== GizzyCatBella, you are invited on a [[WP:TWA|Wikipedia Adventure]]! ==

<div style="background-color: #040023; border-radius:10px; color: #E9E9F0; font-family: 'futura', arial, sans serif; padding: 2em 1em 1em 1em">

<div style="margin-left: 9em">

<div style="float:left">

<span style="font-size: 1.5em; color: #FFAE00; padding: 0 .1em 0 0; text-shadow: #3FB6FF 0 0 20px">The</span></div>

<div style="float:left; margin-top: -.45em">

[[File:Wikipedia-logo-white.svg|130px|link=WP:TWA]]</div>

<div style="float:left">

<span style="font-size: 1.5em; color: #FFAE00; padding: 0 0 2em .25em; text-shadow: #3FB6FF 0 0 20px">Adventure</span></div>

</div>

{{clear}}

{| style="margin: 1em; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans serif;"

|- valign="top"

| [[File:TWA guide.svg|100px|alt=The Wikipedia Adventure guide|link=w:en:Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure]]

| <div style="background-color:#ffffff; color: #393D38; padding: 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;">

Hi '''GizzyCatBella'''!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! {{noping|Ocaasi}}

<div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false"><span class="ui-button-text">[[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure/Portal|Play The Wikipedia Adventure]]</span></div><small><span style="text-align:right;"><br /><small>This message was delivered by [[User:HostBot|HostBot]] ([[User talk:HostBot|talk]]) 17:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)</small></small></span>

</div>

</div>

== September 2015 ==

[[File:Information.svg|left|25px|alt=]] Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to [[:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash]] has been undone by an automated computer program called [[User:ClueBot NG|ClueBot NG]].

{{clear}}

* ClueBot NG makes very few [[User:ClueBot NG#Information About False Positives|mistakes]], but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please [[User:ClueBot NG#Information About False Positives|read about it]], [{{User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/FPReport|2356954}} report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.

* For help, take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction]].

* The following is the log entry regarding this message: [[2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010+Polish+Air+Force+Tu-154+crash&diff=682061403&oldid=682061170 changed] by [[Special:Contributions/GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] [[User:GizzyCatBella|(u)]] [[User talk:GizzyCatBella|(t)]] ANN scored at 0.896802 on 2015-09-21T08:36:44+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 2356954 -->.

Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> [[User:ClueBot NG|ClueBot NG]] ([[User talk:ClueBot NG|talk]]) 08:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

== Removal of sourced information ==

I hadn't removed any sourced information - I've moved it up, and removed unsourced/irrelevant parts. Feel free to report it. [[User:Trasz|Trasz]] ([[User talk:Trasz|talk]]) 18:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

== Adding new comments ==

Can you please make sure you add your comments to Talk pages always ''at the bottom'', indented only one ':' more than the preceding comment, instead of adding your comments ''in the middle'' of existing ones? Otherwise it quickly becomes impossible to follow the discussion, especially for those readers who are not involved now and will read the whole thread in the future. Thanks. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 10:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

:Ok, thanks [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 10:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

::You just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash&diff=687495357&oldid=687464274 did it again]. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 04:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:::That was a continuation of the same comment, it should stay together. [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 04:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Not according to [[WP:TOPPOST|Wikipedia's quidelines on Talk pages]]: "''the latest comment in a thread should be posted in chronological order and not placed above earlier comments''", otherwise it creates confusion. For example, the comment currently at the bottom, which starts with ''"GizzyCatBella – you’re right, and I thank you for the feedback..."'' refers to an older comment of yours, not to the comment immediately above (which you just moved back out of chronological order) as someone would expect. Not only that: comments placed in the middle of the thread can easily go unnoticed, as most people just look for new comments at the bottom. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 11:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Its one and the same the same comment, I can take out time stamp if you find it confusing.[[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::It's not the same comment, it's something additional you said in the discussion almost a day after your previous contribution, while another editor had added a further comment in the meantime. There is really no good reason to mess up the chronological order of comments, but if you want readers to miss your posts because they are added at random places in the discussion, go on and put your comments wherever you like; I won't look for them. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 19:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::: I will post all at once next time, no problem. I will remember about it. Thanks [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::: I have to reiterate that you need to be putting your comments at the bottom of a section, per {{user|Deeday-UK}} [[User:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'>'''''R9tgokunks'''''</span>]] [[User talk:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue'>✡</span>]] 19:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

