Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gitz6666! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caro @Pequod76: ti rispondo qui, anziché sulla tua talk, perché mi sono accorto che questa risposta, anche se è per te, non è solo per te. Preferisco quindi questo spazio.
Su una cosa voglio rassicurarti subito. Non ho rinunciato affatto alla “battaglia di principio” più importante, scrivere l'enciclopedia. Semplicemente, penso di poterla portare avanti altrove, in modo più proficuo e meno stressante: qui su en.wiki, spero, e in altri luoghi di ricerca. La mia risposta a Gianfranco è stata ben ponderata, era pronta da tempo e sono fiducioso che mi porterà più felicità e lavoro produttivo. L'adesione al progetto quindi non è cessata, si è solo trasferita di sede.
La verità è che collaborare con voi è troppo faticoso, almeno per me. Non mi riferisco a te personalmente: tu sei prezioso, Pequod, sai quanto ti stimo. E come per te, ho stima per molti altri: Frognall, Carmela Angela, LarManLor, Giannidice, Cloj, Mαρκος, Parma1983, Er Cicero, WalrusMichele, Etienne, Sakretsu, Camelia.boban e chissà quanti ne dimentico (ho ovviamente perso le mie pagine di discussione). Posso collaborare benissimo anche con persone con cui sono spesso in disaccordo, come Kirk39, TrinacrianGolem o Tommasucci. Persino Ignis ho molto rivalutato col tempo: penso che la colpa di quel che è successo tra noi sia soprattutto nella patologica insufficienza dei meccanismi di soluzione dei conflitti su it.wiki. E non mi riferisco alla mancanza dell'ArbCom, ma al fatto che gli admin di regola si astengono, se possibile, dalle discussioni tra un collega e un utente sconosciuto, sospetto "problematico", e quando partecipano evitano di prendere apertamente posizione a favore di quest'ultimo. Altro che ArbCom, su it.wiki non ci sono nemmeno la mediazione e la RdP! Come possono funzionare bene le cose così?
Ho fatto questo elenco (incompleto) di utenti perché mi dispiace non averli potuti salutare e in alcuni casi nemmeno conoscere, cioè non abbiamo quasi interagito. Mi piacerebbe trovare un modo per far loro arrivare il mio congedo e ringraziamento (puoi aiutarmi in questo?). Avete utenti preziosi su it.wiki ma l’ambiente – soprattutto l’adminship e alcune utenze storiche – è spesso inospitale. Potrei sbagliare su questo, ma sono convinto che la ragione sia che, non essendovi mai dati delle procedure, non siete nemmeno riusciti a sviluppare una cultura interna della fairness: nessun tipo di equanimità e distacco. In mancanza di procedure, qualsiasi tipo di autorità – anche quella che si basa sul prestigio, sull’esperienza e dedizione al progetto – prima o poi è condannata ad essere “cricca”, cioè potere arbitrario personale. Lo è agli occhi degli outsider, che facilmente si sentono umiliati e trattati ingiustamente, e lo è nei fatti.
L’ultimo episodio non voglio commentarlo, tanto è chiaro e lampante. Dopo quel che è successo su quella pagina, che è sotto gli occhi di tutti, il cartellino giallo me lo becco io? Anzi, due cartellini gialli, se consideriamo la vicenda del Manuale di stile. Come è possibile giustificare quel genere di aggressioni? Rispondimi Pequod, per favore: ti sembrano conformi alle linee-guida del progetto o sono abusi? Se pensi che quei cartellini gialli e tutta la dinamica che li ha prodotti siano giustificabili, allora ha pienamente ragione Gianfranco: incompatibilità con il Progetto (non però violazione irredimibile della WikiQuette, quella no: io sono sempre stato testardo, ma educato e rispettoso con tutti).
Comunque in quell’ambiente non posso lavorare sereno, e non riesco a pensare una ragione per restare. Da tempo le persone che mi vogliono bene si stupiscono e mi chiedono chi me lo faccia fare: perché accettare quelle dinamiche degradanti, avendo del resto io altre cose importanti di cui occuparmi (due figlie, una moglie e un lavoro)? Alla fine a questa domanda non sono più riuscito a trovare una risposta sensata, di qui la decisione di andarmene. Ma, ti ripeto, non ho nessuna intenzione di rinunciare alla “battaglia”: il mio andarmene è un “arrivederci altrove”. Ti auguro buon tutto, spero che prima o poi riusciate a risolvere i problemi che vi travagliano e che, temo, non coincidono con la mia contribuzione (quella ve la siete tolta), problemi che potrebbero tormentare altri utenti in futuro come lo hanno fatto in passato. Ma se tu avessi bisogno di qualcosa, wikipidianamente parlando, mi trovi qui. Non ho nessun rancore verso di te e spero che ci potremo incontrare ancora.
