ANI Discussion

Extended content
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Extended content

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating editing restrictions as reported here on the page Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN talk to me 14:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

AE

Extended content
You've been reported.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Extended content

The following sanction now applies to you: Your are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland. You are invited to appeal this sanction in six months showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas. You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 20:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Clarification 1 - [1] (October 2020)

Potential ArbCom request

Extended content

Hi Gizzy. Please take a look at this. I'm appalled at the personal attacks and unbacked accusations made against you by User:Sandstein. I wrote up a brief description of the situation, with the possibility of asking ArbCom to look at it, since it involves a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and by extensions discretionary sanctions in the topic area. Of course the complicating factor is that this is against an admin who is also active in enforcing discretionary sanctions (which to my mind, makes this even worse). However, since the attack was made against you specifically I thought I'd consult with you on how to proceed. If you want me to I will go ahead and file a request. If you have objections please make me aware of them. Because some bad-faithed or vindictive individual may take your response to this message as a violation of your new topic ban (though really it should qualify under WP:BANEX) you should probably respond by email rather than on Wikipedia. I am writing on your talk page in the interest of full transparency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Extended content

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Arbitration proposed decision listed

Extended content

The proposed decision in the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case has been released, and it contains one or more findings of fact or remedies which relate to you. Please review this proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

twits

Extended content
I know about that, and I'm 95% sure I know which scumbag is responsible. Never post links that include personal information! I have an email link: here is another copy. Zerotalk 09:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] OK. Thank you for the link. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten is for you!

Extended content
That was a kind word you had for Sir Joseph. I'm impressed. Thank you, GizzyCatBella. star ship.paint (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! That’s a gorgeous kitty GizzyCatBella🍁 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding TP

Extended content
Hey GCB, You asked me not to post here, but you keep posting inhospitable messages on my TP. I don't think that's a fair arrangement, so I would appreciate it if you avoided posting there. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement warning

Extended content
Hi. Please be more careful in the future as further violations of your restrictions will almost certainly result in sanctions. Best wishes for your health and safety, El_C 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] @El_C Thank you, I’ll be extra careful. I’m not reverting any vandalism anymore either .. Thanks again and please stay healthy and safe also. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement appeal

Extended content

Hi again. I have closed your appeal as declined. Sorry, I know this isn't the result you were hoping for. I hope this doesn't discourage you too much from continuing to contribute to the project. I hope you are able to take the criticism offered by various parties constructively and build on that. Anyway, let's give it another 2 years, at which point you're welcome to submit another appeal. Best wishes, El_C 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi El_C, no, I don’t think it will discourage me, I’ll do my best. Thank you. :) GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] That's good to hear, GizzyCatBella. I wish you success and happy editing. El_C 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kashubian crochet

Extended content

That really made me laugh :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Found it only now, via Icewhiz Protean efforts at cloaking via semi-SPIs: Kashubian is so colorful! I maybe help with copy editing?--KasiaNL (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Certainly Kasia, (can I call you just Kasia?)GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] You may, it is my name. I excited to work together.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm so happy you're excited Kasia, me likewise. May I suggest you do some copy editing into this article [3] before I publish my draft? I think Irish crochet might need some touch-ups.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Troll level: master! And it worked. Bows also to Boing! said Zebedee Zezen (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Extended content

Hello, I'm Soumya-8974. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_27#Censorship_in_Poland that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Please don’t alter my comments, that has been left for the record. The user might have to be reported if the WP: HOUNDING continues. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I did not realize that I was wikihounding around. However, please strike your personal attacks. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] NOT you wikihounding. Just let it go ok? Thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Extended content
Hello GCB This kitty isn't quite as cute as the one on your userpage (and the bubble animation is excellent as well) but I had to drop it off to say thank you. It looks like things have been dealt with for the moment. Thanks for you vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 23:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] No problem! Thank you for the kitten. :) GizzyCatBella🍁 00:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some help