== Politics ==

Yes, I might be wrong about your political motives; you seem to be simply a standard conspiracy theorist; the language you use is typical: 'manipulate public opinion', 'lies', 'cover-up'... Seriously, if you wanted to blow up an aeroplane with explosives, would you really plant the charge in the wing? and how? a jet's wing is pretty much sealed; you can't put anything in it without ripping it open, unless you think of screwing it to the outside hoping that nobody would notice it. Wouldn't you rather put the bomb in the cabin or in the cargo hold?<br />

I cannot recall a single case of aircraft bombing were the explosives was placed in the wings, yet the Smolensk conspirators allegedly managed to do it, and to time the explosion at precisely the moment when the Tupolev overflew a birch tree that then mysteriously broke in half, leaving fragments of the flap system magically embedded in it.<br />

How can anyone normally intelligent consider such reconstruction credible? You really need to stop thinking for yourself and make an act of faith, to accept those ideas. Yes, the Russian investigation was flawed (although not totally flawed); yes, there are aspects of the crash not fully explained (wreckage removal etc), but do you really find explanations like the above one more convincing? Sometimes I just despair of the human kind. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:Deeday, Im don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist. Im just reporting new facts. As most people in Poland, I simply DON'T KNOW what really happened in Smoleńsk. Personally/honestly, I don't think it was a "Russian plot" to kill Polish elite, but based on the current reports, Im not convinced that they are telling us the truth. At this point, everything is just a hypothesis to me. Until the wreckage, black boxes etc. are returned to Poland and PROPER investigation is conducted (best international and totally independent) this tragedy will remain to be questioned. As you said yourself, MAK report is flawed, I would say its more that flawed, so is Polish governments cover up (theirs report) of its incompetence and mistakes in regards of handling the investigation. [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

::You don't think it was a Russian plot? Then what do you think happened? What is, in your opinion, the most likely explanation of the crash of the Tupolev in Smolensk? I'm asking because the Law & Justice brigade seem hell-bent on proving that it was a plot (no doubt a Russian one), and you seem to give them a lot of credit, certainly more than they deserve, from an objective point of view. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't know Deeday, I honestly don't know. If that was a plot I would rather suspect that it was carried out by the Poles themselves, former [[Military_Information_Services_(Poland)|WSI]] communist agents. But this is my personal thought and its of course my conspiracy theory you could say. I personally think it was some kind of a freak accident but for sure it didn't happened as its presented to us right now. As it looks to me the Russians are covering up something or just using the whole situation for their own political gains and Polish former government people are covering up their own negligence in the matter. Note that almost a 100 prominent people died, including the president and there were no people in the government, military, intelligence services etc. responsible for it, not even one. A lower ranking scapegoat is being blaimed of negligence, thats it. They gave the whole investigation to the Russians, they didn't even secured the return of the wreckage, black boxes, did't conduct necropsy in Poland, they lied about so many things that the list can go on and on . Have you heard about such things ever in any other plane accident? Unbelievable. Now, why Im giving so much credit to the Law and Justice investigators? These people worked without any help from government whatsoever, they where slandered left and right and still came up with more credible conclusions that official Polish report. I was following it closely and many results really make a lot of sense. Take a closer look at their work you may be surprised. Now the explosions that they claimed happened.. who knows what exploded, maybe a gas tank, maybe a bomb.. as I said before until the wreckage and black boxes are returned to Poland and proper investigations is done, this accident will remain being questioned. [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 23:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:::: The fact that you consider the conclusions of the L&J commission more credible than the official report is beyond me. Explosions in fuel tanks are extremely rare in aviation, and they typically involve an internal short-circuit ([[TWA 800]]) or a lightning strike, of which there isn't any evidence. Is there even any evidence of soot or fire damage on the piece of wing that flew off? I can't see any, in the photos. Also, once you accept that there was a perfectly timed explosion in the wing, how do you explain a broken birch tree with pieces of a Tupolev wing stuck in it? You'll have to accept that the Russians fabricated the evidence (obviously in co-operation with the WSI agents), but when? Before the crash, knowing in advance exactly where the wing would have exploded, or after the crash, in full view of anyone around the crash site? and how? that tree is not cut, it's broken (and well up the trunk, not at the base). Look at it this way: what is the simplest and quickest way to break the top of a tree while leaving embedded in it parts of a flap system? well, take a Tupolev and bash its wing against it. Binienda's impact simulation looks far oversimplified; the model of the wing appears somehow realistic, but modelling the tree as a simple pole, with no branches and their associated mass and snagging effect is going to produce substantially different results from the real thing.

