefore there's no reason to think we will do it for you, there's nothing exceptional about your case compared to the probably several cases we get every month where this principle could be applied. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thank you. Good to know, thank you. In that case I will take out the part about this not being an unblock request because I am uncertain what El C is talking about specifically. What triggers the copying is a specific request like "please copy the below" then? I am currently working my way through the OP's post. Might be done in about an hour. Elinruby (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd use the word trigger. This isn't an automated process or even some sort of guaranteed right. In fact, I'm not aware that it's written down anywhere, however it's a process generally followed at the administrative noticeboards. This comes up most commonly in unban or unblock requests which are going to the community, in those cases the editor will normally post an appeal on their talk page (or maybe via email if they lost talk page access), and it will be posted by some admin to AN. Editors may have followup questions etc, and in that case the editor will post responses on their talk page and ask for these to be copied over which someone will normally oblige.

In your case, it seems unlikely you'd need to appeal to the community for the 1 week block. However it's generally accepted that an editor is likewise allowed to respond to discussion about them on one of the noticeboards, especially discussion about further sanction. Therefore if an editor is blocked, it's fairly normal that an editor's responses will be copied over if they request it and those responses are within reason.

As per WP:PROXYING an editor is responsible for any edits they make so experienced editors are unlikely to copy over something which is a clear personal attack or otherwise unacceptable. (I mean proxying doesn't really explain this very well, but it's generally accepted that it isn't proxying to copy over responses an editor has to a thread about them within reason.) Likewise while responses to specific questions to the editor are generally fine and general explanations or responses to allegations etc are probably also fine; if the editor starts to get into bludgeoning territory, other editors might not be willing to post these.

And definitely if an editor moves away from explaining or defending themselves into proposing sanction for another editor, this isn't really something that an editor should be doing while blocked. (While blocked, editors are only really supposed to use their talk page to seek clarification and help understand their block, or to appeal their unblock. If further sanction is being considered, we'll generally expand this to allow the editor to respond but that's about the limit.) Frankly it's generally a terrible idea for an editor of a thread to suggest sanction/boomerang for the other editor anyway, leave that for uninvolved parties.

In this case, Iri'd note that so far there has been no clear proposal for any further sanction in that thread. Also another editor has commented on the 'triggered' thing if you felt that misunderstood you. If you feel there is something further which is still confused or which will explain your actions, that's probably fine. But personally until and unless something more concrete happens at that ANI (i.e. further sanction is suggested), or someone asks you a specific question, I'd suggest you concentrate on your current block. (I mean to go back to editing rather than so you can respond at ANI.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah apparently I need to watch that word triggered ;) I just echoing back my understanding of the procedural instructions, as in I do not have to put it in the unblock request but I could talk to you all day and nothing will get copied until I say please copy this?

I appreciate the advice btw. I don't think I am making personal attacks. I will take that on board though if somebody thinks otherwise. I do give the context for the ones I am accused of making. As for maybe I should just ignore it. the thing is, I have ignored stuff before because it was "just a warning" or "just Lourdes" or "just a confused newbie" and there they are in this complaint again, being taken seriously AGAIN. I think what we have here is a variation on the confused newbie theme, but if I ignore it and resume editing in a week it is going to come up the next time somebody thinks I am mean for adding citation needed tags. So no, I don't think I will ignore it or just bravely start editing in a week. That does not sound like I want to do that. I was pretty much out the door after the last ANI episode about how mean I was to give someone a contentious topic notification. Whether that will be the case this time remains to be seen. I am not asking to be unblocked though, because I am not going to express contrition until somebody explains whyfor. Then, perhaps. But I definitely have some stuff to say. Almost done. Reviewing for format and coherency.Elinruby (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: or if they are not longer available, anyone else who is available and willing. This is not an unblock request. This is a request that the following answer be copied into the ANI thread that the blocking statement refers to. If there is something about it that makes you not want to do so, please let me know so that I can address that issue.

Here we go

The block notification was the first I heard of this ANI thread so I would appreciate it if someone would explain to Pbritti that notification of noticeboard complaints is always required. But here is what I have to say, with apologies for the length, but there is a lot to unpack here and I do not want to impose too many times on the kindness of Those Who Copy Over.

First of all, I have to warn the casual reader that the links and quotes below deal with some very disturbing history and involve documented murders of small children. Viewer discretion is advised.