Extended content
Hi, as I wander through Wikipedia I came across your username and clicked it...would appreciate if you were able to offer me help with my latest contributions. Much thanks, of course - and I understand if you are too busy. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] What kind of help do you require specifically?GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Enforcement

Extended content

A discussion regarding your topic ban and your recent edits will appear on WP:AE. Notrium (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Notrium, maybe you can add a diff or two here before going ahead with that...? El_C 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I see it's already been filed at AE. Never mind. El_C 16:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @*Notrium - Seeking to get your opponents sanctioned for disagreeing with you as you just did here [2] that later continued to the below is not a very wise thing to do. It only demonstrates your attitude and sooner or later will get you in trouble. I wish you all the best, and I hope you will resolve your grievances here [3] using conventional channels.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The reason I wanted Oliszydlowski sanctioned is because I thought that could make his editing behavior less disruptive, make him read some policy, etc. Turns out I can't recognize the actual lines somebody may not cross before being sanctioned. As for you, (even though I could have spent my time much more effectively) I am proud to have shed light on your repeated violation. A Wikipedia with nobody to report somebody else in such a case would be a Wikipedia with no rules at all. Notrium (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Look Notrium, if you don't see anything disrupting in your behaviour then that's not good and quite sad... But I don't believe you don't, and I don't believe you are proud of it either. The reason you kept edit warring and later went on a cheap hounding/reporting adventure is that you lost an argument, and you couldn't control yourself. I hope you overcome this aggressive behaviour one day. In any way, let's close this discussion right here. Good luck to you and happy editing. GizzyCatBella🍁 03:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Asserting that I "couldn't control" myself feels to me like a personal attack. The "good luck" at the end does not change that. Notrium (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The "cheap hounding adventure" claim against me is definitely against WP policy, as I am obviously not hounding you. Notrium (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Ok Notrium, I removed that part from my comment. Now please move on and if you could stop posting on my talk page I would appreciate it. Thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE decision

Extended content

To enforce an arbitration decision and following the consensus at Arbitration Enforcement, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. RexxS (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Again, GizzyCatBella, there's no other option but to do thorough review of all pertinent submissions so long as you continue to edit in the topic area of Poland that heavily. So, hopefully, a few days away will resonate the point of that. Hope to see you back editing at that time. Best wishes and kind regards, El_C 23:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I absolutely agree, I made a mistake and it's only my fault for missing the fact that there was a word "WW2" in the restored text. I'm taking full responsibility for it and accept the sanction. I'll try my best going forward, but most likely I will appeal the ban at one point sooner than later. I really think it doesn't serve any purpose anymore since I have learned from my mistake a while ago. Wikipedia is a strange world where alliances are formed and "enemies" produced. Sanctioned as such are being used as a weapon to silence opponents, this is really sad but I guess because of human nature, unavoidable.GizzyCatBella🍁 00:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] It is sad, but it's the world we live in. Can I suggest that you read back on the two occasions when Sandstein wrote about your topic ban (the original placement and your request to lift it)? In each case he suggested you demonstrate six months of trouble-free editing and then appeal the ban. I fully agree with him on that, and I'm sure you'll have no problem doing so. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I'll. For the next 6 months, I'll try to avoid anything that has "Poland" in the text (just to be sure) and might focus on translating some articles into English in my sandbox on Polish Wikipedia. Those articles could be later transferred into English Wikipedia. Thank you guys for your time, and sorry for the breach of the topic ban.GizzyCatBella🍁 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Enforcement again

Extended content

A discussion regarding your topic ban and some of your edits will appear on WP:AE. Notrium (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction The following sanction now applies to you: interaction ban with François Robere and Notrium You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Records

[4] While tedious WP:DENY is only for blocked socks (from Aug.23 for now) - [5],[6],[7],[8], [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], [21] ..........

