User talk:Hyrdlak

Welcome!

Hello, Hyrdlak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article First banned book in post communist Poland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a copy-and-paste from German–Polish Border Treaty (1990), and I have trouble imagining that anyone is going to look for an article called "first banned book in post communist Poland".

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ą may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ą, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Poland-Lithuania, Kingdom of Poland and Ruthenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that the Silesian language is your native language. I would like to inform, currently lasts vote about change the name of article from Silesian language to Silesian dialect. If you are opposed to change, please vote here. Franek K. (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Tomasz Kamusella. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Poeticbent talk 19:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the change introduced on 19:16, 24 March 2015‎ by User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,230 bytes) (-5,125)‎ . . (→‎Books in English: rmv reviews and self published), it is proposed that the titles deleted were of books that were self-published. I wonder if a proof could be given that it is indeed the fact, meaning that the books were self-published. Likewise, is there any guideline on not using book reviews as references commenting on this or that volume? I see, browsing that many Wikipedia biographies use book reviews in this way. User:Hyrdlak 11:10, 29 April 2015 (GMC)

Like this one: [1] Dr Tomasz Kamusella nie jest reprezentantem środowiska filologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego - uznała w czwartek rada Wydziału Filologicznego "Głoszone przez niego teorie nie mają nic wspólnego z prowadzonymi na uniwersytecie badaniami i są nam całkowicie obce" - czytamy w przesłanym nam stanowisku.

Rada wydała oświadczenie po tym, gdy wokół kontrowersyjnych treści zamieszczonych w "Glosariuszu regionalnym województwa opolskiego" autorstwa Kamuselli rozgorzała dyskusja.

Jak zapewnia dziekan Wydziału Filologicznego prof. Stanisław Kochman rada już wcześniej wytykała Kamuselli kontrowersyjne treści w jego publikacjach.. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This inadequate reaction, in breach of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and research, was caused by the inclusion in the Glossary Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego the information on the two differing interpretations of the status of the Polish western border, namely the Polish and Soviet interpretation and the interpretation of West German and the Western Allies.

Using unofficial channels Opole University and the Opole Region authorities had this Glossary banned from lending in the Polish National Library in Warsaw. In retrospect, this decision of applying censorship was found to be illegal and was reverted, see: http://www.nto.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120117/POWIAT01/461115347 ; http://www.nto.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120115/REGION/853367746.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

(Copied from my talk page, where talk posted the following missive) Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Tomasz Kamusella. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Poeticbent talk 19:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent never explained what might led him to believe I am the scholar to whom the entry is devoted, neither did he provide a proof of it.

Furthermore, the Wikipedia's advice on such a possibility, among others, is as follows: "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. " (see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons).

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

(Copied from my talk page) --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (GMT) In the change introduced on 19:16, 24 March 2015‎ by User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,230 bytes) (-5,125)‎ . . (→‎Books in English: rmv reviews and self published), it is proposed that the titles deleted were of books that were self-published. I wonder if a proof could be given that it is indeed the fact, meaning that the books were self-published. Likewise, is there any guideline on not using book reviews as references commenting on this or that volume? I see, browsing that many Wikipedia biographies use book reviews in this way. User:Hyrdlak 11:10, 29 April 2015 (GMC)

Is there any Wikipedia guideline against taking note of self-published books? User:Hyrdlak 13:57, 23 August 2015 (GMC)

(Copied from my missives posted on Volunteer Marek's talk page) In the change introduced on 19:16, 24 March 2015‎ by User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,230 bytes) (-5,125)‎ . . (→‎Books in English: rmv reviews and self published), it is proposed that the titles deleted were of books that were self-published. I wonder if a proof could be given that it is indeed the fact, meaning that the books were self-published.

With regard to the above, it is quite a standard to provide the titles of all the books published by a scholar, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman.

Dear Volunteer Marek, I wonder why you chose to delete all book chapter and articles by T. Kamusella from this entry, while it appears quite a standard element of biographies of scholars, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Anders_Rudling.

Likewise, is there any guideline on not using book reviews as references commenting on this or that volume? I see, browsing that many Wikipedia biographies use book reviews in this way, also in the main body of the entry, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Fox.

And if you want an example of an article that makes the fullest use of all the aforementioned elements plus many others, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snje%C5%BEana_Kordi%C4%87.

