Hosta

Artistic and cultural impact of the Liberation of France

Hi Elinruby, thanks for your help with the expansion of Liberation of France. Can you have a look at this edit from the "Social and cultural" impact section near the bottom which talks about returning writers and artists after the war and see if you can find some references for it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Alright, I will come back to that. As I recall however that is a complicated story that should really be its own article — only some of them came back and the School of Paris, as a school, did not. I may need help with focus. I may need to approach it by writing the article then condensing for the section. I assume you are still following that page?

I will have to give priority to the above problem, improving my attempt to mitigate a rights issue. This brings be back to an old rant. Is there any way that we could screen PNT articles for copyvio and notability *before* somebody spends time pointing out that donjon is a keep not a dungeon? Gah. At least this one can be remedied, so I will do it, but it really isn’t a translation problem actually, mumble. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for scanning PNT articles for WP:COPYVIO, I recently had a look at the guidelines for the New page patrol reviewers, and they have some clues there. Assume you know about the Earwig copyvio detector tool already. Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hemingway and Picasso! Found some sources that are global too not just artist by artist. Busy today but can start this soon. Assume you still watch the page. Elinruby (talk) 15

57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

But yeah, since so many of the School of Paris artists were Jewish and/or from Belarus it was no longer the same, but this was, as somebody pointed out, a consequence of the war not the end of the war. Chaim Soutine died while dodging Nazis and the better-known Chagall made it to New York. He came back to France but not to Paris and not until much later. I have seen the term used post-war, but for a different group of artists with a completely different artistic style. But Hemingway came back and Picasso never left and was no longer in danger, so.... this is a note to myself as much as to you, btw. Forgot I have a medical appointment but this is at the the top of a short list of things I want to take care of before I go on wiki break. Promise to build it out to something good.

Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Are you the one who put in that stuff about Monnet? There’s an uncited quote there and if you ask me that topic belongs in the economics section. I suppose I can find a source for it but if if was you perhaps you remember where you got it. Agrarian=>industrial is indeed on topic but... well, let me know. If somebody else gifted us with it I will just approach the topic without the mystery quote I don’t quite agree with. LMK Elinruby (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this edit of 4 Feb. 2021. The quote was cited to Chapman-2018 at the end of the paragraph; but it lacked a page number, so I've added it. I also took the opportunity to add the text of the quotation to the citation, as it's a bit hard to find in the snippet preview in G-books, and also re-used the same source in a few places in the paragraph, as it wasn't clear that it was all totally sourced. Thanks for the heads-up on this.

By the way, for finding who wrote what when, are you familiar with the Wikipedia-made browser extension called "Who Wrote That?" You'll love it, and it's available on Chrome, Firefox, or Vivaldi. Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded/referenced the section somewhat but am not finished. At a minimum Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir still need to be mentioned by name, and I should explain how the art was different. Soon. RL calls. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hurry, take care of RL; that comes first. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K thanks. I’ll get back to question about whether it should be under economics Elinruby (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move it to #Economic section, I've no objection. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper than I have time to get right now, but that is good to know. Possibly “Social and cultural” is too broad a category for four paragraphs. The allusion I just made to industrialization is citable, btw, but I am currently not sure where I saw it. Need to close some tabs and do RL stuff. Got distracted by another cn tag in a section I wrote. Incidentally I am pretty sure I added language policy to the to-do list but don’t remember what that was about — will figure that out. Can you do something about GI brides? I have no clue about that. If you do leave it there for now, we can reorganize a bit later. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you mean, GI Brides the book, do you? It helps if you link what you're talking about, because I'm drawing a blank on this one. Mathglot (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the section somebody has put an expand tag saying it should include GI brides among other things. I am as confused as you are. Since they didn’t explain this on the talk page (I don’t think) maybe we just delete that item if it wasn’t you and you don’t know what they are talking about either? As I recall some of the other topic in that tag arguably might have some basis, though, so maybe not the whole tag. Feeling slightly overwhelmed with Ukraine right now, can’t look at this right now. But that’s what I am talking about, the expand tag at the top of the section.

New topic in French and European political history

I may have found a gap which could be filled with a new article on how conservatism in France and then Europe and the Western world arose out of a reaction to the French Revolution. I haven't confirmed yet that there isn't an article about this, because maybe it exists but has some title I don't expect, but I haven't found one so far. I was inspired by the red link at the end of the first paragraph of Influence of the French Revolution.

Looking just a little bit in Google books, there are certainly discussions about the birth of modern conservatism as a reaction to the French Revolution; see for example, Zafirovski (2007), page 246, or Giddens (1982) p. 47. I delight in finding these "gaps" in coverage and turning them into articles; the last two were Liberation of France, and War guilt question, and if we're lucky, maybe this is another one.

First thing we'd have to do before anything else, is make sure that we're not duplicating effort, in case there's already an article about it under some other name. The Conservatism article mentions "French Revolution" four times, most relevantly in connection with Edmund Burke, but it's pretty thin about it. Would have to look around some more to make sure. Secondly, we'd have to check if there's enough material out there for a whole article, or maybe just a new section at Conservatism, or at French Revolution. Would enjoy collaborating with you on it, if you feel like it would interest you. Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on strike except for prior commitments. But having been to school in France (where I got a whole bunch of history of the French Revolution) I may be able to answer this easily so I agree to have a look and answer you about this. I also not finished with the stuff I have said I would do at Liberation of France. I came in today to have a look at Russian-Ukrainian information war Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Russian disinformation and the Ukraine invasion is a rabbit hole, and Putin just signed a law that makes it worse. But I stuck my head out long enough to re-read your message. No question there was a conservative backlash. The French Revolution was very bloody and its aftermath had its own excesses. This led in a direct line to the Bourbon restoration, this is true. This is off the top of my head from past history lessons but I am very sure of it. It is also true that the French Revolution greatly alarmed the European monarchies. I am interested in an abstract way, as I am in what the problem is with the copyright tool, but the war in Ukraine seems more urgent. I am burning out fast though and probably will need a change of topic soon. Come help me if you are so moved. For some reason nobody seems to consider the topic important; I am all alone over there amid breaking news. Elinruby (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at Russian information war against Ukraine, and I can see you've been busy there. Can't do too much there right now, but I added what looks like a possibly good reference you can try, in the #Further reading section.