:::: And before all that, why on Earth would ex-WSI agents want to take out the president and a planeload of state authorities? what would they have gained? did they want to do a coup and seize power or something? has any of that happened, in the last five years?

:::: Behind all the political wrangling, Russia's substandard investigation, Poland's embarrassing negligence (bodies mixed-up etc), in the end there is a disappointingly simple truth: all aircraft are in the hands of just one person, the pilot in command, and if that guy screws up at the wrong moment, then it's the end of the line for him and everybody else on board. The list of aircraft that dug a hole in the ground while attempting to land on instruments in marginal conditions is endless, especially within the general aviation, including business jets ([[2001 Avjet Aspen crash|this is a perfect example]]). In fact the operations of a state aircraft like PLF 101 have more in common with biz jet operations than they have with airlines: passengers of high authority (inevitably putting a lot of pressure on pilots), operations from often unfamiliar airports, lack of airline-style Standard Operating Procedures etc. PLF 101 is just another one that sadly joined the list.

:::: Also, hasn't L&J always had a grudge against everything communist and Russian? (granted, the Soviets did terrible things to the Poles, in the past) Then I would be rather suspicious when they come up with these Mission Impossible-style scenarios about communist plots to kill the Polish president. L&J also had a strong political interest in pushing these theories: to bash the evil Russians and, while in opposition, to bash the government and win lots of votes (which seems to have worked). I too would be (mildly) interested in having the wreckage and black boxes examined by independent experts (and I mean the UK AAIB, for example), but I'll be stunned if L&J deliver anything close to that: they will at most assemble a commission from trusted members of the Smolensk conference and produce a rehash of their initial report, I bet.

:::: To demand full clarity about all the gaps in the story is one thing (and I could subscribe to that). To go off on a tangent and make up absurd theories of multiple, perfectly timed explosions with fake evidence manufactured on the spot is a completely different one, and it is just irresponsible. It just takes you further away from reality and into a world full of double agents, sci-fi weapons and secret plots. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 13:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, GizzyCatBella. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|2016 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/53&oldid=750814308 -->

== [[Kielce pogrom]] ==

Hello, and thank you for your recent edits to [[Kielce pogrom]] and other articles. Please note that Wikipedia's style manual recommends the use of "straight quotes" (see [[MOS:STRAIGHT]]). Changing a reference name from "Intermarium" to “Intermarium", as you did in several places, produces reference errors because the computer doesn't recognize the two names as the same.

Also, please familiarize yourself with [[MOS:LINK]], the rules on what should be linked, especially [[WP:OVERLINK]], the section on what should not be linked. Generally, we link a term on its first mention in an article and not on subsequent mentions. Linking it three times in one paragraph is never appropriate.

Thank you. —&nbsp;[[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]} 00:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

== Stop changing image sizes ==

because the resulting layouts are very, very bad. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

:Sorry, I disagree with your evaluation. In my view, they look much better. [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 03:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

== Repeated references ==

When you see a reference of the form <nowiki>"<ref name=examplename />"</nowiki> (note the final '''/'''), it means that somewhere else in the article is a reference of the form <nowiki>"<ref name=examplename>Exampleauthor, Firstname (date) ''Example title''. New York: Publisher</ref>"</nowiki> Using <nowiki>"<ref name=examplename />"</nowiki> allows the reference to be used anywhere in the article, before or after the defining reference. It's a way of repeating references without having to fill them out in entirety. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

:: Good to know, thanks Ken [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella#top|talk]]) 07:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

== ANI Discussion ==

[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'>'''''R9tgokunks'''''</span>]] [[User talk:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue'>✡</span>]] 01:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

== Alert ==

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe|here]].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->