I actually did not see that last post by ScottishFinnishRadish. It must have been made in the space of time between when I left the thread but before I subscribed. However I read it more as friendly advice from an admin from whom I had just informally asked for an explanation than as a formal warning. I am assuming that he thought "genocide" was an exaggeration.

It is not. There was a formal finding to that effect by the Canadian House of Commons and Pope Francis has also said precisely that. [11][12] Certainly legalities prevented the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from saying so, but that doesn't mean they weren't scathing.[13][14] Or specific. Or that they didn't show the receipts in their finding.

The part upthread there about confusing Harvard magazine with the Crimson sounded more official and was indeed an error on my part. The Jordan Peterson article has a lot of cites to student newspapers referencing fairly serious questions of fact. I hope he is enjoying his ducklings and I am not requesting he comment unless he wants to; he has enough going on.

About this complaint

I think that Pbritti has misunderstood a number of things but that these aspersions may well have been made in good faith. I do think that he know a good deal less about Canadian residential schools than he think they do, since for a start they did not seem to know that "Indian" is a pejorative in Canada. (I once accidentally referred to the French and Indian War in front of a group of indigenous men, so this is pretty much seared into my circuits. But someone had a phone and looked it up and they all decided to forgive me for having lived too long in the United States. I also had to edit out an assertion in the lead sentence of the article, apparently written by Pbritti, that residential schools still exist in Canada.

Since the block above prevents me from getting to an edit window to provide diffs there are some longish blockquotes below, but I do not want to be accused of misrepresenting anyone's remarks, given that I am saying that that is perhaps what has happened here.

Misunderstandings of the block log

BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports ([145]), warnings ([146]), and a block ([147])

• current diff 145: a complaint that I gave an editor with ~100 edits a CT notice, which they interpreted as uncivil. Closed with no action by Star Mississippi (thank you, no comment needed unless you want to)
• current diff 146: Erroneous in my opinion and actually discussed with El C in the block section on my talk page if anyone cares. TL;DR: ancient
• current diff 147: Shortly before this LTA indeffed themself they page-blocked me for discussing changes to the article on its talk page. Not pinging them because they indeffed themself.

Misunderstanding of another editor's comments about an unrelated situation

• Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder:

I actually should have said that they denied it. The article whitewashed it; they denied it based on a skim of that article. The actual context is here:

But on Kenney, it is even more telling that when they found dozens of unmarked graves of indigenous small children at a residential school in Kamloops, Kenney wrote an editorial to say that the outcry needed to stop because the country had to move on. (It's probably even more telling of the state of Canadian media that that National Post ran it on the front page) Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia article on the subject, there are no positively identified graves. But I'm not sure why any of this is relevant to this article. Springee (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

after which I said:

...Listen to yourself. You are whitewashing the murder of children. And what that has to do with this article is that I don't have a lot of respect for a Crackerbox prize trinket awarded by a politician who shamelessly wrote that people who were grieving over the confirmation of massive numbers of murdered children should grow a pair and move on. Okay? I am going to assume that this crap got into the article again and you are from Texas or something and don't know any better, but man. What Simon said.

To my horror, I discovered that Wikipedia's article did indeed say that, and set out to remedy this. So I'll talk some more about the article, but let's get through these points.

Misunderstanding of article talk page

• Accusing me of inserting fake news

I did nothing of the kind. I did not run Wikiblame and wasn't planning to run Wikiblame. I removed content that implied, without proof, that indigenous people were setting fires -- what else were these fires doing in an article about this tragedy? -- and copied it to the article talk page under the header "undue regurgitation of old fake news". The first I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI.

• removing reliably sourced material

See previous point

• refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented

AFAICT this is about a three-year-old article about a three-year-old tweet. The publisher itself is considered reliable, yes.

Misunderstanding of what tag rationale

• spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present

Uh...no. see next bullet point.

• the tag "if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time inBritish Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons":

he appear to be unfamiliar with the British Columbia wildfire season.[15][16][17] This was the same week that Lytton spontaneously combusted in temperatures of 49.6 °C (121.3 °F).