Interesting that you're working on that topic; as it happens, I'm working on a related one, which is a Russian theory of unconventional warfare called New generation warfare. Russian information war is definitely part of it, and it could be the two articles might be interconnected enough to have wikilinks back and forth, possibly in the #Reasons for conflict section of your article. At a minimum, I'll probably add your article to the "See also" section. Your article is probably also very likely related to the Gerasimov doctrine, and I notice there's no mention of it yet, but the Russian disinformation campaign is definitely following the strategy laid out in that doctrine, as well as in new generation warfare. Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I will look at those. I had to move the article, which somebody, perhaps in the Ukranian version, seems to have tried to both-sides; but even allowing for the fact that the original article was apparently written by Ukrainian independence activists, it seems fairly well sourced, considering, although the sources were universally not-English when I got there, and it was machine translated. But I just found possibly the Rosetta Stone: Russian information war tends to be conflated with cyber warfare, but that’s a NATO concept that is actually quite different. (!) according to Russian military training materials. Which means the entire structure of the article is wrong and I just re-wrote the lede. Keep in touch; I appreciate your insights. Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting. Based on a quick scan, unquestionably related. Reflexive control has a whole section in that text I cite for the lede. And doesn’t seem to have an en.wikipedia article yet btw. Maybe there should be a section for the history of the term. One of the concepts I am simmering is an analogy one of the texts makes is that Marxist dialectic sees everything as a struggle and that is why information war takes place even in times of peace. And why they always think they are under attack Elinruby (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scratch that; it does have an article. Must have been another term of art in that text. The uk.wikepedia has a glossary; maybe I should look at that Elinruby (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t get into the link for the glossary; Cloudflare says my iOS is too old, and it’s not wrong, by many definitions of “old”. It’s a glossary of Ukainian terminology not Russian, but they would still have had a lot of insight into what they are defending against. Oh well. Note to self for when I am around another device, or to anyone else interested Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the link for the glossary, please? Maybe I can access it. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just realized that it is probably also pertinent how many of the sources for the article use Cloudflare, but I guess that’s OR unless I find a source for it. Let me know what this looks like:

== Джерела == * [https://www.rnbo.gov.ua/ua/Diialnist/5093.html Глосарій назв, термінів та словосполучень, які рекомендовано використовувати у зв’язку з тимчасовою окупацією Російською Федерацією Автономної Республіки Крим, м. Севастополь і окремих районів Донецької та Луганської областей] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211020145335/https://www.rnbo.gov.ua/ua/Diialnist/5093.html |date=20 жовтня 2021 }}// Сайт РНБО України, 20.10.2021

Thanks. Getting back to France, for some reason when we were talking about this before it did not occur to me that one big effect of the Revolution was Napoleon! He became a general under the Consulate, so ironically the French Revolution helped to create the French Empire Elinruby (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... I looked at this a little more and I think War of the Fourth Coalition may be of interest. The sentence that links to it in the Napoleon article is talking about how Prussia was alarmed by the growing power of France. But what does this have to do with the French Revolution, you may ask. Well. Napoleon became a general in the French Revolution and authored a coup as one of the successive government instabilities that followed it. hth Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Джерела

• Глосарій назв, термінів та словосполучень, які рекомендовано використовувати у зв’язку з тимчасовою окупацією Російською Федерацією Автономної Республіки Крим, м. Севастополь і окремих районів Донецької та Луганської областей Archived 2021-10-20 at the Wayback Machine// Сайт РНБО України, 20.10.2021 Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Ukrainian information war

I found a great source for you for Russian-Ukrainian information war: In the Ukraine Conflict, Fake Fact-Checks Are Being Used to Spread Disinformation. (The article just came out today.) This might be the first case ever of a disinformation false-flag operation. "It’s like Russians actually pretending to be Ukrainians spreading disinformation." I've added the citation to "Further reading", so if you want to use it as a ref, it's ready to go.

By the way, ProPublica is a great source; you can sign up for their email newsletter (which is how I found this article) and get unique angles on plenty of stories of the day. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: thanks! I just worked your doctrine in (forget General’s name) sourced to US Marine Corps, about to wikilink Elinruby (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at that link and it is indeed disturbing that things will get even more confusing. One issue slash question that I have, though, and which I am struggling with in this article, is attribution on the “Ukrainian” side. Sure the Ghost of Kiev was a hoax, but who produced it? I think there are things to be said about the Ukrainian defense in the information war, starting with zelensky’s speeches and the use of Telegram to source tires for defensive barriers but it seems pretty overt? Just noting my questions. I previously concluded that there was some misleading both sides stuff on the article and renamed it but I consider the jury still kind of out. There is an section on the article talk page wondering about this. However I did identify a misleading edit in the article about the 2022 Russian-Ukrainian information war, cited to a genuine Ukrainian debunking site called StopFake, which said that a photo of a demonstration in Moscow was fake. Thing was, on the news I consume, there definitely have been demonstrations in Moscow, so I clicked the click and found nothing of the kind on their website and tagged the claim failed verification. Some other editor subsequently removed that text but now I am eondering if that was an example of this fake debunking. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much I can help with that right now, but I'm working on gathering sources and thinking about a rewrite of New generation warfare, which I started, but have stalled on for a week, after finding some really good sources that give a completely different view of it, especially in connection with the Gerasimov doctrine. The source I trust most at this point, is Janis Berzins (he's at a think tank in Latvia, that NATO set up specifically to try to get a hold on Russian information warfare and analyze it. I've already used some of his articles as referenes (see the "Works cited" section) but have found a couple more of them that are more recent (see "Further reading"), including the 2019 and especially 2020 articles that are upending my views of Gerasimov, and of Russian information warfare, and giving me a much better understanding of asymmetric warfare and hybrid warfare, and their central importance to Russian strategy in general, and this war in particular. You should definitely check out Berzins. You'll find other references there that you will find useful for the articles you're working on, but if you're feeling overwhelmed, I'd start with Berzins, and then maybe Hoffman (a classic. oft-quoted 2009 article to know about just for background), and Chambers.

Oh by the way, your nemesis Repszeus was indeffed, but I'm not sure why; there's no ANI discussion linked, so an admin must have noticed something pretty serious. Mathglot (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the account was a sock but didn’t want to comment on editors etc. Unclear on its agenda; it did catch some typos, etc, but mostly seemed to waste time. That point about the Deepfake it was good but after praising I notice it is a really really close paraphrase of the source. I asked Diannaa to have a look, because if I edited it, her bot was going to blame it on me if I wasn’t thorough enough, based on my past experience. I will look at those sources. You did notice, right, that Gerasimov was describing what he thinks the west does, not what he thinks the RF should do? If not, my source for that is cited pretty high up in the information war article and it should be obvious which one from the title Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Gerasimov, I didn't at first, until Berzins clarified that, especially in his 2020 article. Earlier sources (not J.B.) attributed the doctrine more to Russian (not Western) strategy, so in fact, there is disagreement among experts about many of those terms, and that's exactly what I have to work into the article, staying as NPOV as possible, and trying to get all major opinion in there. From what I've read so far, I'm biased towards Berzins (possibly in part because his sources are more recent, and comment on some of the others), but I'll write neutrally. There has also been an evolution of all of these terms, as well as expert opinions that none of the terms mean very much, and are thrown out there by some writers the way corporate flacks use the latest marketing buzzwords just to sound in the know. So, a tricky area to work in. Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Elinruby (talk)

Fyi. From Russian information war against Ukraine: “It has "a broad political objective — to distract, divide, and demoralize — but otherwise it is largely opportunistic, fragmented, even sometimes contradictory", carried out by an assortment of "political entrepreneurs" seeking Kremlin approval, wrote Mark Galeotti in Foreign Policy.^[1]”

Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: drawing your attention to the suggestion above Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great resource, and important for putting all that disagreement and variability of definitions into context, thanks very much for that. That led me to another one by Galeotti:

• Galeotti, Mark (2018). "The mythical 'Gerasimov Doctrine' and the language of threat". Critical Studies on Security. Informa UK Limited. 7 (2): 157–161. doi:10.1080/21624887.2018.1441623. ISSN 2162-4887. OCLC 8319522816.

but I don't have access to it beyond the first page, so I made a request at WP:RX which you can follow, if interested. I had just finished making a couple of edits to Grey-zone (international relations) in the #Definitions section, addressing the "definition variability" issue there as well. There's a great little section and diagram about the variability and disagrement about definitions, here wrt "Grey zone", in the "Literature Review" section of this article in The Forge (Australian Defence College). I have a feeling that kind of variability and criticism is widespread among a lot of these post-2000 terms regarding theories of military and non-military conflict. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a problem I was running into at information war: people who don’t know what they don’t know want it to be about DDOS. Mind you I once was one of those—but there definitely is a cultural difference in definitions, que no? Informs also looks very interesting Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I managed to find the full text of the second Galeotti article. I had previously checked The Wikipedia Library and it had the citation/info page and abstract, but full-text was fee access only. Then after posting at RX, I had a brainstorm, and went through TWL a different way (direct through the Taylor&Francis access point), and found it! If you're interested, you should be able to pull it up the same way (try this link, but there might be a log-in step before you get there), but if that doesn't work, I also downloaded the PDF, so I can email it to you. Oh, you've disabled email on the site, okay, so I can't email it, hmm, well, you can email me (click 'Email this user' in the left sidebar) and then I can reply, with a copy of the article. That will maintain privacy of your email, but expose mine, which I'm okay with, since it's a Wikipedia-only email address, and anyway, I trust you. The article is short, only 4 1/2 pages; just send me an email with a link to the article, or to this conversation so I remember what it's about. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try “Causes of the Bourbon Restoration” as a search term if you haven’t already. Elinruby (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Strana.ua

Hello, Elinruby,

Thank you for creating Strana.ua.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

References 66,67,68 are numbered but not included

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Atlantic306}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Atlantic306 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Wow, I came to this page expecting to find a new editor, not someone with your experience. I was going to place a template notice, but I'm pretty sure you know the rules. Then again, you placed a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment without a signature, the bot added one for you, then you returned to add more to the orignal !vote, and a reply as well, and in the process removed the signature the bot added and again left your !vote unsigned! Not sure what that's all about, but please sign your talk posts. Thank you - wolf 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: thank you for your courtesy. I realized, when I was most of the way through a long post about exactly why something was ridiculous, that the phone battery was at zero, so I hit send. I’ve since gone back to finish and claim the post. I am normally annoyed by reminders to do something I am doing or have done, but yours was refreshing in its courtesy so thank you for that Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could copy this content to your sandbox and fix it to make sure that the text is good and well referenced. Then you can try to include it to Azov Battalion where such info is missing. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: if in fact it were a duplicate article of a normal article that might be the thing to do. However my sandbox in already full of notes for Russian information war against Ukraine. And figure the odds. The editors at the page on the Russian bogeyman apparently adamantly refuse to read the reliable sources policy. I think it would be better to either split the articles or maybe merge the other way around, But llisten, i am just going to go finish bringing in the references; i’ve spent the entire day telling people I would love to do that if they would quit trying to delete the page because I fell asleep while trying to do that :) But yeah, once a little more information comes to light I would be happy to discuss this with you. I don’t suppose you read Ukrainian? Or Russian?

PS - just looked you up to get the ping right. Your input would be very welcome at the page I mentioned if you are so moved. In particular, the trans-title in the references is machine translated and almost certainly can be improved; that one might be much easier for you than for me. I am also trying to clarify and expand based on the sources, which is mighty tedious using machine translation. I am pretty sure the section on Russian identity could be improved also, and a critical read of the American military sources would be wonderful if you are familiar with the culture as well as the language. Meanwhile I have a date with some references in Ukrainian. Thank you for any of that that you may take on. There are also a LOT of questions on the talk page Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC

I see that you know how to use subpages in your user space. Yes, I know Russian, but very little Ukrainian. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe. ok, that’s true. But I am doing this article exactly the same way I have done dozens of other translations about military units. Given the number of times and ways I’ve been accused of bad faith today I feel it is important that I hold to that. This is an article about the military unit, which is not covered in the battalion article. My current opinion is that the battalion, the movement and regiment are different things. Somebody is working on an article about the movement, I see. And I applaud that. If the membership turns out to significantly overlap, we can revisit. Meanwhile, it is urgent to get the military history of a military unit that is in the news this much into SOME article, and the Ukrainian Wikipedia offhand is probably a pretty good source on Ukrainian military history. I will be happy to discuss any specific issues that you see with it going forward. I hope to finish the translation phase tonight and move into looking for English sources and fixing any POV from there. And now I am really going to quit responding to edits and tags and go do references Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last two journalists out of Mariupol

Pretty amazing read (with pictures and video) by two AP journalists who managed to be evacuated from Mariupol, the last two journalists in the city. Not sure if it fits in one of the articles you're working on, but it's an amazing story: 20 days in Mariupol: The team that documented city’s agony. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Almost certainly. Thanks. Those AP journalists are why we know about the hospital bombing Elinruby (talk)

Go in peace, my child

Don't patronise me, my "child". I'm an old-age pensioner, both my parents are dead, and I have grandchildren. I'd hazard a guess that you are younger than 30 - you seem to lack maturity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDemeanour (talk • contribs) 1:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: I deeply apologize if I came across as patronizing. This was not at all my intention. I was trying to make a joke and put you at ease because you said you felt like a gatecrasher. Obviously I failed, so I am truly sorry. As for my maturity, well. I was very irritated, not with you, and imho had good reason to be. As somebody who has been patronized most of today, I do however regret having apparently done the same to you. Pax? Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Do not post DS warnings on the page of everyone editing at Azov Battalion. The majority of the people you are "warning" are experienced editors in the area of EE Sanctions, and I guarantee you will only piss them off. BSMRD (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have misrepresented facts and you have been warned. Get off my talk page. Unfortunately I have to give them to them sane people too and yeah I am sure they will find it annoying but the proper way to do it is to warn everybody because it isn’t supposed to be punitive. You have been warned. Seek accuracy in future, because you are the reason I am doing this. And for god’s sake read the reliable source policy. Elinruby (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They previously received one on 22 Jan. 2022 (diff), and since that's within the 12-month expiration, in theory you're not allowed to give them another one until Jan 2023, per WP:AC/DS#alert.dup. Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ah. I knew about the one-year period but didn’t see that. So I always could have asked for sanctions, damn. Alright, I guess the thing to do is go take it off? Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what I would do, is go to their talk page, and say something like, "Hey, sorry for placing that D/s Alert, I missed the fact that you had already received one in January. I'm happy to self-revert, or you can just delete it if you wish. Let me know which you prefer. Thanks, ~~~~" and then see how they respond. If they don't respond at all, which is at least as likely as the other alternatives, then you're good. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about people that I am pretty sure know that? Ymblanter for example? Elinruby (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I wouldn't bother. Plus, he's a native Russian speaker, and I think really knows this stuff. But if you do decide to place one, whether at his page or anyone else's, just make sure they haven't gotten one *for that alert type* since 26 March 2021; if they have, then don't place it. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Elinruby (talk)

Strikeout type

You're letting your frustration at the RIwaU Talk page get the better of you, and if I were you, I'd not respond to provocations there, but just keep your counsel, and either improve the article or switch to something else for a bit. In particular, you should seriously consider self-reverting this edit, as it's only going to cause you trouble if it remains. You actually can't do that, it's contrary to WP:TPO. There are some cases spelled out when you can refactor someone else's comments at a TP (one is comments by a block-evading sock), but they are quite limited in number. Best thing to do if you feel there's a serious violation that needs to be removed from the TP, would be to go to an admin's TP and request them to do it. Actually, before trying that, you could also just ask the person concerned if they would strike or remove the offending material; depending on who it is and the situation, you might get what you want, and it's much better if they do it, and not you. If that fails, go to an admin.