Anticommunism

Extended content

You specifically make anticommunist edits and don't let people to fix bias that is a such. This isn't an uncommon thing among Poland history contributors and you just make the situation worse. I suggest you to stop your biased counter-productive actions. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comrade-yutyo - Halt that ethnic generalization of editors, please. How the hell you know who I am, and if I'm anti-Communist or anti-whatever? Slow down here, please, okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] @GizzyCatBella: I haven't specified any ethnicity. I have just said you are one of people that mostly edit Poland-related history articles, who are mostly doing biased edits mostly having anti-communist nature and don't let people to fix that as you do now at Prostitution in Poland. I am just asking for neutrality. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] What the hell is anti-Communist about stating that something was (per sources) Communist[22]? Come on here fellow.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] @GizzyCatBella: You can't even call a nation with its name. Your edits intend bad faith. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Now you are accusing me of bad faith...Comrade-yutyo you got to be careful with these things around here. I'm not such a person who runs and reports editors if I don't feel that administrative action is absolutely necessary, but many people do. Let's stop talking about me and move away from my talk page to the related article page. Okay? I have to take some rest now but will look for your comments there later.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Stanisław Michalkiewicz

Extended content

Hi! In [23], you added what appears to be a direct translation of a source ([24]) that doesn't appear to be in the public domain or licensed appropriately for Wikipedia. It therefore seems to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following: Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Stanisław Michalkiewicz, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions. If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse. It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Gbear605 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Gbear605, I’ll look at it when I get some time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

My fan can’t live without GizzyCatBella[25] :)

Hello, GizzyCatBella. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Semper honestus (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC) banned known user[reply] ) You just can’t breathe without me, can you? :) why don’t you find something else to do in life? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background link for reference ---> [26] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC) another sock of his commenting about the similar issues (for reference only) [27] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three revert rule - reported to WP:third opinion

Extended content
[28] Dawid2009 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPA - familiar pattern

Extended content

Waterwhiz-like sleeper account alert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juliett_Tango_Papa High time for a crocheting classes invitation, methinks. Zezen (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Zezen lol! - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] You had made us all (including Drmies and more) LOL first, etc. with your "koronkowa robota" back then. Your fault. I suggest co-editing the sponges in the Aplysinidae family together this time, "doing the needful" as our Indian colleagues are wont to say. Zezen (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] They need to be more creative because it's monotonous now. I'm kind of bored with it: Sometimes, I feel like conversing, but I noticed I often ignore it. (@my fan - come on, my aficionado! I know you are reading this. Come up with something better; you are getting incredibly boring) - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] I apologize for getting these followers around you Zezen because of me. Wherever I go, they follow me like "muchy do gówna", you know.. That creates frustration for other editors. I'm not too fond of that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] I had commented about the same here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yaffa_Eliach#Challenged_by_Israeli_historians? before 5P editing the mainspace thereof with joyful (near)abandon. I guess Fear, uncertainty, and doubt is the proper name of their strategy: sowing all these first among the editors and admins, coupled with wikistalking, nitpicking (e.g. re these copyright claims) and then winning the TBs or more over the points or by e.g the Jimbo route or even external Twitter and press appeals. You have rightly resorted to humour and reductio ad absurdum, at least in some cases. It worked. OK, I am leaving the proposed invitation to prettifying the Aplysinidae or other crocheting-like Porifera phylums mainspaces to you, as you have much more experience, defter flappers and badinaging levity than me. Off to my non-EN wikis now: there is a great battle raging over changing the very language and thus their rules and culture, shifting the Overton window on the sly, see e.g. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artyku%C5%82y/2020:08:25:Dukaizmy and related. Zezen (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oh, yous guys were right: I got a wikihounding semi-anon fan today as well, see my Talk page. They skimp on the exclamation marks, alas: if they added a baker's dozen more, I may become a believer. Would s/he/it be related to your one above (similar arguments, methinks) or the "usual suspects"? Zezen (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Zezen - that is not Ken (??),(why this your one above) it’s most likely "my fan" (not %100 sure yet, they need to write a little more for me to be sure) but congratulations, if that’s them, you are on "my fan’s" radar now. Enjoy - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Aha. I will enjoy. In my spare non-mainspace edits time. BTW, I have decided to drop this Aryanization in the See Also. Not worth it. (FYI, in case you wondered how I got there: I have just rewatched the great Obchod na korze (an anti-fascist masterpiece, in case anybody second-guessed my intentions, the SPA readers here included :) in the Slovak original, then read the wiki materials about this including the interesting statistics (similar to other pre-war CEE countries), and decided to link (not compare) these, by way of q.v. only) Zezen (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Zezen - Yeah, made up out of their ass, fabricated and manipulated to the max charges were their usual modus operandi, so the word "compare" despite the fact no one compared it. But as I said, you are on their radar now, so expect more trolling. Have fun with my fan. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Update: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics# )