But the key phrase here is "the next paragraph" which did indeed have one malformed albeit RS-looking reference, with no url. This is for a section that starts By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches, including eight on First Nations territories, had been burned -- and thus my relevance tag and "if these are all arsons say that." This is a textbox example of the problem with passive voice. The section later goes on to say Of the arsons, nine resulted in arrests; "no clear motive has been established" in the incidents that resulted in criminal charges. This in an article that was rife with source problems (see below) and whose current content I very much distrust unless I have verified it.

The full edit summary containing the above quote:the point about ambivalence is possibly valid but needs to be much much better attributed. This section refuses to quite say that these arsons were related. If that is the point (BLP much?) say so and I insist it be really really really well attributed and sourced. Also, somebody's reference is still broken and I am not fixing it. I don't think ANY of this belongs in the article but make your case. This is somewhat better than it was

So why are we talking about these fires in an article about genocide? The article clearly wants to imply that the survivors of this genocide are lawless, but doesn't have the RS to say so. The relevance tags have been removed because they are "addressed by sanction". Go team Wikipedia!

misunderstanding of user page

• Saying they don't need to engage in discussion

This appears to be a misinterpretation of I don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement. If accuracy is no longer a requirement then sombody please do let me know. I don't want to be pedantic and start talking about the Five Pillars, but seriously, if we are no longer interested in accuracy that is really sad.

• suggesting that I'm racist

Pbritti is once again again personalizing a remark about content: If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice I did not assert that they made these assertions and stand by what I said about the content.

• CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons

I had not been able to verify that this investigation existed. I asked several times for that reference to be fixed. I see someone has finally done that, and now I have read the article. One person found guilty so far: a woman suffering from mental illness who was mad at her boyfriend. Ethnicity unspecified. Something about correlation and causation and original research annd... sigh. That content still merits a HUGE {{so?}} tag.

• When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours

Difficult to know what to say about this. I don't plan to stop thinking that accuracy is important. I made several attempts to reply to Pbritti's good-faith admonishments about my failure to realize that they aren't required to be accurate, but he kept going, and I was trying to increase the accuracy of the article as much as possible as quickly as possible because I could hear the drumbeat coming to take me to ANI for thinking that a genocide that that has been officially acknowledged and for which reparations are now being paid could possibly be a genocide. I put the genocide thing up top, btw, because that is the one thing I want to make really clear. If it is uncivil to call a genocide a genocide and to admonish someone who is denying that genocide then Houston we have a problem.

• apparently gloating about having triggered other editors

Capably translated by Usedtobecool; thank you for that.

• a list of Q and As

Just trying to automate some of the circular conversations that were happening at that time. It mentions no names and I am a bit surprised that people who are complaining that the shoe fits are being taken seriously.

This is long so I will close by thanking Hydrangeans for pointing out /Noticeboard#Using_Spiked_Online_regarding_genocide_of_First_Nations where two diffs can be found of some definitely uh misinterpreted sources as mentioned above. Elinruby (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Apparently there is an ANI thread where I should probably say something before tove someonehe situation is further misrepresented Elinruy the by (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If your involvement in the ANI thread is required, you will be asked for comment here, which will be transferred there. In the meantime, to be unblocked, you need to address the reason for the blocke . 331dot (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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

@331dot: thank you for the procedural clarification. I am having trouble getting El C to specify a reason for the block, is one problem we are having here, but my main concern at the moment is this ANI thread. So I will do another unblock request here shortly with my answer to the OP. Appreciate it. Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging for you