One other thing to keep in mind, that took me a while before I realized, is that the requirements for the header section of an Rfc, and for a RM are *completely different*. As you know, the Rfc starts off with a completely neutral statement (WP:RFCNEUTRAL) that ideally doesn't betray the opinion of the OP at all, and then the OP gets to vote, lower down in the voting/survey section, making as partisan an argument as they like; but NOT in the top section. But, an RM is completely different: the OP is *supposed to* make as partisan an argument in favor of their move request as they can, right in the top section; after that, they are *not allowed* to cast a separate vote; their intro argument, *is* their vote. (See the bold Note a few paragraphs down, at WP:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move, starting, "Unlike other request processes...") That is, the OP's top statement is *always* an automatic vote to support whatever the RM move is proposing, even if they don't put the word support there in bold, and they get to make a strong argument right at the top. If you were not aware of this, it might explain why you reacted strongly to the OP statement at the 3/23 RM: it probably sounded totally non-neutral to you, but in fact, that's how an RM is supposed to go; the OP has to take their best shot at the top. If you don't agree with what they lay out, just give it your best shot in the Discussion section or in the comments, explaining with your argumentation why they're all wrong; but don't strike it. If it goes way beyond the threshold of partisan argumentation, and into the territory of offensive comments, personal attacks, or other P&G violations, still don't strike it, but ask an admin for assistance. Also, I can see this is all getting to you; even the reply to Ymblanter above sounds a bit testy; please try and relax, my friend—have a glass of wine, and watch The Four Yorkshiremen, or whatever will make you smile. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already put the reorganization of Russian information page in your hands. For the moment they have effectively stopped me with their weird demands to rewrite the article based on sources that as far as I can tell don’t exist. I’ve had a bellyful of being called brainwashed and a Nazi sympathizer and am currently occupied in giving everyone DS alerts so they can’t say they didn’t know. You may if you think best revert me with an edit summary saying you advised me to talk to an administrator instead and I told you I would do that. I don’t want to lose my place in what I am doing to do that this instant, but I will. Thanks for the back, no I didn’t know that. Elinruby (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeouts undone (diff). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is btw perhaps a gleam of light in the HouseOfChange saga over there. If she doesn’t deny it later she seems to actually be upset about the redirect, which I don’t care about. She can just write about whatever she wants to write about in her own article under the redirect. I think she will run into the same problem I did, but if not more power to her. And actually, the exchange above is spillover from Azov, which is definitely making me crazy. I am pretty much at peace about the Russian information war article now. It’s well sourced and you seem to have the matter of the titles and the problems it will cause in hand. Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear. Yes, I noticed the back-and-forth about the redirect, and if one is needed when the dust settles, I can supply it. (If you have the patience for WP:ROBIN, you could, too; I used to have to map them out with pencil and paper before starting, because it's rather tricky at first, and highly error-prone. Now I can do them in my sleep, which is to say, I've learned how to ride that bicycle. But it's really annoying the first several times.) We'll see how it goes with any needed reorgs; I tend to be slower lately, a lot slower even, so feel free to nudge me, if nothing seems to be happening, and it should. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is, this request for merge continues and people keep voting on this based on the incorrect way it’s been presented to them. My thing is, if somebody can manifest a bunch of material that I somehow missed that make that the appropriate title, but I am fairly certain that these people, having inappropriately renamed the article, will then move on to template somebody else and I’ll be left with the balance problem. The request for merge template should require the requestor to summarize its contents, grumble. Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean; there's one like that going on where if they only delved deeper or had been editing there a while, it would be clearer. A lot of people sign up at the Feedback request service (as do I), and then they parachute into some Rfc or RM they don't know anything about, and they want to help, but they don't want to spend the time to really understand what's going on. I understand the conflicting desires, after all, we're all volunteers here. I don't have a solution for you, other than try to be patient; when you get frustrated, it shows, and then I think some may become more closed to your valid arguments; if you could stay calm, you might just get through better to at least some who are willing to listen. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point being, if the renaming should wait on the re-.org, then the sooner it is done the better. No pressure or anything :) Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually been thinking about that, and I was worried that making a major change now, right in the middle of an RM, might be seen as disruptive. Because what I would do, is strip the article down to 20-30kb parent article with Ru-Uk_dis as the title, and then a quite large child article on Ru_dis, and a kind of tiny child article on Uk_dis. But that would kind of undermine the RM, or at the very least, ruffle a lot of feathers on why I'm making huge changes to the article right in the middle of it. Because they will be pretty huge. So, I think discretion calls for me to wait until it's over, one way or the other. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm then we are at cross-purposes. Maybe ask in the discussion what people think about you doing that, because the my goal is to stop the merge if possible and avoid the ensuing headache. Because these template warriors don’t actually write. I need to sift some talk pages urgently though, to figure out if I need to remove the alerts. I’ve already invited HouseOfChange to edit the article, but I don’t think she has. Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that of all the unsupported claims you've made about me, ElinRuby, it turns out I'm bothered by being mis-gendered.[1] HouseOfChange (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake is noted and will not be repeated. Meanwhile, how about that redirect? Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

Elinruby, not telling you what to do at the ANI, but often, less is more. So far, they are not making their case, and it's all very weak. You've stated your position, and unless something particularly damaging or incorrect comes out that truly leaves no wiggle room for interpretation, sometimes the best thing to do, is just let it sit there without a response; the admins are all very experienced and will recognize a weak argument when they see it. I was once taken to ANI by a whiny editor, and I literally did not respond at all. Even their provably false claims, I let them lie there, with no response. No admin is going to just credulously gobble up claims, they require diffs and proof, and if it's not forthcoming, it's dead in the water. So I didn't respond, whiny editor got nowhere, and skulked away after some time. Certainly jump in if there's something clearly false about you (like, they said you said 'X' at time 'Y', but you didn't), but if it's just rehashing a content disagreement, or an interpretation of something you did or didn't do, try and resist the urge to respond to every point. I.e., "pick your battles"; stick to the provably false ones; their case is weak, and mostly doesn't need a response. At worst, you're guilty of getting crabby sometimes when you defend the encyclopedia against POV pushers, and because there are so many of them, especially in contentious topics subject to AC/DS, sometimes it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and maybe you got testy with a good guy (or maybe not). This is nothing that's going to get you taken to the woodshed, so don't worry about it. So just chill, let them expostulate, and try not to get distracted by it, while working on stuff. This will blow over with no action in a few days; at worst, you'll get a warning about CIVIL or RM#CM. A good strategy for you right now, is to keep half an eye open on ANI, but lose yourself in Dilma, or Lava Jato, or Vichy, or Belfast, or Xinjiang, until it does. "Less is more." Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian propaganda analyst

I heard about Julia Davis on some news interview; she's an expert analyst of Russian propaganda, who does analyses and interviews. Her site is here, and has links to WaPo, Daily Beast, and other sites where you might find reports that could be useful for some of the articles you're working on.