Hyphens

Extended content
Please be aware of Wikipedia's Manual of Style for hyphens, which says "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) ...". In particular, on Condor (airline). Chris the speller yack 19:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Per this edit, if you know who's behind the account, please start a sock puppet investigation. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D they follow me around for like 2-3 years now, hides behind proxes, I don’t want to waste my time on them. Notice that they added WW2 substance in Poland - thats the topic I can’t edit due to the stupid topic ban. Long story. Just ignore them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do report them so the account can be blocked. If there is some kind of long-running harassment, admins or the Wikimedia Foundation may be able to follow up - by range blocking IPs, etc. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might do that eventually but there are around 70 accounts to report and all of them behind the proxes so it’s hard to prove. I don’t have energy for that Nick. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D I left the note on the admins. talk page [29] but I feel sorry for those guys that they have to deal with all this crap. I'm trying not to overload them unless it is crucial. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please report it. Admins and checkusers can deal with this kind of stuff very quickly. Even playing whack a mole with sockpuppet accounts usually works. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’ll try to find some energy for it Nick-D but I’m not promising .... GizzyCatBella🍁 22:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Nick-D: Since the odds are that this is related to this, as someone who spend countless hours compiling the evidence, only for more than half to be dismissed as "not enough", I am not sure if the system really works. From where I sit, one spends hours preparing evidence, only for a CU to say "hmmm, proxy, similar POV, similar interests, not conclusive". The moles have a very good shield in our apparent super-high evidence standards, at least those uphed by some CUs, for whom seemingly nothing but the sock admitign to their previous identity would work (as long as they got themselves a new proxy). Nonetheless, I'd encourage GCB to submit evidence to the CU, at the very least, we should be able to publicly confirm or deny whether those accounts use a proxy or not. If they use a proxy, it means it is probably that indef banned user (and if I was a betting person I'd also bet this is the case). If not, it could be someone else, the world is a big place after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been too long, I think since you received some wiki-love. Thank you for your contributions, and don't let any vandals ruin your day! Where is the picture of your cat? Have a kitten, anyway :)