P.S. e fate qualcosa per la storia dei concetti, su! Il mio STUB fa schifo e non è pubblicabile, IMHO, ma il tema merita il lavoro di qualcuno, prima o poi. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ti ringrazio per la tua risposta. Mi spiace che tu abbia vissuto così male il tuo tempo su it.wiki. sono lontano dal pensare che gli amministratori di it.wiki siano perfetti o infallibili. Solo ritengo che una convivenza poteva essere cercata e trovata, sviluppando una fiducia reciproca. Ora non posso dilungarmi. Intanto un caro saluto. Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 10:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pequod76 Volevo chiederti: ci sarebbe modo di avere (ovviamente via email) un copia-e-incolla della mia user page su it.wiki? Stupidamente non ho pensato di farla, anche se Gianfranco mi ha lasciato il tempo, credo proprio per questa ragione (o forse per recuperare la sandbox). Come sai, usavo la mia user page come "diario di viaggio", con appunti sulle cose che via via facevo o su cui intervenivo. Ho una pessima memoria e devo usare supporti esterni. Sarebbe possibile riaverla, ad uso di archivio personale? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mi dispiace molto, davero molto per quello che è successo. E mi fa ritornare in mente un altro utente prezioso che abbiamo perso, come Xinstalker. Mi sono permessa di inserire i link alle persone che dicevi che avresti voluto salutare (in questo modo arrivano a loro le notifiche), ti ringrazio per la stima, la stessa che ho nei tuoi confronti. Trovi la tua pagina utente qui, così te la puoi salvare. Un abbraccio, ci vediamo in giro, non ti perderò di vista, stai certo. --Camelia (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Gitz, volevo solo dirti che mi dispiace per quanto successo : quando un utente vive male la sua contribuzione all'enciclopedia, tanto da pensare di non poter cercare e raggiungere una convivenza e che andarsene sia la scelta migliore, sicuramente qualcosa non ha funzionato. E ogni utente che se ne va è una perdita per it.wiki. Spero che ti sentirai più a tuo agio nel continuare a contribuire qui. Un saluto! --Postcrosser (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cara @ Postcrosser, grazie. Ti confesso una cosa: in una prima stesura del messaggio qui sopra, ti avevo indicata tra le utenze che volevo ringraziare e salutare. Poi ho tolto il nome perché ho pensato che mi avresti considerato pazzo: a parte una volta, in cui mi hai dato un’indicazione per la questione degli interlink di Sofistica (se non sbaglio), non abbiamo mai avuto occasione di collaborare. Ma io “da lontano” ho apprezzato il tuo stile (senza contare che sei genovese come me) e quindi questo tuo messaggio mi fa piacere – grazie. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ti ringrazio @Camelia.boban per la pagina utente! Mi hai consentito di ritrovare anche le pagine di discussione (non sapevo che fosse possibile) e quindi le tracce di alcune utenze che avevo dimenticato nei ringraziamenti: Dapifer e Bologai, di cui ho molta stima, Gambo7, Threecharlie, Bultro e Lorenzo Longo, che sono stati utili e gentili, Popop, con cui ho potuto interagire in modo civile anche quando in disaccordo, e soprattutto la cara Geoide, che mi aveva dato qualche consiglio tempo fa, e le cui vecchie conversazioni ho potuto leggere per iniziare a conoscere il modo wikipediano. Che peccato che si sia allontanata dal progetto – anche lei, temo, amareggiata. Quanto al confronto che fai tra me e Xinstalker, è ovviamente sbagliato e troppo generoso: lui ha contribuito alla vita e ai contenuti di it.wiki 100 volte più di me, nessun paragone è possibile. Ma il confronto è calzante in questo: l’UP con la quale è stato infinitato è il segnale di un problema. Mi aveva colpito e, assieme ad altri materiali letti nel tempo e alle mie esperienze personali, aveva contribuito a formare la mia cattiva opinione delle modalità di soluzione dei conflitti di it.wiki. Leggendo quell’UP una cosa è chiara come il sole: una decisone presa in quel modo non è tale da poter essere accettata come legittima da chi non ne condiva già il contenuto. Ma le procedure non servono (solo) a prendere meno decisioni sbagliate, servono anche a far accettare le decisioni (giuste o sbagliate che siano) a chi non le condivide nel merito. Le cose non possono funzionare così e da questo punto di vista, e solo da questo, il confronto tra me e Xinstalker, tra i miei due cartellini gialli e la sua UP, è convincente. Ma soprattutto, cara Camelia, grazie di cuore per il tuo lavoro su it.wiki, di cui ho capito bene l’importanza per molte/i. La tua stima mi onora. Un abbraccio, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Gitz6666, non ho pratica di questa wiki, ma ti voglio esprimere la mia vicinanza e il rammarico di aver ricevuto la segnalazione della discussione