Personally, I believe that articles on scholars and researchers should let Wikipedia readers to access the former's research. In this way Wikipedia functions as a portal to knowledge. Does it make sense to limit this portal, making it in a small hole through which one can hardly see anything.

Last but not least, why did you choose to bowdlerize the entry on T. Kamusella? There are many other biographies of scholars, which could be cut down to the size preferred by you. But is it the size preferred by other Wikipedia users, as well?

User:Hyrdlak 13:10, May 5, 2015 (GMC)

Dear Volunteer Marek,

I see that you persist in bowdlerizing this entry. I propose you take a minute and read through my reasons of undoing your changes. I would be happy to hear your arguments why you disagree with me, as long as they are supported by proofs. Otherwise, I propose to refer our disagreement to another editor. Regarding your latest May 18, 2015, please, feel free to point out and improve on any fragments that seem to be too resume-like to you. Don't bowdlerize this entry.

User:Hyrdlak 14:21, May 18, 2015 (GMC)

(Copied from my talk page) First, Kamusella does not compare to either Bauman or Rudling in terms of importance. For a very minor academic who barely passes the threshold of notability, the article in your version goes out of its way to promote him and his works. Only the most important books and articles should be listed. The article should not read like a resume or a CV, which it does now. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn or a similar site. Please don't remove the tag until the problem is addressed. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us apply to T Kamusella the text of notability for academics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29):

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

>> Between 2001 and 2014 Kamusella published around ten books in Polish (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Ksi.C4.85.C5.BCki_w_j.C4.99zyku_polskim) and numerous articles (c 100) in English and Polish (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/tomaszkamusella/T%20Kamusella%20Full%20List%20of%20Publications%202012%20June.doc) on the history and present-day situation of the nation / national group / ethnic group of Silesians and their Silesian language. He was the first scholar to use the terms ‘Silesian language’ and the ‘Silesian nation’ as declared in the 2011 Polish census by 0.8 million people who consider themselves to be of this nation and by 0.5 million speaking this language (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesians and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_language). When it comes to learning about this nation / ethnic group of Silesians and their Silesian language, there is next to nothing about the subject in English apart T Kamusella’s works.

In addition see the information on T Kamusella’s numerous books in worldcat: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Kamusella%2C+Tomasz&qt=results_page#x0%253Abook-%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Aprintbook%2529%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Adigital%2529format.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the aforementioned information on T Kamusella’s Polish-language books and on his articles devoted to Silesian history and language. The information on the Polish-language books is still surviving in the entry on this scholar in the Polish Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Ksi.C4.85.C5.BCki_w_j.C4.99zyku_polskim), alongside some info on his edited volumes (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Redakcja_prac_zbiorowych_w_j.C4.99zyku_angielskim).

>> During the last decade T Kamusella researched, in a comparative and interdisciplinary manner, the politics of language and nationalism in modern central Europe. The results were published in the well-received The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe, as proved by over 20 reviews published across the world.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the footnote with the reviews. Some can be still seen in the entry on T Kamusella in the Polish Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Ksi.C4.85.C5.BCki_w_j.C4.99zyku_angielskim) and at his university website (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/tomaszkamusella/T%20Kamusella%20Full%20List%20of%20Publications%202012%20June.doc).

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

>> T Kamusella is an elected fellow of the Royal Historical Society, as can be gleaned from p 1 in this document: http://royalhistsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RHS-Fellows-K.pdf quoted in the footnote surviving in the entry on T Kamusella in the Polish Wikipedia.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the footnote.

>> Since 2013, T Kamusella (as elected by the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies in the US) has been a member of the Committee of the Kulczycki Book Prize in Polish Studies, see: http://www.aseees.org/programs/aseees-prizes/kulczycki-book-prize-polish-studies. I decided not to bother with adding this information to the entry on T Kamusella, because Volunteer Marek is sure to delete it.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

>> T Kamusella is a Reader in Modern History at the University of St Andrews. The university is the best in Scotland, the third best in Britain and in the group of the world’s 100 best universities, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_St_Andrews#Rankings_and_reputation. The Oxbridge academic title of Reader (academic rank) is equal to that of professor at other universities, see the Overview section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader_%28academic_rank%29.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the information on the academic position of T Kamusella at the University of St Andrews, alongside the footnote leading to the university website of T Kamusella.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

>> T Kamusella is the founder and co-editor of the book series Nationalisms Across the Globe, in whose framework 16 volumes have been published so far, see: http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.ccc.seitenstruktur.detailseiten&seitentyp=series&pk=1579.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the information on the series and T Kamusella’s involvement with it, alongside the footnote.