Elinruby, it looks like you think you pinged Nil Einne here, to ask them to move something (not sure what) to ANI, but you didn't; a ping only works if you sign in the same edit. I've pinged them for you now. Posting down here because your text above is so long I don't know where to come in. Hopefully Nil Einne will find the right post. Bishonen | tålk 12:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen: OK thank you for that. There was a previous conversation so they may be more oriented, but if it is confusing to them also, the part I am asking them to copy is what is under "here we go" Elinruby (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, I'm willing to copy over your long reply. However before I do so, I wonder if you might want to reword it. I had concerns when I read your earlier comment suggesting you did not know, and planned to ask Pbritti what's up but then found [18]. So Pbritti, did notify you. I'm not sure why it was in the middle of your FAQ, possibly it was a mistake given the formatting of your FAQ and they might not have realised that the the next part was a third level heading. Perhaps they thought it was the best location if so I'd strongly disagree. But either way, it's IMO too minor to be of concern since I see no reason to think Pbritti was intentionally leaving the notification in a way it would be missed. Notably you should still have received a notification of edits to your talk page unless you turned that off. Of course once El C hid that FAQ, the notice was also hidden but El C's block made it clear there was an ANI. While it might be fairly minor, considering your reply is quite long at least removing this so we don't have to get into it at ANI would be helpful IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, although this might be ironic coming from me, I would suggest you consider carefully if you want such a long reply. From my experience at the noticeboards, such long comments from editors trying to defend their actions are often less productive. I haven't read you reply that well yet, and I'm specifically not going to critique it since editors trying to defend themselves who need others to help them word their replies are generally viewed poorly so I'll just offer this general comment and then let you decide. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh the one final word of advice I'll offer is to remember ANI cares about conduct not content. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Sorry to disappear. After that last ping I asked the cat why I should walk into fire again for Wikipedia anyway and she said she didn't know, so we went off on the other room for a while to discuss what an admirable kitty kitty kitty she is. Anyway, coming back a bit refreshed from that, sure, I can cut out that particular batch of weeds. I don't have an opinion on any of it but the story is already a pretty confusing. And if I am going to edit that I may as well get the missing parenthesis and the problems caused by using the "they" template. So give me a few if you are still around, this should not take nearly as long as composing it, and if this goes to tomorrow oh well. Appreciate this, by the way. I will ping again in a few. The thing about the length, though, I would normally handle that with a diff but I can't get in that window, hmm. Working Never mind history not edit. Maybe I am a bit less IDGAF about this than I tell myself I am ;) Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fresh summary

@Nil Einne: The following is what I would like you to copy, thank you.Elinruby (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The links and quotes below deal with some very disturbing history about documented murders of small children. Viewer discretion is advised.

I read that last post of SFR's as friendly advice from an admin I had just informally asked for an explanation of 1RR, not a formal warning. I am assuming that he thought "genocide" was an exaggeration. It is not. There was a formal finding to that effect by the Canadian House of Commons and Pope Francis has also said precisely that. [19][20] Certainly legalities prevented the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from saying so, but that doesn't mean they weren't scathing.[21][22] Or specific. Or that they didn't show the receipts. I hope SFR is enjoying his ducklings and I am not requesting he comment unless he wants to; he has enough going on.

I think that Pbritti misunderstood a number of things but that these aspersions may well have been made in good faith. The block log for example:

• current diff 145: a complaint that I gave an editor with ~100 edits a CT notice, which they interpreted as uncivil. Closed with no action by Star Mississippi (thank you, no comment needed unless you want to)
• current diff 146: Discussed with El C in the block section on my talk page if anyone cares. TL;DR: ancient
• current diff 147: Shortly before this LTA indeffed themself they page-blocked me for discussing changes to an article on its talk page. Not pinging them because they indeffed themself

Then the complaint itself:

• Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: I actually should have said that they denied it. The article whitewashed it; they denied it based on a skim of that article. The context is here: [23] To my horror I discovered that the article did indeed say that. But let's get through these points.

• Accusing me of inserting fake news: The first time I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI.
• removing reliably sourced material: One broken ref for two paragraphs about three-year old unproven allegations
• refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: three-year-old source about a three-year-old tweet. The publisher itself is considered reliable, yes.
• spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present: Uh...no. see next bullet point.
• the tag "if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons": Pbritti seems unfamiliar with the British Columbia wildfire season.[24][25][26] The same week, Lytton spontaneously combusted in temperatures of 49.6 °C (121.3 °F). But the key phrase is "the next paragraph". The section starts out of nowhere: By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches...had been burned. He quoted the middle of what I said also, btw, please click the diff for context. The section implies that indigenous people committed arson, but no RS say so. The relevance tags have been removed now because they are "addressed by sanction". Go team Wikipedia!
• Saying they don't need to engage in discussion: Misinterpretation of I don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement.
• suggesting that I'm racist: Pbritti is once again again personalizing a remark about content: If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice
• CBC News investigation that determined a link: One person found guilty so far: Mentally ill and mad at her boyfriend. Ethnicity unspecified. Something about correlation and causation and original research. That content still merits a HUGE {{so?}} tag.
• When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours: I won't stop thinking that accuracy is important. I tried to reply to Pbritti's good-faith admonishments, but he just kept going...
• apparently gloating about having triggered other editors:Capably translated by Usedtobecool; thank you
• a list of Q and As: It mentions no names and I am surprised that people are complaining that the shoe fits.