Btw, have you seen the Russian propaganda about the Bucha massacre? The dead bodies in the street were either killed by Ukrainians to make Russians look bad, or they're crisis actors, or the bodies don't exist at all and are just fake videos. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yep. I did see that. I am speechless. Speaking of Ukraine, the portion about Zelenskyy’s speeches needs to be expanded. I am currently on a mental health day from Azov, since they are back to calling me an apologist for thinking that the sources on “neo-nazi” should not about hate groups in the United States, which, whatever else it is, Azov is not. It gets a two-sentence mention; members of an American hate group apparently met them one day, according to the court case against them, which is according to an FBI agent with two years under his belt. Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this makes me very much think of that IP/"new"-user on the talk page. Their posts, which are already deliberately provocative (with an obvious instance of a false equivalence), and their line of reasoning, which includes such pearls as "Chinese media, which is only lukewarm to Russia, should perhaps be considered here", along with the subsequent personal attacks and accusations, is indistinguishable from actual trolling, i.e. to quote from the in this instance reliable Urban Dictionary, "The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous,". The best course of action would be to just ignore them entirely, me thinks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He lost me at “obscure local event”. The people I am talking about above aren’t ignorable unfortunately. FWIW India has a lot of trade with Russia, and some of the headlines in “The Hindu” make me shake my head. China... less sure about the trade ties but they are apparently supporting Russian foreign policy but not offering military assistance. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're really good at the whole false equivalence thing. Somehow dismissing Western media because "duh, they're all biased" (what they're doing) is acceptable, but treating "non-Western" media as "monoliths" (which is not even what we're doing) is not. Gosh, at least nonsense like that is obvious and leaves one without any doubts... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunutubble: You might want to look up WP:DFTT and leave that one alone... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with discretionary sanctions? That page falls under EE (Eastern Europe). He’s already on the personal attack part of the troll playbook. (Did you see that I am ignoring the rape of Russian soldiers?) For something this blatant they may just block him as an obvious SPA. I mean how old is the account? And he knows what a hat is? Elinruby (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five hours, lol Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok well. He just left me an alert back. That’s a problem, since I already have one, so I’ll leave it up in case you need it. But I just flagged him as a single-purpose account also, so I am guessing you won’t? I think administrators have noticed him. Hope that helps. I gotta go do non-wiki stuff Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now reported at ANI, if you want to add your two cents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really gotta go. I owe them diffs about something else when I get done with my to-do. But tell them he’s flagged as an SPA and just got an alert. That should make it easy for somebody to step in esp if he keeps this up. No way this guy is a legit new user. I’ve been here 16 years and had to look up how to do that. I gotta go. Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and tell them he knows what a hat is. I’ve verified his edit history Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat discretionary sanctions alerts

Per WP:AC/DS, "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." In Special:Diff/1081348317, you posted a discretionary sanctions alert for the "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" topic area on User talk:JoseLuisMoralesMarcos. Earlier today, another editor had issued an alert for same topic area at Special:Diff/1081329059. Although the original alert had been removed, alerts that have been deleted by the editor who received them or have been automatically archived are still considered in effect. Please take care not to send repeat alerts to the same editor within one year of the most recent alert for the same topic area. Also, please note that the alert template should be substituted. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Newslinger. I did look at his edit history but I was thinking SPA thoughts at the time and didn’t notice that. What did I get wrong in the syntax, please? I don’t really understand “substituted”. Sounds recursive. I have a feeling that if I keep watching that page I will need to know. Also, do you know the syntax for D/S aware? I don’t usually swim in these waters but I will make myself a formal checklist for future use. Sorry about any problems I may have caused the sysadmins. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution means adding subst: before the template name, which causes your edit to be saved with a copy of the template that does not update when the template is later edited, instead of a live embed (transclusion) of the template that does update when the template is later edited. Most templates that are designed be used in talk page comments should be substituted. The template documentation explains how the template is meant to be used, and whether substitution is necessary.

Looking at Special:Diff/1081348317 more closely, you actually did substitute the discretionary sanctions template correctly. The "This template must be substituted" error message was from using the {{spa}} template without substituting it, i.e. {{subst:spa}}. Note that the documentation of Template:Single-purpose account states, "This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:Single-purpose account}})."

More importantly, the {{spa}} template is not meant to be used as a user talk page warning. Instead, this template is generally only used in discussions that are to be formally closed, such as requests for comment and deletion discussions. The tag is useful for helping the discussion closer evaluate consensus when there is improper canvassing, particularly off-wiki canvassing. For an example of the {{spa}} template being properly used, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacha.

To use {{Ds/aware}}, go to the list of topic codes at Template:Ds/alert/doc#Codes and identify the codes for the topic areas that you want to opt out of alerts for. Then, apply the template with the codes on the top of your user talk page (this page), separated by | characters if you are including more than one topic area. For example, if you want to opt out of alerts for the "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people" (ap) and the "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" (e-e) topic areas, the corresponding template code is {{Ds/aware|ap|e-e}}. This template should not be substituted. For the full documentation, please see Template:Ds/aware.

I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 01:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks. Elinruby (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Glass of Kvass for you!

	An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class
	In thanks, to cool you down after your efforts in the heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to give "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" and all that jazz a wide berth. Don't engage with it, don't even entertain it. Clearly there are many Wiki editors who simply use it as an extension of their partisan, parochial edit-wars. When you look at the edit counts of some of the names that keep popping up there, you realize that for many of them, but for 1 or 2 articles, their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th most common page to edit - is there. Incredible. That should tell you a lot. You'll notice too, if you read through the archives like a saddo such as myself, these regular fixtures also have a stunning success rate of getting people blocked/banned. I mean, some of them are batting like .800! I'd feel embarrassed trying to get someone blocked for 3RR or for some kind of impolitesse or breach of etiquette, but for them it's a sport. And their years of practice makes mere debutantes or novices such as ourselves almost guaranteed to lose. So don't play the game I say, don't play into their hands. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate bullies. And didn't that strategy get you blocked for trying to provide references? You aren't the first one to tell me that, mind you, and you may be right. I did have a brainstorm about Azov though. Most of the pages that link to it are about anti-hate groups, which may explain the utter certainty on the subject at that page. Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'd be more than happy to receive an email from you. Not anything to do with collaborative editing or anything, but just to share our thoughts on the problems within the project. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of making some proposal or proposal that might help. Wikipedia does seem to rely on the idea of reasonable people discussing, which is fine if the people involved are reasonable. It needs work, although this is not the only article on which I have thunk these thoughts. There are places where the opinion of uninvolved editors is valuable and places where it isn't. Elinruby (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Escadron de Chasse 1/4 Gascogne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Châteaufort.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azov RfC - it all went pear-shaped