• Conclusion

On 18 May 2015, at the talk page of the entry on T Kamusella talk proposes that “Kamusella does not compare to either Bauman or Rudling in terms of importance. For a very minor academic who barely passes the threshold of notability, the article in your version goes out of its way to promote him and his works.” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tomasz_Kamusella#Encyclopedia_is_not_a_collection_of_resumes).

>> In light of the aforementioned facts, a pattern appears, namely talk tends to delete all these pieces of information that unequivocally point out to the notability of T Kamusella as an academic. I am not sure why talk does this, but due to his observable involvement in writing and editing of entries on matters Polish, I may suggest that his personal dislike is the topic of the Silesian language and nation/ethnic group. Hence, any scholar doing research on these subjects, perhaps according to talk should be ‘cut down to size.’

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Comparisons are always fraught with the problem that people and their achievements are different and not always really comparable. talk proposes that “Kamusella does not compare to either Bauman or Rudling in terms of importance” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tomasz_Kamusella#Encyclopedia_is_not_a_collection_of_resumes). Well, when it comes to research on the multiethnic history and present of Upper Silesia, the Silesian and the Silesian language and to the comparative history of language politics and nationalisms in central Europe, Kamusella is a way better specialist on these subjects than Bauman or Rudling. Basically, the two latter scholars’ fields of research are different from Kamusella’s.

But by applying the Wikipedia test of notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29), I agree that Zygmunt Bauman, a British and European doyen of sociology, aged 89, is more notable than Kamusella. I am not so sure in the case of Per Anders Rudling. According to his Wikipedia biography, Rudling published only one book, his overhauled doctoral dissertation. This information is reconfirmed by worldcat (see: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Rudling%2C+Per+Anders#%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Aprintbook%2529format).

According to worldcat, Rudling has published 23 articles (http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ARudling%2C+Per+Anders.&qt=hot_author), while Kamusella at least 97 (http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Kamusella%2C+Tomasz&qt=results_page#x0%253Abook-%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Aprintbook%2529%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Adigital%2529format).

Rudling has not been permanently employed at any university yet, let alone gained a tenured post. Furthermore, he is not an elected member of an important learned society, or an editor of a book series or periodical.

On this basis, though personally I disagree with such comparisons, I would propose that Rudling is a minor scholar in comparison with Kamusella. This test falsifies Volunteer Marek’s initial proposal that it is the other way around.

Hence, if Rudling’s all refereed articles published in journals and books in English, Russian, Ukrainian and Swedish are allowed, perhaps, the same should be allowed for the entry on T Kamusella.

One can also use en.wikipedia.org as a kind of metrics, and while references to P A Rudling’s works occur in 30 odd Wkipedia articles, the same is true for 70 odd Wikipedia articles in the case of T Kamusella.

At present the entry on P A Rudling amounts to 14,400 bytes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Per_Anders_Rudling&action=history), while that on T Kamusella to 7,500 bytes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history), bar the recent (19 June 2015) technical additions of 2,000 bytes. These additions are related to the introduction of the new format of bibliography and do not add anything to the radically parred down contents of this entry on T Kamusella.

Furthermore, in relation to the aforementioned entry on Snježana Kordić (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tomasz_Kamusella#Deletions_by_Volunteer_Marek), the work of this academic with several books under her belt is presented in a most exhaustive manner in the entry that amounts to staggering 84,200 bytes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snje%C5%BEana_Kordi%C4%87&action=history). No editor or user seems to be questioning this extensive manner adopted in this entry. I would say many readers looking for specialized information in her fields are really thankful for this in-depth treatment, which peoticbent and Volunteer Marek deny to the entry on T Kamusella.

In the case of the 6,300-word-long entry on Jo Fox 6,300(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Fox&action=history), a quarter of it is composed composed from reviews of her books. The reviews add to half of her published works featured in the entry. The reviews prove the notability of the scholar in her field, and no one is proposing to remove them.