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Piotrus. My cat is gone unfortunately. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing a report there.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the report with no action [30], with the same understanding that if problematic edits resume sanctions are going to be imposed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your arbitration enforcement appeal as accepted [31], with the understanding that problematic editing from your side would result in more severe sanctions swiftly imposed. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From me, too. Good on you, for finally turning the tide. El_C 02:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:ENGVAR for why your edit was reverted by someone else. This policy came about because people repeatedly and unthinkingly imposed their own English variant on this Wikipedia. And then edit warred about it. It seems amazing that readers of Wikipedia wouldn't catch on that there's a whole world out there. Consider both wikt:metalled and wikt:prepone. 'Metalled' is an English word from Victorian England, no longer used there, but retained in India. If you'll look at wikt:Citations:prepone you'll see that 'prepone' was a joke, but then it wasn't - it became a 'real' word used in India and then elsewhere. English has become global, and MOS:ENGVAR asks that you take a global viewpoint when editing here. Shenme (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits changed the meaning. El C, please note. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, that's just being petty. Sheesh. Gbear605 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look above: "for finally turning the tide", then comes straight to a long, sensitive, complex article, changes the meaning in several places, and changes a quote. And for what? What was the purpose of that edit? This is just nonsense. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following all of the arbitration issues and frankly I don't see the issue here. I agree that GCB probably should be more careful (changing a quote, really?), but pinging an admin to take note is silly. Wait until there's actually something meaningful. Gbear605 (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Sarah. Yes, I see the errors. A superfluous "the" was added to a quote, I presume without checking the source material (i.e. viewed as a typo for some reason). And Displaced persons camps in post-World War II Europe was turned into a red link. The remaining changes appear to be constructive gnomish ones. So, you go on to correct these errors, but for reasons which escape me, before you get a chance to finish, Gbear605 reverts. Mild excitement ensues, but it all gets settled eventually (I think). How is that for a summary? But, as for GCB, she has only made that one edit. She has not challenged your correction to it. She may well be perfectly content with your changes and is otherwise thinking: oops. The point, though, is that there is no POV creep that I'm able to discern, which is what I would be looking for. Again, she stumbled, you caught it (and then there's Gbear605, somehow) — end of story, no? El_C 04:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see the errors now....changing the link into the red one and I thought it was a typo in the quote...sorry Sarah. I’ll be careful with that going forward. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't the only problems with that edit. Note also in Friendly fire, you changed "Soldiers fighting on unfamiliar ground can become disoriented" to "Soldiers fighting on the unfamiliar ground can become disoriented". And "combat stress may add to the confusion, especially if fire is exchanged" to "especially if the fire is exchanged". [32] SarahSV ^(talk) 06:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, some respect and consideration would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps I'm oversensitive, but a little bit of politeness and simple words such as "excuse me" or "thank you" would help... - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you make good and bad copy edits to a well-developed article, the next editor has to pick their through them, rather than reverting. That is time-consuming, so it would make sense for you not to make edits where you know you aren't strong, and that includes the definite and indefinite article.

For example, at the Holocaust, you changed a source's quote, "whose role was to deal with 'all anti-German elements in hostile country behind the troops in combat'"; for some reason you thought "hostile country" needed "the". At "judgements ranging from acquittal to death by hanging", you added "an" before acquittal; did you mean there was only one acquittal? Then "West Germany initially tried few ex-Nazis, but after the 1958 Ulm Einsatzkommando trial, the government set up a dedicated agency." Adding "a" before "few" changes the meaning and makes "but" inappropriate. I also wonder why you arrived at that article, a day after coming off a topic ban. It seemed provocative.

Now you've returned to Friendly fire, and having changed "fire is exchanged" to "the fire is exchanged", now you've changed "fire" to "shooting", so it says "if shooting is exchanged". But people don't "exchange shooting".