sull'arbitrato troppo tardi. Io non credo di contare gran che in it.wiki, ma il tuo lavoro sul Protestantesimo ha fatto nascere in me la speranza che si potesse collaborare, tu su quel versante, io su quello cattolico. Ti stimo per la caratura delle tue capacità e per aver sognato una realtà più concreta, umana, tollerante. Ti abbraccio e mi auguro che si facciano avanti anche altri: grazie di tutto. --AmaliaMM (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AmaliaMM Ti ringrazio per il messaggio affettuoso. Ho apprezzato le nostre discussioni e soprattutto la qualità eccellente del tuo lavoro: it.wiki è davvero fortunata ad averti. Mi rammarico che là non sarà più possibile cooperare, ma ogni tanto verrò a vedere come procede il vostro lavoro (silenziosamente - ca va sans dire). Se in futuro avrai bisogno della mia cooperazione wikipediana, mi trovi qui e sarò sempre disponibile per te! Un caro saluto, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hai anche la stima di un atea, ho apprezzato molto i tuoi commenti sulle ultime voci sulle quali ha lavorato @LorManLor: e che sono state poi dichiarate di qualità. La misura con le queli lo hai fatto, l'approfondimento e la citazione colta. A presto 🤗. --Camelia (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In realtà @AmaliaMM, @Camelia.boban, @LorManLor, anch’io sono ateo come Camelia. Sono finito a occuparmi di Lutero e di luterani su it.wiki quasi per puro caso, perché mi interessa l’età moderna e la costruzione dello stato. Di nuovo grazie per tutto, un abbraccio e buon lavoro su it.wiki! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Gitz, sono molto molto dispiaciuta per quello che è successo, sia dal punto di vista umano che per la perdita per it.wiki della collaborazione di un utente così prezioso come te, ritengo sia uno spreco terribile che doveva essere evitato in tutti i modi. Grazie per la tua competenza, gentilezza, e anche sì, testardaggine nel sostenere il tuo punto di vista, che ritengo legittimo e motivato. Spero possiamo incrociarci ancora, auguri per tutto, un fortissimo abbraccio.LorManLor (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie @LorManLor per il messaggio gentile e per le tre belle voci di cui ho potuto discutere con te. Complimenti per il bel lavoro e per i riconoscimenti meritatissimi! Un abbraccio, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mi unisco anche io, dato che ora è toccato a me un blocco che trovo eccessivo.--Potenza2021 (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tre mesi di blocco per aver fatto gli auguri di buona Pasqua? Mi spiace, @Potenza2021, non ti amareggiare e lasciali perdere. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ti ringrazio. Un saluto anche ad AmaliaMM, qui sopra di me, sperando porti avanti il suo lavoro che avevo già notato in molte occasioni.--Potenza2021 (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caro @Potenza2021, toglimi una curiosità. Che cosa avevi scritto di così intollerabile nella pagina "Controversie legate a Wikipedia" poco prima di essere bloccato per 3 mesi per aver fatto gli auguri di Pasqua? Mi riferisco alla "Modifica decisamente fuori luogo", che è stata addirittura oscurata. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... di essermi accorto di quanto stava accadendo quando ormai la frittata era fatta. Forse (e sottolineo forse!) avrei potuto provare a darti qualche umile consiglio su come porti in certi frangenti, ossia astenersi dal rimbeccare a caldo, contare fino a mille e magari cambiare pagina e passare a occuparsi d'altro. In parte scherzo, e in parte no. Normale che ci siano vedute diverse tra gli utenti di una wiki, come pure tra wiki diverse. Se in tante wiki l'arbitrato è già una realtà, questo non significa che debba essere presente anche su it.wiki. Forse, banalmente, i tempi non sono maturi, inutile incaponirsi per accelerarli, ammesso pure che un giorno ci arriveremo, inutile un muro contro muro che ha spesso conseguenze spiacevoli, molto spiacevoli. Ci sono cose che io non condivido, ma SE l'obiettivo primario è collaborare al Progetto, tutto il resto deve passare in secondo piano, accettiamo serenamente anche le regole che meno ci piacciono e tiremm innanz. Pensa che giusto ieri sera t'avevo mandato un ping per Caravaggio, sperando così di risolvere un aspetto che avevi segnalato, e quando Tommasucci mi ha fatto notare quello che era successo sono rimasto senza parole. Ti esprimo il mio sincero apprezzamento per come ti ho visto operare nella rubrica e ti saluto cordialmente. --Er Cicero (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: peccato, davvero peccato per come è andata, ma lo sbrocco è stato imperdonabile.