In light of the above, the entry on T Kamusella seems to be treated by Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek in line with some other principles that govern the composition and maintenance of the entries on Jo Fox, Snježana Kordić or Per Anders Rudling. I am, not surprised it is so in the last case, as it is Poteicbent herself/himself who created this entro on 30 May 2014 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Per_Anders_Rudling&action=history). That the entries on Jo Fox and Snježana Kordić do not attract the heavy treatment at hands of Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek is perhaps caused by the fact that they do not deal neither with matters Silesian or Polish.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

In light of above, Poeticbent’s and Volunteer Marek’s removals of vital pieces of information on T Kamusella’s scholarship, academic career and contributions to scholarship appear to be unsubstantiated and either ideologically motivated or malicious.

As can be observed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history :

On 26 February 2015 and on 17 March 2015 Poeticbent talk removed almost 5,000 bytes of data fr4om the entry on T Kamusella. On 24 March 2015, s/he was swiftly followed by talk, who removed two-thirds of the remaining text of the entry on Kamusella, namely 11,800 bytes. S/he added the following remark: “encyclopedia article isn't a cv. Remove reviews and remove self-published works.”

But Volunteer Marek provided neither a proof that Kamusella’s books are self-published, nor a Wikipedia guideline advising against including self-published books in biographies of scholars.

On 20 April 2015, I tried to reinstate some of the deleted information, mostly on the deleted books and articles.

On the very same day of 20 April 2015, Volunteer Marek reverted my editions to her/his earlier draft of the entry.

On 17 May 2019, I reintroduced the unbowdlerized draft of this entry with the following remark addressed to Volunteer Marek: “I reintroduce the unbowdlerized version of this entry. The user Volunteer Marek regularly down-scaled it, on the basis of unsubstantiated claims. I wrote to him on my reservations, but so far have received no reply.”

The following day of 18 May 2015, Volunteer Marek reverted my editions to her/his earlier draft of the entry and remarked: “not a CV or job resume. List the most important works if you must but cut it out with the promotional material.”

On the same day of 18 May 2015, I undid Volunteer Marek’s changes and added the following remark: “Undoing recent changes. PS: Volunteer Marek, I propose than instead of repeatedly cutting the publications included with no reasons given, you may reply to my message on this entry.”

Also on 18 May 2015, I followed with a minor revision and wrote to Volunteer Marek: “Undoing recent revision. PS: To Volunteer Marek, feel free to point out and improve on any fragments that seem to be too resume-like to you. Don't bowdlerize this entry.”

On the very same day of 18 May 2015, Poeticbent reinstated Volunteer Marek’s version of this entry and remarked: “restored expert edit by Volunteer Marek → you have been advised against writing about yourself User:Hyrdlak and if you persist, I will personally report you to AN/I for the breach of Wikipedia core policy/guidelines which can result in serious remedies.”

Poeticbent did not care to explain why he considers Volunteer Marek’s edit to be ‘expert.’ In light of the aforementioned Wikipedia test of notability as applied to T Kamusella’s work and in comparison with entries on other scholars, it appears that Volunteer Marek’s edit edit is anything but expert.

I sense that the ulterior motive is, first, to discourage me from editing this entry on T Kamusella. Second, to gradually downscale this entry and deprive it of references and supporting information. Third, the entry would be declared as insufficient. Fourth, the scholar in question would be declared as not notable. And finally, the entry would be primed for complete deletion. As a result, an important source of information on the history, culture and language of Poland’s 0.85 million Silesians would vanish.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

On 17 March 2015, at 19:26 Poeticbent talk proposed that the entry on T Kamusella should be changed or might be deleted (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyrdlak#Tomasz_Kamusella).

Exactly a week later, the deletion of the two-thirds of the original contents of the entry on T Kamusella was carried out by talk on 24 March 2015 between 19:12 and 19:24 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history).

After Volunteer Marek’s latest deletion of the reinstated sections in the entry on 18 May 2015 at 7:10, I reinstated it again at 13:13 – 13:15. Next, at 14:05 Poeticbent, parred down the entry in line with Volunteer Marek’s original deletion of 24 march 2015. In addition, Poeticbent wrote: “restored expert edit by Volunteer Marek → you have been advised against writing about yourself User:Hyrdlak and if you persist, I will personally report you to AN/I for the breach of Wikipedia core policy/guidelines which can result in serious remedies” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history).