We could really use your help! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help submit a new article on Collaboration with Russia During Russo-Ukranian War

Hello, I am a new editor

Can I ask for your help editing and submitting this draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Collaboration_with_Russia_During_Russo-Ukranian_War

I believe timely publication can help nudge countries and companies away from collaborationism behaviour, hence the sense of urgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I0ving (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

I've just noticed that Boud was able to do his comparable page split in 2-3 hours earlier this week on the 2022 Invasion article. It might be worthwhile to ping him to get some ideas concerning how to move your page split forward after 2-3 days. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am proceeding if slowly. Is there a particular reason for your hurry? I started with a trim for wordiness and am currently verifying the references. If you recall, Boyd didn't want to do this because it would be a lot of work. He is right, unless there is some urgent need to just truncate. FWIW the references do look good so far, but I don't see why I should take that on faith. Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok. The article seems like it may have more activity when Russia starts the second phase of the invasion which news sources are saying is immanent. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, though CNN says it will rain in eastern Ukraine and if the Russians are smart they won't take tanks out in the mud. But that is not a factor in my calculations. I just got home and am working on it now. Pacific timezone, if that helps. Elinruby (talk)

Nice edits at the Invasion article earlier this morning. Just some final notes on your Media section there, doesn't 3 March come before 11 March in the section, and shouldn't all the page redirects (Main, See also, Further information) all be grouped at the top of the section? I'll try to support whichever way you decide to go on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I wondered about the redirects. Since they didn’t really annoy me, I left them the way I found them, but sure, I can move them if you like. Ditto chronological order. Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like its ok to go ahead and start bulking down the Legal section of the article, possibly down to 3-4 paragraphs. That would be something like one paragraph per section, and then pull all the redirects to the top of the section same as for Media when you have time for it. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: OK. I am working on another article but it's currently gridlocked, so I would consider that not only more important, but a welcome change of pace. Possibly tonight, but if not, soon. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: did a lot of condensing and now need a break. Not finished as there is a lot of overlap with the daughter articles and I haven't been to that well very much yet. But break Elinruby (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really a useful improvement so far, though health concerns have to come first. After you take a Wikibreak you might feel better. Nice edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I’ll be back, maybe tonight. It was just that given the article I did it in a lot of fiddly small edits. There is less chance of making a mistake and it’s easier to see what I did that way, and to undo anything that needs to be undone. The thing is, the War crimes article is a powder keg with multiple noticeboard cases, which itself could stand a trimming, so there is a lot of back story to cover before I even touch it much, and the articles on the court cases need to be fleshed out and updated. Most of the linked articles as well. I do have a couple of questions. For example: It does seem to be undisputed that the war is a crime of aggression, and at least one of the references says this is unquestionable, but we also say this in wiki voice, so I am assuming it would be better yet to quote some authority on this? Was this point ever discussed? Also, war crimes and humanitarian war crimes all seem to be different things, but this is a top-level article so I guess definitions should be at a strict minimum that applies to the invasion? But. TL;DR= I don’t think there is much more space to be gained by trimming, and most of the spinning off remains to be done.

One other thing: as to the media section, somebody apparently really feels strongly about the difference in depiction between Ukrainian refugees and Syrians for example. I think this is a very valid point and I can understand some bitterness about it, but it is after all a small part of a small part. I am thinking that the best way to deal with this might be to let it ride for the moment, expand the child article on this point, and maybe add in a redirect before coming back to this? Whoever put it back it probably thinks it got deleted because racism, and didn’t see the spinoff. What do you think? Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the issues you raise are of varying importance; the war crimes comparsion to crimes against humanity is the more weighty one. For this question, sometimes it comes down to a matter of whether the events take place inside the borders of one country without any war declared, as opposed to being acts committed accross borders when a war is declared. The same crime committed inside of one country (like Rwanda many years ago) would be called crimes against humanity; while the same physical acts of violence committed by soldiers at war would be called war crimes (like Calley in Viet Nam). As you know, Russian is still calling the current invasion a 'special military operation' in the absence of a formal declaration of war, which means that the precise form of accusation against Russia, for example at Bucha, still needs to be resolved.

Regarding your second point about the Media section, at present that section still looks ok. Different editors will have different emphasis they wish to place and the current edits still look on the acceptable side of things. Those were good edits you made for these two sections on Media and on the Legal section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reaching out to say "hello" to me on that well-known social media site. Since I openly disclose my real world identity here on Wikipedia, there are zero outing concerns. It is always nice to hear from you, and I wish you well in these difficult days. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I should keep the conversations separate, in case. I on the other hand try to be careful about making not making it easy to mess with me RL, especially right now when somebody just had a real good go in Wikipedia, so please do be aware of that. But cheers. I have heard that that’s a really nice town, and rich you well. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfroCine: 2021 Months of African Cinema Contest Winners

Greetings! After successfully completing the 2021 Months of African Cinema Global Contest on 30 November 2021, we are happy to announce the winners in the contest! Over 4,000 articles were created across 17 language Wikipedias, surpassing all expectations and placing the contest firmly as one of the most successful article-writing contests on Wikipedia. A big thank you to you and every single person who created articles during the period of the contest for making this happen! All our winners have now been announced and you can check the complete list here. We'd still be contacting everyone who has won something separately to send over their prizes. Thank you so much for being part of this global event! –Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Deleting that article

GizzyCat is asking people for consensus to delete that article here [2]. My vote is to "keep." GizzyCat is changing their original objection, which was alleging it glorified UPA, to a new objection alleging NPOV, which I disagree with that new allegation too. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is yet, that's the thing. I try to know what I don't know and I am still reading. If it isn't neutral it will be when I am done with it, is what I think. Don't argue. The way they are doing it now they need to get consensus so there is time to fix the article. These people travel in packs. Just work on the article; you've said your piece. But that rationale is pretty good, I have to say ;). It's anti-Soviet, it glorifies UPA (???? I am currently reading about somebody snitching on a leader in hiding ??!) It duplicates another article, now it is NPOV. LOL. I came in here to point out this source, which looks pretty solid:[3]. Don't worry. Work on the article. I have a few more hours in me for this tonight. Elinruby (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRMadison: Elinruby (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something confusing just happened on that 'delete' page. GCB suggested changing the title to the article and elaborated by saying that between 1944-1956 the "Soviet Union was exceptionally well and dandy" here [4] When I asked him/her to answer why they think that, they avoided time and again. Without answering, GBC put it under an "off topic" bar. The confusing part is, GCB brought it up as a suggested new title for that article, but then refused to answer, buried it, & said it's off-topic. Very confusing.