Caro @Er Cicero:, grazie per il messaggio. Non dubito che tu abbia ragione: in molte occasioni avrei potuto evitare di replicare. Si è trattato di botta e risposta in cui a replicare eravamo in due, e credo che i miei toni fossero meno aggressivi e inappropriati di quelli del mio interlocutore, ma è certo che SE avessi avuto una più forte spinta a rimanere su it.wiki, mi sarei dovuto comportare diversamente. E anche sull'arbitrato è probabile che tu abbia ragione. Più che proporre una soluzione determinata (l'arbitrato), forse non utile né attuabile, io intendevo richiamare l'attenzione su un problema secondo me reale; ma chissà che certi comportamenti prevaricatori, contrari alle linee guida, non possano essere affrontati senza bisogno di nuove regole, con la collaborazione di tutti, prima di "escalare" in conflitti distruttivi, che fanno male a tutti. Unica cosa, non capisco a che cosa ti riferisci con lo sbrocco è stato imperdonabile; se ti riferisci alla mia risposta a Gianfranco, forse è stata imperdonabile ma - come spiegavo qui sopra a Pequod - ti assicuro che non è stata uno sbrocco. A parte questo, sono felice di potermi congratulare con te per l'ottimo lavoro che ti ho visto fare in questi mesi nelle procedure di qualità. Non è un lavoro facile e si regge in gran parte sulle tue spalle. Complimenti! --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beh, secondo me "non mi interessa collaborare con dei prepotenti (o meglio, sotto il dominio dei prepotenti,...)" te lo potevi risparmiare, così come la chiosa ironica "Buon divertimento nel piccolo mondo virtuale che vi siete inventati, spero che siate contenti del vostro lavoro". E' stato un modo per chiedere tu stesso di chiudere la tua esperienza su it.wiki (almeno a me così pare). E non posso che rammaricarmene. Buon tutto. --Er Cicero (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In effetti ammetto che avrei voluto correggere quel messaggio in questo modo: "piccolo/grande mondo virtuale" (perché è una piccola comunità, è vero, ma si affaccia su un grande mondo ed è impegnata in un lavoro grande) e "vi auguro di essere soddisfatti del vostro lavoro" (anziché "spero che siate contenti", che è sarcastico, mentre l'augurio può essere sincero). Avrei invece lasciato la parte sui "prepotenti" perché, al di là delle buone intenzioni dei singoli, la credo vera. Ho provato a correggere il testo in questo modo, ma era già troppo tardi - per quel che vale, lo faccio ora. Grazie di nuovo e saluti, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scusami, avevo dimenticato di pingarti @Er Cicero Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hospes tantum nequeo Franca decisa reprehendere ac nolo, sed tu, ὦ νεῖκος ἄριστε Gitz, ignosces mihi. --Frognall (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frognall, Touché. Ti risponderei, per continuare il gioco, κράτος δ᾽ ὅτῳ κράτος μέλει παραβατὸν οὐδαμᾷ πέλει: σὲ δ᾽ αὐτόγνωτος ὤλεσ᾽ ὀργά. Guarda però che io sono persona mitissima, solo con poca attitudine a farmi maltrattare per nessuna ragione. Non sono un attaccabrighe, ma la massima a cui cerco di attenermi sempre è: se un lavoro non dà gioia, tientene lontano. Per il resto, come ho detto a Pequod, "collige quae superaverunt fragmenta ne pereant". Lui però nemmeno su questo si è mostrato molto sollecito… cioè non si è voluto far rifilare la patacca! Vedi tu. Un caro saluto, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traduco, in caso ci fosse un amico che ci legge: "il potere, per chi ha caro il potere, non ammette trasgressione. La tua ira, che decide da sé, ti ha perduta" (Antigone) e "Raccogli le briciole avanzate, perché niente si perda" (da Giovanni 6:12). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Gitz6666. Thank you very much for your attention to the article Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield. Few editors seem to add citations and your contribution is therefore especially precious and welcome. Unluckily, you seem to have the wrong lady. The description of a beautiful lady on page 141, which you cite, is that of Miss Hamilton. Lady Chesterfield is described on p 167. Besides, you cite the book as {{Cite book|last=Hamilton|first=Anthony|url=https://archive.org/details/memoirscountgram00hamimiss/page/n175/mode/2up|title=Memoirs of Count Grammont|publisher=E.L. Carey & A. Hart|year=1836|location=Philadelphia|pages=141|author-link=Antoine Hamilton}} I do not find a publication date on this edition and the title page indicates that the publisher is David McKay and not E.L. Carey & A. Hart as you say. Where did you get the information from? I edited the article and corrected the page citing from the Gebbie edition of 1888, which is better documented but identical for the rest. How did you get to Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield? Do you have a special interest in her or in Antoine Hamilton and his book? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Krabbe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I replied to you by e-mail. --Conviene (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have meant I will open a thread... in your recent comment at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#PossibleTypo but it currently says something quite different. --N8_wilson 01:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, perdonami, ma qui non abbiamo le categorie automatiche dei template sinottici?--Potenza2021 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao @Potenza2021, mi hai colto in castagna! Ti confesso che a leggere "categorie automatiche dei template sinottici" sono rimasto basito: per me è aramaico, non ho idea di che cosa tu stia parlando. Allora mi sono messo a studiare e posso dirti questo:

1. Alla tua domanda non so rispondere.

2. Questa è la linea guida del manuale di stile sulle infoboxes (template sinottici): Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, questa è la linea guida sulla categorizzazione: Wikipedia:Categorization, questa è la pagina di aiuto sulle categorie: Help:Category, questo è un "saggio" su quando non fare un infobox perché è inutile: Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes (su it.wiki non esistono i saggi; si tratta di opinioni e consigli non vincolanti, spesso confutati da altri saggi di segno contrario, come questo "inclusionista" sugli infoboxes, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be useful),.

3. Qui trovi una pagina di aiuto molto generale su come iniziare a collaborare con en.wiki: Help:Getting started e qui trovi una pagina di aiuto su come fare domande, richieste di informazioni e di aiuto, ecc.: Wikipedia:Questions. Come vedi, sulla destra c'è "Personal help on your talk page": formuli una domanda e un editor ti risponde sulla tua pagina discussioni utente (user talk page).

P.S. Su en.wiki puoi cancellare tutto quello che vuoi dalla tua talk page, quindi se la tua domanda è sbagliata o la risposta non è utile, la puoi cancellare tranquillamente.

Ciao, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm GizzyCatBella. I came across an article Hugo Krabbe you created, and I've read it with great interest. I believe this is an excellent article, well sourced, flawlessly formatted, immaculate. Thank you very much. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @GizzyCatBella for your kind message! This truly means a lot to me. I have spent a good deal of time on that article, I hadn't received any feedback so far and I was a bit disappointed about that. I had also asked a peer review but none has answered my call and the review is still deserted: Wikipedia:Peer_review#Hugo_Krabbe and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Hugo_Krabbe/archive1. You cheered my up! Thank you. Any help in improving the article (starting from the quality of the English, which is not my mother tongue) is more than welcome. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Edwin Montefiore Borchard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mhawk10, I've made a mistake. I intended to create a redirect, so I should have written #REDIRECT [[Edwin Borchard]]; instead I wrote {{Redirect|Edwin Borchard}}. I've made the same mistake with Edwin M. Borchard and now I've corrected it. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've turned Edwin Montefiore Borchard into a redirect per your comment above and I've removed the speedy deletion tag. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft at User:Gitz6666/sandbox4 for Indiscriminate attack(s) looks good and very likely to survive any notability challenges, IMHO, though I see it's still in draft stage. There might be a debate about how similar articles in Wikipedia are named - as singular or plural. Singular is more like a dictionary definition, and plural is more about "the thing in general" - that's my impression, at least for categories. But mainspace usage will count more than category style. This is an obviously important article. There are some fields of knowledge where en.Wikipedia is still missing many key articles. Boud (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message @Boud. Unfortunately I haven't worked on that draft for a while, but I'll do my best to finish it in the next few days. I'm sure the topic is notable enough and I'm happy to help filling a gap. Re singular/plural I haven't thought about it, I've now made a quick search on similar articles (e.g human shield, hostage) and singular seems prevailing but I don't have strong views on this - if you think plural is best, I'll follow your advice. I'll let you know when the article is published and I'd be grateful if you will edit it or add it to your watchlist. Best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong views on it either - so I suggest sticking to the singular when you have time to get back to it. Boud (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Boud, yesterday I published a first draft of the article Indiscriminate attack, but I'm still working on a section on "history" and on the images. If you want to edit it or add it to your watchlist, that's great. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tweaked two of your recent edits re this; see the edit summary here, which mentions the other edit. What I've done here probably needs improvement in both articles edited. The Indiscriminate attack article might also need improvement, as suggested there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Wtmitchell, you're right. I'm working on a section "History" in the article on Indiscriminate attack but it will probably be irrelevant to the articles on the Philippine–American War. They a contemporary terminology to refer to events that happened before the criminalisation of indiscriminate attacks and/or use a generic, non-legal sense of "indiscriminate attack". IN both cases a wikilink would not be useful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the response. This area is of some interest to me as it relates to the the U.S. military in the Philippines from 1898 to 1910ish, but it is not a focus area. Re the U.S., it seems to go back to Lieber, Lincoln, General Order 100, and the Lieber code. c. 1863. Googling, I turned up some things which might or might not interest you. You've probably seen them, but I'll mantion a couple of them just in case: [1][2] (particularly Rules 11-14). Other items caught my eye, but I have not been able to quickly locate them again. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gitz, I've seen you created the article on Hugo Krabbe and wanted it to be reviewed. What I mention is just what I see as good on wikipedia, but I had rather good experiences with this. I tend to add a source for each phrase (except for the lead). The article seems to have solid sources and if you could add a source to the end of each phrase the article might catch more interest from a potential reviewer. I do not though offer myself as reviewer, this is just some advice as I wouldn't be encouraged to review in this state. But from my point of view the article sure has a potential for a GA and judging from the sources you are not far from it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion @Paradise Chronicle, it's much appreciated. As soon as I can, I'll do my best to comply with it, although I might have lost a bit of touch with the sources I used when I wrote the article, which was a few months ago - I forget quickly. It's a pity though that you don't offer yourself as reviewer, as you've already given me a good advice. All the best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gitz6666. Thanks for your comment at Talk:Trans woman. I took the liberty of modifying the break tags in your comment to <br/>, because an unclosed break tag screws up syntax highlighting for the remainder of any page upon which it appears. In general, you should just use a blank line to indicate a paragraph break in your comments. If you're in a situation where you think a break tag is required and a blank line just won't do for some reason, then please either close your break tag with a slash, or even better, use the mini-template {{br}} instead, which has some other advantages as well (see the doc). Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot, thank you for editing my comment and thank you also for the explanation, which is very useful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on an article about treatment of POWs in the war in Ukraine (the main war crimes article is too big, "war crime" also doesn't cover everything on mistreatment of POWs apparently, as exposure of POWs by Ukraine and mistreatment by both sides weren't included in the main article, similar with 'no quarter' orders), but, as expected, it won't be an easy job, i have made a sketch on my sandbox (User:SnoopyBird/sandbox), i'd appreciate if you could hop by there and maybe help me with some things.

the main problem right now is to change some stuff, because, as of right now, it is kind of a copy-paste of the section in the war crimes article with a few changes, i also couldn't find the content on exposure/mistreatment of POWs and 'no quarter' orders in the war crimes article (it was removed, but i cant find anything on it in the page history), so, if you can find that, feel free to add it.

thanks in advance. SnoopyBird (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SnoopyBird Thank you for this. I see that you've already done an excellent work. Now I'm going to bed but tomorrow or better on Monday I will help, if I can. Since the subject is not torture but more inclusively ill-treatment, public exposure of POWs is relevant here. Please have a look at this sandbox where you'll find contents on this: User:Gitz6666/sandbox5. Look for "Humiliation of captured" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SnoopyBird, yesterday I managed to do some editing on the article draft - I hope it was helpful. Sorry it took me a while but I was overloaded with this tormenting affair, our self-inflicted torture: Torture in Ukraine: Masebrock, Gitz6666, Volunteer Marek, Elinruby. I think your article is almost finished and ready to be published, you just need to improve the lead by summarising the contents of the body, as per MOS:LEAD, at which point it will be a great relief for War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as we will probably remove the whole section and replace it with the lead of your article. Thank you again for the "help request" and the good wiki-work. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SnoopyBird, what happened to your draft? It looks ready to me, why don't you publish it? Since you're working on the subject of POWs, you might be interested in this video [3]. It's a primary source, so we shouldn't use it, but you can look for secondary sources mentioning this video and, if they are reliable, report it in your article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i kinda forgot about it, im going to publish it. SnoopyBird (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mykola Kostomarov on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great personality, I submit my work for your approval. Please let me know if they disapprove. Let me work on them again. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:ContentTranslation#published Ben Bilal (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ben Bilal, I did not understand your comment. Why are you sharing the link to some translations I made using the Wikipedia:Content translation tool? Translating on en.Wikipedia is fine, but it must be done in line with policy and guidelines, e.g. the following one from WP:MACHINE:

Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing.