Poeticbent fails to explain why he consider Volunteer Marek’s deletion to be an ‘expert edit,’ and in order to reinforce his and Volunteer Marek’s stance on this deletion Poticbent threatens reporting the matter to AN/I. I guess he means Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Given Volunteer Marek’s and Poeticbent’s highly coordinated action to rid the entry on T Kamusella of essential and important pieces of information that make this entry relevant for readers and establish the notability of T Kamusella as a scholar, I suspect that Voluneer Marek and Poeticbent may be the very same user.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

I have never received and replies from Poeticbent talk and talk to the questions I posed to them between March and May 2015. Whatever they wrote in answer was not supported by any arguments or explanations and in some cases sounded like a threat.

This approach is not conducive to objective and transparent discussion, which are the main values of the Wikipedia.

Thus, I propose other interested users and readers may have their say, alongside Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek. If I do not hear from anyone for three months (till 23 November 2015) or so, I will reinstate the original draft of the entry on T Kamusella. If then Poeticbent or Volunteer Marek will ‘expertly’ cut it down as they already did in the past, I will refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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 Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak. Voting in the 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 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether New Testament in Silesian should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament in Silesian .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Edward Stankiewicz, Hyrdlak!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a VIAF catalogue link to fill out the authority control statement and put a tag on the talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hyrdlak (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Hello Hyrdlak,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hienadź Sahanovič for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Anaxial (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not contribute text in Belarusian to English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at Belarusian Wikipedia. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hienadź Sahanovič requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Nanophosis (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Have a look, I developed the page witrh original content and provided numerous references that do not pop up in biographies on thois historian as available in Belrusian-, Russian- or Polish-language Wikipedias.

In addition, I worte all the text and developed the presentation of the bibliographical items on my own.

As I promised yesterday, this article was a stub and intended to develop it.

Hienadz Sahanovic is one of the leading historians in today's Belarus, and he has paid for that. As you probably known Belarus is an authoritarian country, so everyone whose opinions are not liked by the powers that be is silenced or their life is made so miserable that they decide to keep silent ro to emigrate. Sahanovic bravely decided to stay in Belarus, though he is not allowed to be employed in any higher education or reserach institution in this country, Hence, he continues his academic work in Poland and Lithuania.

All the speedy delition moves look like (I hope I am mistaken) at behest of the Belarusian authoritarian regime.

As you can see, the speedy deletion was declined and the article was retained. In the future, please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of having harmful motives without clear evidence. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but this article was deleted. I had to start it from scratch next day. But instead moving on gradually from a stub (as I often do with articles that I contribute to the Wikipedia) I immediately built the whole piece in order to prevent another deletion. I wish there was a policy allowing a week or so for developing an article from a stub, without having to face near-immediate deletion.

Hyrdlak (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Try using Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which will allow you to create a draft article that will be at less risk for immediate deletion. You can submit it for reviewed by an uninvolved editor and they will either publish it to the mainspace, or provide you with feedback for further revisions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drm310, that is very helpful. I was not aware of this possibility. Best wishes, Hyrdlak (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

German revolutions of 1848–49 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to State

Revolutions of 1848 in the Austrian Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to State

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jake Brockman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hyrdlak, I noticed you reverted by changes without seeking a conversation. Allow me expand: of course Krupp was initially convicted at a war crimes trial, however he was pardoned, which in the legal context supersedes the conviction. There is no question that the Krupp company used slave labour and this is well documented. However, we should ensure due weight in articles. Bolding the negative and giving the negative undue weight (no matter what individuals might think of the crime; no matter how bad the crime was) is not in line with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. I see you made similar edits in other places as well as on German Wikipedia. Please do not push a certain viewpoint and ensure that edits are neutral, balanced and consider all available facts. A final word about sourcing, some of the sources that have been added are forums or other user edited contents. Such sources are not normally considered reliable or suitable to support statements within articles, see WP:SOURCES. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hyrdlak, I have reverted the change to the Alfried Krupp main article again. There is not doubt he was convicted. This is mentioned in the lead. There is no need to state this twice and bold this. You are overly slanting the lead to the negative. Wikipedia articles should neutral. See also WP:MOS. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jake Brockman,