I'll leave it there, but please bear these issues in mind. It isn't petty. The whole point of copy editing is to improve flow, grammar and vocabulary, so it isn't petty to point out when an edit doesn't achieve that or even achieves the opposite. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS actually says, "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So it's not an argument for restoring removed content. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, I answered here [33] - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
	Hello GizzyCatBella, I send you warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 11:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Astral Leap (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have the Twinkle setting marked "Mark as minor edit for these types of reversions: Restore this version" turned on (has been on since Nov 2019 [34]), you can turn that off here. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thjarkur - Thank you so much! Could you check when you get a chance if the function has correct settings now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, your settings are correct – Thjarkur (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you request the protection at Pilecki's Report? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can’t you see that? @SarahSV Actually no, not on this one, only on Pilecki - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So who would have immediately after you requested protection of Pilecki's Report and two others? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that could mean "I had no choice." But the question is: why? I, as a volunteer contributor, always have a choice to drop the subject, edit something else, stop editing at all, whatever. Besides, this is just an educational website. If someone blocks me ideff, that's fine, good for my real life and work. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you be blocked indef? I’m not seeing that happen, you are forced here to stay “unfortunately” :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one forces me to stay here or edit any specific pages, and there is a choice. I stay here only as an addict and did ask to block me for that reason: [35]. Unfortunately, that resulted in certain problems, so I would not do it again. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You understood well, the word "forced" in Italian could be used also as "I had no choice" (I thought in English could be used the same way). "Fighting" can also be used to say "to deal with" about something hard to do, an harsh discussion for example. Unfortunately, I can't answer to you in the AE because I'm just under 500 words (I hope so!). If you want, you could report there my explanation. Thank you for understanding and for suggesting it.--Mhorg (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, why did not you have a choice? You just recently started editing this page, and you could easily start edit something else given that you felt uncomfortable during discussions here, here (this is a continuation of the same thread) and elsewhere, started an absolutely irrelevant discussion here, and to be honest, started this AE request, instead of following WP:DR as you initially wanted? If anything, your involvement on these talk pages looks like WP:BLUDGEON. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I had no choice" because this is the first time in 6 years on Wikipedia that I had such surreal discussions with a user who questions ANY controversial issue of a politician supported by tons of RS. On the Italian Wikipedia I can assure you that I have never seen such a thing. Maybe the communities are different, there are probably different rules... or maybe there is something wrong in this case. And believe me, I always try to find a mediation with those who help build the encyclopedia. I think I never dared to remove large parts of controversal content from an article, and of course never with the accusation of "Undue weight", even though I felt politically close to a certain politician.
I tried to open the DR, when the only outstanding issue was the Georgian one. When you started questioning everything, I felt inside me that something was wrong. And don't think I'm happy with what happened, in fact, I ruined my days "fighting" in the discussions or tracking what you were doing on the article. I hope that the matter will be resolved and that we can return to collaborate in the future in a better way, as I already wrote to you some time ago.[36] If instead they decide that I was wrong to evaluate, well, I apologize in advance.--Mhorg (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never said or acted to remove all "controversial issues". In fact, this whole page is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time, and it is still there right now. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph here, on the page. I did not remove it. It just uses more neutral wording than you suggested. Can we add more? Yes, perhaps we can if there will be a consensus on the talk page. So far I do not see it. Start an RfC if you wish to include your text with "rotten teeth" and "cockroaches" [37]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read all your answers. I understand that you somehow want to avoid being held accountable for your mass deletions and the abuse you have done by accusing everything controversial of "Undue weight". I just hope that the administrators will check what I have reported, comparing it with your answers. I am also asking if I can exceed the 500 word limit so that I can answer to your statements there on AE request. You're distorting everything again, like you've been doing since I got to argue with you.--Mhorg (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not claim everything controversial of "Undue weight", but only your text about "rotten teeth" and "cockroaches" (diff above). My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that if you close your eyes that report will not disappear. Everything is written there. And there are also all the discussions where everything is "Undue weight" for you.--Mhorg (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, what you brought to AE is just a content dispute on a single page. Moreover, this is a disagreement between you and a few other users (not just me) on one small issue, i.e. the exact wording/text for describing views by Navalny on the old Georgia-related events. My position: I do not think this is due on the page, but it might be included if we frame it as his general views on foreign policy as described in the scholarly source [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say what you meant by this at the Holocaust? You wrote: "Please take a peek at this and adjust the text to meet WP:APLRS conditions. I tagged it for now."

There are three sources in the bundle you tagged, supporting footnote f: "The term shoah was used in a pamphlet in 1940, Sho'at Yehudei Polin ("Sho'ah of Polish Jews"), published by the United Aid Committee for the Jews in Poland." Sources.

Two of the sources support the point directly: Crowe 2008, p. 1—that's David M. Crowe, The Holocaust: Roots, History, and Aftermath—and Yad Vashem. A second Yad Vashem page is offered as a "see also" source about the definition of the Holocaust generally.