By the way, did you edit Sharia and Prophetic biography recently? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit I just reverted is your doing, @Ben Bilal, then you should stop: multiple editors on multiple projects have already told you that adding automatically translated content to articles whose content you can't understand is disruptive and is bound to lead to blocks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of my edits were turned down for technical reasons. Religious vandalism and yours. I haven't been able to understand you yet. Ben Bilal (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see: you don't understand me, @Ben Bilal. Please, let me know if you understand the following users:

• On tr.wiki, tr:Kullanıcı:Sabri76: Bununla beraber, lütfen İçerik Çevirmeni aracı, çeşitli programlar ya da web sayfaları aracılığıyla Türkçe dışında bir dilden çevirisi yapılmış sayfaları, anlaşılırlık ve çeviri doğruluğu konusunda gerekli kontrollerde bulunmadan Vikipedi'ye eklemeyiniz [4].
• On fr.wiki, fr:Utilisateur:ManuRoquette: Ne contribuez pas dans les langues que vous ne maîtrisez pas, les traducteurs automatiques sont loin d'être parfaits. De plus, il est encore plus déconseillé d'ajouter sur plusieurs wiki des information que vous savez être non-consensuelles [5].
• On fr.wiki, fr:Utilisateur:Kirham: N’utilisez pas un traducteur automatique. Si vous voulez qu’un article soit traduit, faites-en la demande au projet idoine [6].
• On az.wiki, multiple users, e.g. az:İstifadəçi:Burocan: Hər vaxtınız xeyir. Çoxsaylı məzmun əlavələriniz kütləvi qrammatik norma pozuntuları, maşın tərcüməsi elementləri, habelə stil kitabçası pozuntuları ehtiva edir. Sizə bundan öncə də sözügedən məqamlar üzrə həmkarların müraciəti olsa da, fəaliyyətinizdə dəyişiklik müşahidə olunmur [7].
• On ha.wiki, ha:User:Uncle Bash007: Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages [8]

There also problems of verifiability and neutrality with your edits, which have been pointed out to you by several users, e.g. here on tr.wiki, by myself here on simple.wiki and here on it.wiki, and by others elsewhere [9].

If you don't stop this behaviour, I will submit a request for a global ban on Meta. Please spare the Wikipedia community and me this hassle. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took all the warnings into account and for example, my later works were not seen as problematic by those who made these warnings. Ben Bilal (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben Bilal, this very recent edit of yours is problematic [10] (and it's also WP:BLOCKEVASION). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So ask yourself a simple question: Other people who are at least as smart as me don't see a problem here, and only I can able to see it. Ben Bilal (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your simple question doesn't make sense in English, @Ben Bilal, maybe what you meant to say was something like: "ask yourself a simple question: why do other people who are at least as smart as me see no problem, while only I am able to see it?" Well, if that's what you meant, the answer is simple: it's not only me!!! you've been indefinitely blocked on 12 different Wikipedias for god's sake! ar.wiki, tg.wiki, de.wiki, media.wiki, simple.wiki, fr.wiki, ha.wiki, en.wiki, es.wiki, id.wiki, ur.wiki, ps.wiki [11]; plus the temporary block on it.wiki [12]. Do you really believe that everyone is wrong about you? Why don't you listen to criticism and stop the disruption? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked to you too much, and I think I've explained enough. Some of these were my faults, so I wrote that too. The reason I was banned in plain English was because I contributed too much. For many, there is no need to even speak. You can research their level yourself. The advancement of science and communication will overcome these challenges, but it will take time. The point that I regret is the harm that the ignorant masses inflict not only on themselves, but also on humanity. Ben Bilal (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I understand that your answer to my questions is: yes, I think everyone is wrong about me (they are "ignorant masses"), and no, I'm not going to stop automatically translating my content and spamming it all over the wiki-world. That's a shame, @Ben Bilal, because if you get a global ban, this will also prevent you from editing on tr.wiki, in your own language, where you contribution could be useful and appreciated. Are you aware of this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ignorant masses"; What I mean by this is the Islamic-Sharia terrorist organizations that close schools and attack education, and those who have to live under their influence. do not distort. Ben Bilal (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a misunderstanding on my part, not a deliberate distorion. Please allow me to rephrase your answers so as to achieve full understanding:

1. You admit that you are also to blame for your blocks, e.g. because you contributed too much to en.wiki.
2. However, the accusation of spamming automatically translated, unverifiable and non-neutral texts is unfair: the Wikipedias that blocked you for this reason were wrong.
3. You are not going to stop translating your texts, even though you are aware that if you are blocked globally for this reason, you will not be able to work on tr.wiki either.

Please think hard, @Ben Bilal, especially about answer No. 3. Do you really think it is worth it? Can't you just stop contributing in languages you don't know? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to open myself a little more; I am a person who has received religious education for 7 years, can understand Arabic, English and Azerbaijani languages ​​beside Turkish, and is familiar with religious (Islamic) concepts and idioms in other languages. I think that the prevention and restoration of destructive acts of religious character, which are constantly occurring in the Islamic world and from time to time in the rest of the world, are possible with adequate and accurate information. I contribute to this. However, it was a difficult road. For about 1 year, I have been following a much simpler way (also recommended by wikipedia) such as contributing by translating and providing clarity with minor changes and corrections. I do not engage in mutual combat for my withdrawn contributions. I am not pessimistic about the future. Ben Bilal (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to be honest and open, @Ben Bilal. I have no religious belief and personally don't find your goal blameworthy. Providing also a secular and scientifically-minded reading of religious phenomena is vital for an encyclopaedia that aims at live up to neutrality. But this can only be done with reliable sources at hand and, most importantly, only in a language one knows well. Since I don't speak Chinese, Uzbek and Swedish, I don't think that my secular and scientifically-minded views are so important that they deserve to be shared with readers of the Chinese, Uzbek and Swedish Wikipedias; they wouldn't understand me anyway. So, please, listen: I've spent hours cleaning up the mess you've done on it.wiki, fr.wiki, en.wiki and es.wiki. If you speak Turkish, Arabic, English and Azerbaijani, as you say, than please limit your contribution to the corresponding projects, otherwise I will request a global ban for you and that might prevent you from editing also where you contribution is appreciated. OK? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed my old contributions to see if they are still in place. They are vandalized in some languages. I have seen that they are preserved in Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, etc. languages ​​that I do not know and do not understand a word of. Can you interpret this? Ben Bilal (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "vandalized"? I can see that your edits were removed by "local" editors.