I understand that other Wikipedia editors consider A Krupp's being 'a competitor in Olympic yacht races' of more import than the fact of him being a convicted criminal against humanity. So flagging up this fact is considered to be an unnecessary 'negativity,' while tens of thousands of people killed by A Krupp's decisions are a mere 'POV' ('point of view'). Perhaps, refer to Holocaust denial. I am not going to get involved in a carousel of reverting such denialist edits. I do not believe that being rich, or having passed a corporation worth billions to one's descendants in any way absolves a genocidaire. Obviously, you may disagree. Hence, in the case of Hitler it should be flagged up that he was an amateur painter, and that through the development of weapon production in the 1930s he successfully liquidated unemployment. By the same yardstick, in a Wikipedia article on Stalin, first it should be said that he was a promising poet in his youth, while his decisive role in the industrialization of the SU should be flagged up. On the other hand, genocides and ethnic cleansings perpetrated by these two 'gentlemen,' as 'mere negativities,' must be pushed to further sections, or at best concealed in footnotes. This is a curious kind of objectivity, to say the least. Sincerely Hyrdlak (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak,

Thanks for creating Bardhyl Selimi! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

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

This is almost totally unsourced. This [2]] implies there may be soothing here, but if you do not find sources it will get deleted.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak,

Thanks for creating Bardhyl Selimi! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

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

Please read wp:primary.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Bardhyl Selimi should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bardhyl Selimi .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slatersteven, In the span of 30 minutes, you forwarded me with 4 notes on how to improve this article, and then with the notice for deletion. Is it not a bit rush? Articles based on sources from multiple languages take a bit to mature, especially if the aforementioned languages are not too well known or represented in the west. Sincerely Hyrdlak (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

No, as in those 30 minutes you made no real effort to address the notability concerns, rather you began a process of using dubious sources. Moreover the articel is not only 30 minutes old.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just realized, you still are using only primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slatersteven,

1. Yes, it was only 30 min before you called for an improvement, and then slated this article for deletion. It is not a good practice. There is no Wikipedia document providing improvement must be done within half an hour before the proposal for deletion is applied.

2. I wonder whether you know Albanian and Esperanto languages and cultures. I see no articles of yours on this fields. Hence, I propose that your notability concerns in this regard be adjudicated by an editor with a command of both languages and with a good background knowledge of the fields.

3. On the same basis, you are not competent to judge whether the sources are 'dubious.'

4. I do not know about what primary sources you are talking about, apart from the statute of the Albanian Esperanto Association.

5. If people's dates and places of birth unsupported by citations bother you, I'd propose you start with William Shakespeare or Boris Johnson.

6. In light of the aforesaid, you are inexplicably biased and combative. Hence, let us have a competent third editor to decide on this piece and its merits.

Hyrdlak (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

That is the purpose of AFD, to allow more users to comment on notability.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:npa and understand that using ad hominies to try and discredit a user is actually against the rules. YOu are supposed to argue against content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slatersteven,

The notability of Bardhyl Selimi is proved by the list of his books and translations with which this article is appended. Your comments mostly disputed first the lack and then the quality of the sources for supporting the key events in his life during the communist period. I addressed these issues.

Could you give me an example of an ad hominem remark in my replies? Unless it is my proposal that the deletion proposal be arbitrated by an editor who knows Albanian, Esperanto and the cultures and literatures connected to these languages.

I would also appreciate it if you could show me a Wikipedia policy that allows for a 30-minute span between advising improvments in an article and slating it for deletion. Hyrdlak (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Hyrdlak, as a long time editor with years of experience in inspecting articles and participating in deletion discussion, I'd like to try to clarify a few points.