You tagged the whole thing as "Better source needed". Which of the three sources is the problem, and what did you mean about adjusting the text? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant using Haaretz as a source (#10 this one --> [39]) [40] of course not Yad Vashem - is Hareetz okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There it is used to support: "According to Haaretz, the writer Yehuda Erez may have been the first to describe events in Germany as the shoah. Davar and later Haaretz both used the term in September 1939."^[1]

Given that part of the research would be the news organization looking through its own archives for the date, it seems fine. I've been meaning to look for the Yehuda Erez article but haven't got round to it. What do you think might be the problem with Haaretz for something like this? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV - I don't think its anything wrong with the source personally; I just noticed that that particular source doesn't meet WP:APLRS conditions; hence I brought it to your attention. I'll let you guys decide since you have higher expertise here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why it would need to meet WP:APLRS. It's in the terminology section. It isn't supporting a claim about Poland. Scholarly sources should be used for history articles in general, but a newspaper describing first use of a term, especially when that newspaper was one of the first users, seems okay. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I almost forgot about this garbage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence that begins with "Last thought" is a bit broken? Anyway, I totally agree with what you write. Hope Arbitrators read your thoughts! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O yeah, thanks Piotrus, I was writing in a hurry. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. This is too much. This must be the 5th time you do this. Stop popping up after me with false insinuations. I already said no. Here is a big capital NO NO NO again. If you repeat this, I will ask an admin to make it stop.--Bob not snob (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC) - Blocked by ARBCOM ---> [41][reply]

I agree, it needs to stop. As does removing valid material. [42] GCB, if you think a source isn't good enough, please look for a better one, rather than removing everything without checking. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, what needs to stop is this kind of insane battleground hounding where a user who upon coming to Wikipedia immediately started getting into fights, is now demanding that check users rifle through people’s emails because... not sure why. I’m at a loss Sarah why you would support this kind of behavior.

As for that edit above, it was a good edit - it removed an obviously non reliable source with REDFLAG information. Again, I’m at a loss as to why you would want to defend such an edit, especially in this topic area where we have the APLRS restriction which I believe you support. How does that work? You’re in favor of the APLRS restriction but complain when someone removes a source which doesn’t even meet RS, much less APLRS? You’re also assuming bad faith by assuming that GCB removed it “without checking”. How do you know? Please don’t cast aspersions without basis. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33--Shrike (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike - You continue posting on my talk page identical alerts. Anything emerged I'm not aware of since your last post? [43]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, The alert is expired after one year as you have shown interest again in the topic I have alerted your again as per policy Shrike (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike - Please show me where does it say that alerts expire and that editors should be warned again? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, Please see Template:Ds/alert, Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Shrike (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike - Please be aware that I’m already familiar with the topic sanctions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know.Still the alert is per policy if you don't want to receive alerts you may use following template Template:Ds/aware Shrike (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not support me. If I find anything really problematic, I will make a post on an appropriate noticeboard. Happy editing, and I certainly appreciate your support. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about the joe-job: [44]. I understand, this is certainly not a fun for VM, but to be honest, I was laughing while reading it. Selecting someone who is so obviously not Ice and "proving" he is his sockpuppet with such ridiculous arguments that only sounds "legit"... This is basically a funny parody on SP investigations and VM. It reminds me KVN. User "All for Poland": Reported socks do not get to revert. Go. Away. Icewhiz. Whoever did it had a sense of humor and wanted to satirize VM. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes - Do you know what astonishes me? The fact that these people are still so furious about what happened years ago. What did you fellows do to them, for Christ's sake? Did they get banned and now are after you as retaliation? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no I’ll give them some credit, it was kinda funny and. This. Part. Especially. At one point User:Drmies mentioned how much that annoyed him so I stopped for awhile but then couldn’t help myself because. Doing. This. Is. Funny. To. Me. (I’m always chuckling when I type that way). Of course the whole thing is still super creepy and skeezy but I do appreciate that they or he or she put some effort into it. Volunteer Marek 21:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sure that no one is furious about what had happened many years ago or wants to retaliate for the old events. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not going to study that ancient story; I have no interest in this. My impression is that these sock puppets are entirely connected to past matters, that's all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roll. Tide. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kick. Six. Volunteer Marek 23:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know how fair and good I am, VM, and what self control I have? I almost rolled that back. Someone should block you for that harassment. AuburnPilot, bringing up this trauma again isn't fair, is it? Tide rolls? Drmies (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One has to learn to recognize anomaly and not let one's self be drawn into an incorrect perception of reality. Tiderolls 12:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since these ENIGMA enciphered messages are posted on my talk page, could you tell me people what on earth you are talking about? Of course, I'm joking, never mind, probably another tale from 20 years ago. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies for hijacking your page, GCB. I can see where the answer would be anticlimactic, but you can find some background here. Tiderolls 13:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okay :) no need to apologize, feel free to use my talk page. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of Drmies or Tide rolls blocking me, here you go. Still. So. Sweet. Volunteer Marek 16:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