• On zh.wiki I made one edit in the Quran article talk page [13]. Your edits were reverted (if I'm not wrong) by zh:User:黑暗魔君.
• On ja.wiki I made one very clumsy edit in the article namespace, which actually restored your edits [14]. Luckily my edit was reverted, and I apologised and explained my mistake on an user talk page [15]. Your edits had already been reverted by that user, ja:利用者:Y-route.
• I've never edited on ko.wik. As far as I can see, most of your edits were reverted by ko:사용자:호로조, e.g. [16] (with edit summary "out of context") and [17] (claiming that your content was factually wrong - unverifiable).

You see, @Ben Bilal, your edits were reverted (not "vandalized") because they were of poor quality. Even assuming your good faith, you're bound to make lots of mistakes because you don't speak Chinese, Japanese or Korean: it's inevitable. Let me ask you again: are you sure you don't want to stop this disruption? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in knowing that all your edits on ky.wikipedia (Kyrgyz Wikipedia) have been reverted: [18]. Note that I've never edited there. And most of your edit on tg.wiki (Tajik Wikipedia), where you're currently blocked, have also been removed [19]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again. My Contributions that I made more than 1 year ago are still in place. I say that local users should decide the correctness or irregularity of the expressions, not you. By the way, I was blocked in Tajik, but my translation for the sharia article was approved, the important thing is the result. I would like to say that if those who reverted my contributions or blocked me had told me that I was creating problems in my contributions through language and expression, I would have stopped contributing anyway. For example, there was such a problem in Japanese and I stopped contributing. Still, a few small contributions remain Ben Bilal (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say if those who reverted my contributions or blocked me had told me that I was creating problems in my contributions through language and expression, I would have stopped contributing. However, here on en.wiki you've been indefintely blocked on article mainspace, and yet you're still contributing from an IP address. How do you explain that? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hugo Krabbe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666, since you've now chosen to start editing articles in the topic area of Poland and the Holocaust (which I'm sure you know is under discretionary sanctions), and since you had never edited this topic area before, I feel compelled to comment. Since replying to this comment may potentially violate your topic ban from the Russian-Ukrainian topics, you do not have to respond, or can respond privately by email - regardless, I personally will not see a reply to this - whatever it says - as a breach of the topic ban, I will not report you anywhere for replying and if someone else does I will defend you on the basis of this message right here.

Let me express my primary concern right at the outset. It is definitely eye-brow raising that you would choose to appear in this topic area immediately after you were topic banned in another topic area, in good part because of the disputes between me and you. This is especially concerning given that I've noted before that you have a tendency to follow me around (stalk) and appear out of the blue on articles I'm involved in. Before this you were doing this across different articles within the same topic area (Russia-Ukraine) now that you got a topic ban there, it involves skipping across topic areas.

Having said that allow me to say I regard you as an smart, constructive and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I do think there are certain parts to your approach which get you into trouble but there's no point in rehashing these. I think it's quite likely that your contributions in this new topic area will be quite valuable as well and welcome your participation. The topic area could definitely use more active editors (if you want a short list of "things need to be done" let me know or ask User:Ealdgyth). You have a good nose for sources and write well so there's much you can contribute. My obvious concern is that you are only editing these articles simply because I am involved and that you may hold grudges or vendettas from our interactions in the other topic area. I am 100% willing to put those concerns aside and AGF the hell out of your appearance, precisely because I think you can do a lot of good here. I, personally, do not hold grudges and I'm always ready to turn over a new leaf and collaborate productively with (almost) anyone.

Like any other contentious area, this topic has a lot of institutional history and context. If you need any help or are simply curious about anything related to the area (like... who is Icewhiz? Just an example) let me know. I do sincerely look forward to your contributions. Volunteer Marek 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to congratulate you on the tact and amiability with which you have framed this conversation. I appreciate it very much and it sets me up to be as cooperative and open with you as possible.

First of all, I can assure you that I don't hold any grudge or vendetta against you. I admit that the topic ban left a few scratches on my pride... I particularly resented the attitude of some editors in the discussion that led to it, an attitude that I found uninformed and unnecessarily hostile. That attitude was inexcusable, especially when it came from experienced editors who were already aware of the kind of tendentious editing I had to deal with. But I have no grudge against you, nor against MVBW. You were neither uninformed nor opinionated, but rather deeply engaged in an editorial conflict that was exhausting for everyone. I respect political passion, even when it comes from loyalties and sensibilities different from mine. I have no feeling of enmity towards you and the last thing I want to do is chase you around in Wikipedia to personally annoy you. I also sympathise with the recent attack on your privacy and reputation, which I find, as you know, not OK to say the least.

It is not true that I have a tendency to follow [you] around (stalk) and appear out of the blue on articles [you are] involved in; on the contrary, I know that you and MVBW were following me around in the area with an uncooperative/blocking attitude. I also know that on several occasions I avoided editing articles and commenting in discussions for the sole reason that you were active there. Bottom line, this shared feeling of being haunted by the other proves that there was an exhausting editorial conflict between us, and I have no desire to resume it.