This is long so I will close by thanking Hydrangeans for pointing out the RSN thread, which also has two diffs of some definitely uh misinterpreted sources. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have copied it over. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The misquoting was really bugging me. Elinruby (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you have an opinion on how it was presented at ANI (separate subsection or whatever). If you wanted an early unblock, you should have made an unblock request, imo. It's a short block and you're the only one with the incentive to keep that discussion going. If getting your version of events on the record is what you're prioritising however, that should do it. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet. I will now. The record is the point, so thank you. Elinruby (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine. Appreciate you doing that. Elinruby (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to be of help. Good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

meh ;) pretty sure the block is not going anywhere, but look what happens when you ignore these things. Thanks again, Elinruby (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

reasonable unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

The block follows and, no doubt unintentionally, appears to endorse a complaint that to criticize content per [27], without discussing the authorship of the content, constitutes "unsubstantiated personal attacks" Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The block follows and, no doubt unintentionally, appears to endorse a complaint that to criticize content per [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1914], without discussing the authorship of the content, constitutes "unsubstantiated personal attacks" [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby#top|talk]]) 11:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The block follows and, no doubt unintentionally, appears to endorse a complaint that to criticize content per [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1914], without discussing the authorship of the content, constitutes "unsubstantiated personal attacks" [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby#top|talk]]) 11:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The block follows and, no doubt unintentionally, appears to endorse a complaint that to criticize content per [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1914], without discussing the authorship of the content, constitutes "unsubstantiated personal attacks" [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby#top|talk]]) 11:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm involved so I won't process this, but I'd encourage you to read WP:NOTTHEM and reconsider this request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I had read NOTTHEM several times, before all this. The trouble is, it assumes that it is in fact THEM. I had not made an earlier unblock appeal because I'm having trouble finding the place in policy where it says content cannot be discussed. I'm reconsidering the unblock request and may withdraw it since you did not mean to propose a topic ban. The items in that complaint however badly misconstrue Wikipedia policy. Or if I am wrong about that, I ask that you explain. I could apologize for overestimating Pbritti:s reading skills, but I am pretty sure that would be aggressive. Maybe even unfair. Elinruby (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

ANI answer, if anyone is moved to copy it over

@Pbritti: appears to believe that"constructive discussion" begins with "This is probably going to end up at ANI", and to still believe that it was a personal attack to criticize content that he seem to be saying he wrote. (I still have not investigated authorship). @Simonm223: Thank you for starting the RSN post. If any of those edits are not a "net improvement" I will happily work with you on that. @Ivanvector: I oppose a topic ban. The article still contains numerous misrepresentations of fact in addition to those I have already corrected. I have managed to update some original items, but for example, the section on schools where no graves were found still includes two schools where further excavations are planned. And a hospital, for some reason, which if removed, would leave that section empty. I agree with what you said on the talk page about moving the stuff about church fires under media coverage. Then maybe expanding per [28] and [29] and the like.

I have a long-scheduled appointment and will only be intermittently available until quite late PST Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I proposed a topic ban? I supported one for a different editor yesterday, unless I wrote that comment in the wrong section. In my (involved) view, you need to commit to discussing your changes when they're challenged or when other editors have questions, which you still have not acknowledged. See WP:Communication is required. In your unblock request you're hung up on a misinterpretation over a particular source, but you refused to discuss it, so what is everyone else supposed to think? AGF is not a suicide pact. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you did type the words "topic ban" in that ANI discussion. But it is good to know that this is not actually being proposed, as that is the main reason I wanted to answer again.

As for AGF is not a suicide pact, that is my point exactly. We have here three year old unproven assertions that certain fires were retaliatory arsons, which I called fake news. Next in the sequence of events: Pbritti says that hurts his feelings and threatens to take me to ANI. Since I apparently failed to drop everything and argue the fairly absurd point that criticizing content is a personal attack, I was able to determine that "no bodies have been found" is only true if the count is confined to bodies found in an archaeological excavation, of which the have been two so far. Both have followups on the works. But that isn't Pbritti:s hobby-horse. His is that the section on church fires is fine and has been "addressed by sanction". Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)