• Article subjects must be "notable" as Wikipedia uses the word, which is somewhat different from its use in ordinary English, so it's important to become familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability.
• No one is judged to be notable because they have produced a lot of works. A list of books and translations by a person in no way conveys that person's notability. Notability for an author or translator will mostly be based on the general notability guidelines, which basically focus on how much has been written, not by, but about the person. We look at whether the person has been the focus of substantial coverage in multiple sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability and independence from the subject. For an academic, having one's works cited in a substantial number of papers and books also helps.
• It doesn't take any knowledge of Albanian or Esperanto to note, possibly with the help of Google Translator, then some of the sources you provided are by Selimi, meaning that they don't contribute to a finding of notability. One of the articles seemed to be about his father and mentioned him only once: That article carried no coverage of Bardhyl. Inclusion of his name among a list of winners of an award isn't substantial coverage of him, and having won the award itself, because the award itself probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, also doesn't contribute to a finding of notability.
• Having said all of this, it's true that Slatersteven was obligated to make a good faith look through the sources you provided to see whether any or many of them did, even possibly, contribute to a finding of notability, as well as a search of their own, before nominating the article for deletion on the grounds of a lack of notability. They may have made such a search. Having looked at your sources myself and having briefly looked at a Google search for "Bardhyl Selimi", I didn't find any reason to criticize Slatersteven's nomination.
• I don't know what Slatersteven's thoughts were, but, in general, if I can find insufficient evidence of notability, I will submit an article for deletion without tagging it at all. Alternatively, I may at first think a subject could be notable, and tag it for a lack of reliable sources, and then look further and realize that a lack of notability is much clearer than I had thought at first. In other circumstances, I may submit an article for deletion, but also tag it because if it survives the discussion, it's still true that the article itself will need improvement to show the notability clearly.
• A final, important point: The only relationship between an article's content and the notability of its subject is whether the article adequately demonstrates the subject's notability. It never determines it. A subject's notability is determined solely by facts external to Wikipedia. The quality of an article and its sourcing can only make it easier or harder to assess that notability. Largoplazo (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Largoplazo,

Thank you for the explanations.

Regarding references, yesterday (Aug 21, 2019) I provided many more. Obviously, some -- especially regarding his family history -- were authored by Bardhyl Selimi. It is only natural that a person's autobiographical writings may serve to establish the details regarding her/his family.

But, the notability of a personality does not depend on their family history, but achievements. (Although, so little is known outside Albania about everyday life in communist Albanian, that these bits of information may also be of an interest). B Selimi wrote and edited two books regarding modern Albanian-Kosovan history. Apart from that, singlehandedly he restarted the Esperanto movement in postcommunist Albania. Infamously, in the Third Reich and Stalinist countries, Esperantists were imprisoned and sentenced to death, the use of Esperanto was banned. In Albania, as well. B Selimi wrote two handbooks of Esperanto for Albanian-speakers. he also strongly contributed to the development of the global Esperantist culture by translating the works of leading Albanian writers and poets into Esperanto, yileding almost 20 volumes. On top of that he authored over 600 articles for the world's leading Esperanto monthly, Monato. Esperanto culture is unusual in this that it does not have any speech community of native speakers. hence, many more books are translated into Esperanto than originally authored in this language. however, the influence of such translations is felt all around the world, given that Esperantists are active in practically every country on the globe.

B Selimi's work for Esperanto culture was recognized with an Elstara Agadao. Comparatively speaking, it is like the Pulitzer Prize for the Esperanto movement.

On top of that B Selimi translated some literature and historical works from the Esperanto into Albanian, importantly adding to the development of culture in Albania and Kosovo, until recently the two poorest states in Europe.

Some say that translating literary works is not a sign of notability. What then about Wikipedia's articles about such translators as Jay Rubin, Philip Gabriel, or Alfred Birnbaum. Are they considered to be sufficiently notable on account of being US citizens and translating Japanese literature? Is Albanian literature somehow less worth than its Japanese counterpart, or translations into Esperanto may be deemed worth less than translations into English?

I see here some myopia of judgement at best, or double standards at worst.

Sincerely, Hyrdlak (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

What you see here is the disconnect I brought to your attention between your common-English understanding of "notability" and the way Wikipedia uses the word. Neither Selimi's work itself nor the dramatic background behind it carry any weight in judging Selimi to be notable under Wikipedia's definition of that word. It is not for us as Wikipedia editors to learn about the life of a person, consider how amazing that life is/was, and resolve to bring that person to the attention of the world via a Wikipedia article. "Notability" on Wikipedia means that a subject has already been brought to the world's attention, that the subject has been amply noted in independent reliable sources.

If Jay Rubin, Philip Gabriel, and Alfred Birnbaum merit articles here, it's because their work has already been noted elsewhere, in ways that meet the criteria of WP:Notability. If it hasn't been, then there shouldn't be articles about them, regardless of your personal evaluation or mine of the importance of their work.