Having said this, I must confess that I was astounded to read the essay on your "Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust". I was already familiar with Icewhiz and the Warsaw concentration camp hoax, I had also already read Jew with a coin and Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, and I had gotten a bad impression from them. But I didn't know that nationalist editing had affected the area so strongly. Confirmation bias is a real danger, so I took the time to check the article history and the talk page discussion at Jan T. Gross, Richard C. Lukas and Wojciech Muszyński, plus the article Institute of National Remembrance. What I read in the essay by Grabowski and Klein corresponds closely to my experiences in the area of war crimes in the Ukraine. Tendentious/nationalist editing, uncivility and sealioning, and above all the practice of "working in tandem" by following each other's edits to push a POV cause enormous damage to WP:CON as a working method and ultimately to WP:NPOV and WP:V as core polices. I saw this at work, I reacted to it by opening several (too many?) community discussions and I was topic banned. Too bad.

However, after the topic ban I have resumed working intensively on it.wiki (yesterday I created this it:Paul Laband) and I have other projects I would like to realise on en.wiki (an article now at GAN now and the filling of a big gap, Santi Romano). The idea of resuming that exhausting editorial conflict with you fills me with anguish: it will not happen. In my opinion, after the publication of Grabowski's and Klein's essay, you are in a situation of heavy conflict of interest with this topic: you should take a step back, consider something like a self-imposed topic ban, so that other editors can discuss what needs to be done on these pages in a more serene atmosphere. This is my suggestion for you. As for me, at most I will propose a few edits based on Grabowski and Klein, but I can assure you that my presence in the area will be marginal and practically non-existent. With regard to noticeboard and other general discussions, I will always express my concerns and warn the community of the risk of severe disruption, deviations from our policies and removal of users, resulting from a deeply problematic pattern of behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC) ; edited 10:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gitz, In addition to the GA Review for the article Hugo Krabbe I also wanted to open another channel of communication with you where I can chat outside of the official review process. With regard to the infobox picture I had the impression that you wanted to remove the dark frame with its Latin inscription. This can be done with the template "CSS image crop" or you can also crop the image and save a cropped version in Wikimedia Commons for this purpose. In biographies I like to show a cropped passport-photo-like picture in the infobox and give in addition the original full portrait further down in the body. See e.g. Gustavus Hamilton, 2nd Viscount Boyne, or Antoine Hamilton, but of course you do not need to follow that style. I wonder what you think about it. Whenever I do this, I add "Detail from the portrait below" by way of a title. Otherwise, editors come along and delete the "CSS image crop", probably simply because it is such an easy way to increment their edit count. – I looked at Hugo Krabbe in other languages. In addition to English, Wikipedia has this article in Russian, Indonesian, German, Italian, and Dutch. I can read the last three and I guess so can you. I find it very strange that Krabbe is described as a "filosofo danese" (Danish philosopher) rather than "professore di diritto olandese" (or similar) in the lead of the Italian article. Quite a few of Krabbe's Dutch terminology is difficult to translate. I hope you do not mind my criticism. Don't we pull together on the same string to improve Wikipedia? I hope we can learn from each other to do this even better. With best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Johannes Schade, I appreciate having a more informal channel of communication.

• template:CSS image crop. That's brilliant, thank you. I've already applied it to the infobox picture and now I'll add the second picture, as you suggest.
• While "legal philosopher" would be acceptable, filosofo danase is simply an error, which I have just corrected. I'm quite active on it.wiki.
• I don't mind criticism, I'm not touchy. With regard to legal terminology, if there's anything you don't understand let me know and I'll do my best to clarify.

Thank you for your help in improving the article.

Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gitz, I appleciate your attitude. It is a pleasure to work with you. Please forgive me my obsession with some unimportant stylistic matters. I feel that many articles have horribly untidy code. Of course these cosmetics are not part of the GA criteria. Another one of these is that I feel that template names should all be written with a leading upper case: birth date -> Birth date; death date and age -> Death date and age; sfn -> Sfn; cite book -> Cite book etc. I think we are making good progress. I have looked a bit around, but I do not seem to find additional sources. You have done excellent work. Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johannes, I really appreciate your suggestions and I am impressed by your thorough review. This is one of the most enjoyable activities I have done on Wikipedia in recent times, I am also learning a lot from it and the article is undoubtedly improving. So please do not change your approach. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Johannes Schade, I've now implemented most of your suggestions. However, I've some doubts about how to proceed with the "Further reading section". If I'm not wrong, the only source in "Bibliography" not quoted in the text is the 2013 book by Stella - too little for a self-standing "Further reading" section.

Allow me to explain the criterion I've followed with citation and bibliography. The bibliography now contains only sources that deal with Krabbe's work. Most of them (possibly with the sole exception of Stella 2013) are quoted in the article. Moreover, when in the footnotes I quote other works that don't deal with Krabbe but that occasionally mention Krabbe (e.g., Carl Schmitt, Political Theology; H. Kelsen, Des Problem; Canihac) or that support other contents covered in the article (e.g. Eyffinger, Congleton, Kossman, Stolleis, von Bernstorff, etc.), these sources are not included in the "Bibliography" and are included in the footnotes using <ref> and the template:Cite book - no template:Sfn. The rationale is to provide the reader with a "Bibliography" section that is entirely on Krabbe and on Krabbe only.

Is this OK? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My impression about your WP:NPOV edits to the challenging subject. Thanks @Gitz6666 🙂. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]