That is part of what I was warning you about. If I explained it they could say I was attacking them however, but this is a pattern. Here is the thing: theoretically it is something you could file a complaint over that , but if you do it will suck up all of your free time for the next week or so. Or, you could work on the article. My suggestion is that you stop engaging with these people whose minds are made up, and if it troubles you enough, discuss it with an admin that you trust. Or, you could advertise the AfD if you like. By the way, this is not my area of expertise, but I am pretty sure I just read that the Ukraine joined the Soviet Union at gunpoint, so calling the Russians/Soviets occupiers doesn't seem that non-neutral to me atmElinruby (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it would be nice if I was pinged to the conversation since you are talking about me. So let me address your inquiry BetsyRMadison about why I spoke (joking of course) that the Soviet Union was "well and dandy" from 1944 to 1956. So...they just pushed the Germans west after the Stalingrad and with the collapse of Nazi Germany, became a "dandy" super-power. They soon developed a nuclear weapon and shortly after, in 1961, dispatched Gagarin into space, so he could look and smile from far above at the huge territory the Soviet Union acquired. Does this answer your question? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: My priority is to help you with that article. Period. BetsyRMadison (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: I didn't ping you, because I didn't invite you to this conversation. It's that simple. But since you're following me on wiki, your exact quote is "1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." This isn't the first time I've seen you try wiggle out of something you did say. But that's beside the point. It's apparent you don't know what the "Soviet Union" was.
The Soviet Union was not one country (as you seem to think) it was a forced conglomerate of 15 countries (Republics): USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (notice the 's' at the end, plural). The Russian Republic brutally ruled all of the other Republics even though they all wanted their independence & didn't want to be in the "SSRepublics" (plural). The Russian Republic brutally controlled them all under a 1-party rule out of Moscow. Example: In 1930s Russian Republic waged genocide in Ukraine and killed almost 4 million Ukrainians.
Ukrainian nationalists didn't set out to kill Jews pre-1941, but I'll tell you who did: Russian Republic leader Joseph Stalin.
From 1933-1941 Stalin & Hitler were allies. In 1939 Stalin & Hitler invaded Poland to kill Jews. At that time, Ukraine nationalists weren't killing Jews, Russia's Joseph Stalin was killing Jews along side Hitler (Stalin, the guy you say led an "exceptionally well and dandy" country.)
In 1941 Hitler invaded Stalin's Ukraine and told Ukraine nationalists that if they fought with the Germans, they'd give Ukraine independence they'd been fighting Russia for since 1917.
* You said you want to delete the article because you feel the article "glorifies" UPA, but you can't (or won't) cite any passages to support your allegations.
* Then you switched to complaining about sources. The author, Moxy, & I gave you sources; you won't read the sources. I even translated a source for you and you still won't read it.
* Then you suggested to change the title to "Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union" and I explained since Ukraine resistance has been fighting Russian Republic for their independence since 1917, and the article only covers 1944-1956, your title isn't fitting.
* That's when you said, "1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." And now you're here pretending you didn't say what you did say.
* Here's the real kicker to your praise of Russia's Stalin - Stalin, the guy who for decades waged genocide on Ukrainians, Jews, etc - The author of the article is from Ukraine. And right now, while you sit here and praise Russia, inside the author's country, Russia is waging a genocidal invasion in Ukraine, kidnapping & raping Ukrainians, and destroying Ukrainian cities. While the author is dealing with all that, you accuse the author of "glorifying" UPA and you can't even cite a single passage to support your claim. Now that is sad. BetsyRMadison (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/me checks to make sure this is still my talk page. Gizzy, please don’t post stupid stuff here. Go right a great wrong somewhere else. Surely there are articles that need to be tag bombed. I am not pinging you because I am pretty sure I don’t need to; thank you for proving my point. I am not going to ask you to stay off my page at this time, but you are making stupid jokes about a serious matter, and it’s offensive, especially when you are doing it waving the flag of a country that attempts to embody inclusion and tolerance, so you make it really hard to take you seriously or even AGF Elinruby (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"women and children"

@Elinruby: Just want you to know I'm on the cusp of finding a source regarding "massacre of women and children" you were asking help in find. I'll keep you posted.BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE The source is Polish historian Grzegorz Motyka. Now I just have to find which of his books he talks about it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRMadison: Right. This does appear to be genuinely missing, as I am pretty sure I have given the whole thing at least a first pass edit. My current guess is that it has something to do with the idea expressed in one place that they felt that Ukrainians were entitled to land that was occupied by the Polish people that the Soviets had settled there. This does sound like a recipe for bloodshed. However of course this does require some dehumanization of the "other", especially if the goal was ethnic cleansing. There was a place where I |said this looks like a good source; it went into this a bit. MMM on my talk page I think. I just woke up and have some overdue RL stuff to take care of. Thanks for your help. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you on all accounts. I found a 2nd source, Timothy Snyder. I've got to get off of here, probably for several hours. But when I get back, I'll have more time to dive into Snyder's work to give an RS for that passage. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRMadison: Hey Snyder is the one I was talking about (though maybe not the same article tho) --anyway, here, if this helps. I am doing a second, better read on this. I really need to do some stuff however. Elinruby (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mr Reading Turtle. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: this got resolved on Mr Reading Turtle's talk page. I encourage him to express any other concerns he might have, as this turned out to be quite a valid question. Elinruby (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Two questions: 1) What kind of AfD or request can I start to get a consensus and/or question whether the author of that article has the same right to WP:AFDDISCUSS as everyone else? From March 28 through today, no one ever mentioned "extended confirmed restriction" being placed on the author.

• On March 28, the author commented on a 'Title Change Request' here [5]. No one said a word about "extended confirmed restriction."
• On April 26, on the author's page GCB wrote, "Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised" and never said a word about "extended confirmed restriction."
• On April 17, GCB created a "deletion request" (here [6] and never said a word about "extended confirmed restriction."

2) You wrote, "that editor has 16,000+ global edits." If the editor has 16,000+ edits, then "extended confirmed restriction" would not apply to the author in any way. How can I find that information?
I feel there's some WP:AFDDISCUSS and WP:PLAYPOLICY (and maybe more) issues going on. Best regards to you & yours, BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRMadison: the key word here is "global". Most of them are on Wikidata and on other language wikipedias. I am not sure if it counts but it should. I forget how to get there; I had to play around with it. I think there is a link when you do a diff. I will get back to you on this. Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found it under "global." Thank you, that was the hint I needed. Thanks for all your hard work! I thought I'd be free this week but I was wrong. I should have more time this weekend to go over some of those sources to find English sources. However, your point that history classes in eastern Europe school were fraught decades of Soviet disinformation, makes it more challenging to find the truths that historians like Timothy Snyder & Grzegorz Motyka have been bringing to light. Best regards friend, BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you can sign into Jstor with a google account, if that helps. Elinruby (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Moxy offered to help GizzyCatBella with access, and I feel pretty sure they would do the same for you. Other suggestions: Try searching in books.google.com or scholar.google.com, or see if somebody can fix you up with access to the Wikipedia library. Elinruby (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can help with sources.....still have my alma mater access. Moxy- 04:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post your comment again without removing mine at the same time please