history of Jews in Poland

Thank you for quality articles such as Alfonse Pogrom, for dealing with articles such as Smolensk air disaster and History of Jews in Poland, for updating biographies, for "I'll be careful with that going forward", for missing SlimVirgin, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2615 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt - wow..thank you so much. You just made my day.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just love to do that, meow ;) - had a crazy discussion on my talk but nothing compared to yours --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a soft spot for users with cat in their name and spirit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GizzyCatBella, I have this article in my watchlist and I noticed your change. I appreciate your editing in general though I sometimes disagree with you. I'd suggest you don't add any wikilinks to this disputed Wikipedia article at the moment. It wouldn't give any additional credibility whatsoever to the article and I think it would only mislead the readers. It would be more constructive, if you engaged with the issues at the relevant talk page (I notified User:Buidhe of the matter a while ago). Wikipedia should be about verifiability, not narratives and hypotheses.Potugin (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll look at it later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and responded at related talk page - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nazi crimes against the Polish nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Janów.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By obligation to notify users concerned in the ANI case, I hereby notify you that There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for disruptive editing, tag-teaming for reverts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be we should go back to the arbitration enforcement ban. Enough is enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter - Many editors watch certain pages without participating in the discussions or editing the associated articles. When those editors see an issue arising, they may begin participating; this does not make those editors tag-teaming. I believe you rushed with the block decision, but I will respect it out of regard to challenging judgments administrators have to handle. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-ly-crap User:Ymblanter. Did you just block a long standing user for reverting an account with EXACTLY 13 edits, 9 of those a year ago, which re-activated itself just to edit war on this topic [45]??? Please keep in mind that accounts with less than 500 edits are restricted from editing pages related to Poland and World War 2 [46] due to intensive sock puppetry in this area. You think reverting such editors is "disruptive editing"? Seriously? Are you trying to make this topic area more of a nightmare than it already is to edit in? Volunteer Marek 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm sorry, the new account wasn't reverted by GCB, it reverted GCB. All the same, why exactly did you block a long standing editor for a single - justified - revert? WTH? Volunteer Marek 15:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gildir is an established user with more than 30K edits. The revert is not a "single justified" revert, it is part of edit-warring after multiple warnings in a contentious area under discretionary sanctions. That you continued reverting is not good either.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an editor who is an obvious sock per 500/30 restriction as above. What is this "part of edit-warring after multiple warnings". Diffs please? Volunteer Marek 15:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PingY looking at GCB's last 500 edits the only reverts I see is this one and reverting another disruptive IP. Where is this "part of edit warring" suppose to be? It's not there. Where is this "multiple warning"? There are non. Bad block dude. Just undo it. Volunteer Marek 15:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are perfectly capable of answering this question yourself. Please do not pretend you do not understand what I am talking about. I am not going to play any games here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VM now e-mailed me asking whether anybody asked me to block GCB. The answer is no, nobody did. Btw I do not discuss such issues off-wiki as a matter of principle, with the exception of private info (which does not apply in this case).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter - Could you provide diff’s for your claim The revert is not a "single justified" revert, it is part of edit-warring after multiple warnings. I'm very respectful of the administrators in general, as per my original comment, but now, this is a little too much. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You and VM made one edit and subsequent four reverts of the revert of this edit in a short period of time on a page none of you previously shown any interest about. The warnings are on your talk page above. If I remember correctly, you are coming off the arbitration edit restriction (was it actually me who rescinded the sanction? I really do not remember). The page happened to be on my watchlist. As simple as this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]