See - [7] GizzyCatBella🍁 03:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Don't be discouraged by Wikipedia:POV railroadMoxy- 03:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two maple leaves, but only one in HD! El_C 12:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pantone version vs Wikiproject version :-) Moxy- 15:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Email

Hey. I got your email, but as a general rule, I only disclose my email address to users whom I've pretty much known for years. So I'm afraid for the time being any queries you have for me will need to be limited to on-wiki. But while I can't really respond to specifics from the email, I think I can give you a few more general, non-specific explanations:

1. I am on the record in stating (on multiple occasions) that I think GCB should be TBAN'd from WP:ARBEE. But I also doubt whether you, too, are suited to be editing that topic area.
2. I don't really have time to look into the weeds of this conflict. The bad RM close was just obviously problematic in a rather simple way (i.e. just a normal !vote masquerading as a close; see my notes at WP:AEL#Eastern Europe). But even if I did have time, I doubt I'd be acting on this dispute single-handedly. I mean, I suppose could, but it would suck (for me). No matter what, they'd bound to be a lot blowback, so I'd rather spread the heat as it were. Thus, I'd probably defer the matter to WP:AE even if I did have time right now for a deep dive.
3. Part of the confusion, I think stems from the role played by WP:APL in contradistinction to ARBEE. While, like WP:BALKANS used to be, it is a subset of ARBEE, whether a subset or running in parallel (as seen in in WP:AA2, WP:KURDS and to a lesser extent WP:ARBIRP), the key point is that it has more stringent requirements. So, to what extent APL comes into effect for this page, would be something I'd also recommend seeking further clarification on at AE or maybe even WP:ARCA.
4. I don't like GCB taking it upon herself to provide arbitration enforcement on the AfD for that page, because she is both an involved editor (the AFD's filer no less) and also not an admin. If anything, I think her striking !vote comments did a dis-service to her own position. I also think it was inappropriate. A note to the closer about WP:500/30 in a way akin to how {{spa}} or {{canvassed}} are usually expressed (i.e. absent striking) would have sufficed and would have served everyone better (herself included).

That's about all the scattered thoughts I have about this atm. HTH. El_C 12:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I appreciate your thoughts, as there does seem to be a policy issue here which I may or may not fully understand. I am fine with you not disclosing your email; I was merely trying to comply with the please no admin requests on my talk page thing. I agree that there is more here than any one human can deal with. My own frustration stems largely from two issues.

• The original author is not being allowed to defend her work, which is a serious piece of scholarship, although it appears to have some omissions, perhaps stemming from drafting the article based on Ukrainian sources and only then supplementing it with Russian and Polish sources. I am really not sure, as I haven't yet managed to have a conversation with her. (Gender inferred from name, and may be wrong) If I do ever manage to reach her I will tell her that is it seems to me that the simplest way to remedy this is for her to polish the English in one of her drafts in a different topic area. She has 19k+ global edits, btw. I am not asking for you to do anything about this, just pointing to it as an example of how an implementation of the policy appears on its face to be unfair in practice, in this admittedly edge case. And also reinforcing that this is the reason for my own involvement.
• The moving-target nature of the various rationales in the prod, RfM, AfD, and NPOV cases make it really hard to discuss, especially when they include outrageous comments like the fact claim that there was no occupation of Ukraine, therefore there was no resistance to it. My previous editing on World War 2 has focused on the Western Front, so I am learning the facts on the fly and can't rely on what I am being told on talk pages.

Anyway, thanks for listening and for sharing your thoughts. I may have further questions about this. Would it be OK to ping you here? I promise to no do so excessively, but I am unfamiliar with several of the acronyms and may want to ask you something once I look them up. 21:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry, for the belated response, I seem to have missed your ping. By all means, if you have any further queries or inquiries, feel free to drop me a line. But (big caveat), not about this page, please. It has gone rather off the rails for me, so it's probably best if I were to just refrain from any further anything concerning it. Regards, El_C 18:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some people enjoy distracting others

As your editor-friend: My advice to you is to not respond to an editor who is trying to distract you by making you play fetch and being passive-aggressive. You are a good editor, you volunteer your time, and you work very hard to improve so many articles on here. Those who have no intention of trying to help to make an article better, will be passive-aggressive to intentionally try to distract good editors like you. Don't take the bait. They're not worth it and you know they're not. If I were you, I'd go in and delete that last edit you made. Let them fetch their own stuff. And most off all, they're not the type of person you want on your skin, let alone under your skin. Shake it off, delete, and ignore. Much love & respect, BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've noticed that some editors on this website will be passive-aggressive in order to get another editor sanctioned or banned etc., All the more reason to ignore passive-aggressive editors, ignore their insults, and just focus on what you've volunteered to do here: edit to make articles better. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that's what she is doing. I'm out of this now, don't worry. But she demanded a reply, and she got one. It would have been a mistake to ignore her. She probably has you and I confused btw. She asked me not to ping her, and I am fairly certain I haven't, at least not for several days. So... don't ping her, Remember, it is easier for me to prove I am here to build a wikipedia, since I have been doing it. Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I trust your judgement. Over the years, I've noticed the type of person who wants 'control' so bad, they try to silencing others by bullying, lobbing veiled threats, making up fake reason to report them to authorities, etc. are very insecure people. Very sad. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)i[reply]

Lol, I did ping her, just before she asked me not to ;) and then I said I didn't remember doing it. Clearly it's time for dinner. :) you may want to look at my attempt to summarize the article down the bottom of the AfD, just to make sure I didn't leave out anything important, but there are two people at the bottom trying to talk some sense, and I remember one of them from elsewhere as pretty sensible. Less is more at this point. Since I asked them to, they may try to put an end to this Elinruby (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know who's really bad at distracting others, veiling threats and making up fake reasons to be there? Children's magicians! I want you to dig up everything you can on those unsung threats to reality, turn that seedy-looking stub into a Pulitzer-worthy scathing report, print it out, put my name on it, turn it sideways, step on it and have it on every desk of every publishing house there is by Tuesday or you're fired!

Seriously though, I kid, you can have the credit. Or even tell me to take the job and shove it. I have the authority and clout of a grapefruit. And not everyone's cut out to mess with low-level wizards, even if they aren't as dangerous as they appear. But if somebody doesn't expose the racket, somebody else is going to yoink that Pulitzer! Think about it.

Anyway, keep up the good work on whatever it is you do here and thanks for thanking me twice in the Ukrainian disinformation hallway the other day. It's the little things like that that can really brighten a self-deprecating narcissistic colleague's nightshift, you know? I appreciate it, at least. 🎖 InedibleHulk (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I think LOL. Gee there I go again Elinruby (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use proper indentation why replying

Pay attention to how you enter your replies on the discussion pages. As explained in WP:THREAD: Comments are indented using one or more initial colons (:), each colon representing one level of indentation. Each comment should be indented one more level than the comment it replies to, you often use far more colons than it's needed, it makes the talk page unreadable. If you can pls edit your existing comments, especially on Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army_war_against_Russian_occupation Marcelus (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy editing

Thanks for the recent copy edits at a couple Ukraine-related articles! You're good at that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]