You do mention the award, but, in that case, the question would come up as to whether that award is itself notable. Communities and interest groups give awards all the time. I may receive an award from my university as an outstanding alumnus, but unless my university's Outstanding Alumnus Award is notable—which means notable outside my university's community—it isn't going to earn me a Wikipedia article. A Google search for "Elstara Agadao" receives a single hit. I appreciate the significance of the award, in each case, to and within the context of the group awarding it and to the recipient, but that isn't what counts here. Largoplazo (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They may well not be notable, just because no one has nominated them for AFD does not mean they are notable. But by using then as an argument to keep (ut ratio?) you have made it difficult for anyone one involved with the AFD to nominate them, as it may look like we are just doing it to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE Applies to content within articles, not articles relation to other articles "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bardhyl Selimi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance, but on the indicated page I found no button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". On Sept 4, 2019 this article was deleted, despite my request to delay teh discussion and any deletion at least until Spet 7, 2019, due to my holidays. After my return I relisted the deleted article having added further numerous references from Albania and across the world (including China) showing the notibility of the person's work across the globe. The deletion of the relisted article (perhaps on Sept 10 or 11, 2019) was not preceded by any discussion, which is surprising.

As you suggested I attempted to regain the text of the deleted relisted article, but there seems to be no trace of it left. I have no clue how to regain the text.

Sincerely

Hyrdlak (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

See WP:Deletion review. Largoplazo (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification.Hyrdlak (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because: - In light of the 20 August 2019 comments by Slatersteven, I improved this article as requested by adding 50 links to websites and publications. - These prove the notability of Bardhyl Selimi as writer in his own right, and above all as translator of Albanian/Kosovan literature to Esperanto, and world literature (via Esperanto) to Albanian for the book markets of Albania and Kosovo. - As advised, the added references are independent of the subject.

Having said that, I notice a strong Anglo- and Westerno-centric bias in the entire discussion, which is invisible to the other editors.

- For instance, the article on Philip Gabriel, a translator of the Japanese author Haruki Murakami popular in the West, does not require the proofs of notability, which are requested of the article on Bardhyl Selimi. Actually, the article on Philip Gabriel hinges on a single (dead) link created by the subject. However, no one nominates this article for deletion.

- The unspoken principle seems to be: as long as a person is somehow related to an individual famous in the West, that is sufficient to be bo seen as notable, even though an Wikipedia article on such a person is unreferenced.

- Likewise, while in the case of Bardhyl Selimi, it is pointed out that books written by him are not known outside the sphere of Albanian- and Esperanto-language cultures, the same requirement is not applied to the article on Philip Gabriel. He is not an author in his own right at all. Furthermore, his English-language translations of Murakami's novels are unknown outside the Anglophone countries.

- Hence, all is POV (I learned this piece of the Wikipedia lingo, courtesy of the deletion discussion). However, the Anglophone/Western POV on Philip Gabriel is looked upon gladly, while the Albanian/Esperanto POV is branded as a 'bias.'

Last but not least, I also detect in the discussion a disregard for cultures and literatures connected to a language without a state (Esperanto) and to a non-Western language spoken by 5 million people 'only' (Albanian).

Another issue is the hostile environment of the discussion created by the editors involved. I asked them to give me time to improve the article in line with their suggestions. Afterward, due to my family vacation, I requested a delay in the deletion discussion until 7 September 2019. During my absence from the desk, the other editors completed the discussion without my participation, and deleted the aforesaid article on 4 September.

Hyrdlak (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Who told you no proof of notability is required for Philip Gabriel? Please read Straw man in addition to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I request that you stop making up "unspoken principles" instead of believing the actual principles that have been presented to you and that can be found right there in Wikipedia's guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Largoplazo,

Your reply does not refer to the issue at hand. The lack of action in the case of the article on Philip Gabriel is evidence in case.

Hyrdlak (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

The lack of action is evidence that no one has acted, not that anyone is conspiring to keep action from being taken. You seem to think that there's a single, formal judging panel tasked with reviewing every article posted to Wikipedia and charged with applying uniform criteria to each and every one of them; and that, if they don't, it's through an intentional dereliction of responsibility. No, there are volunteers who, if they see an issue on some article, deal with it, but they don't magically, simultaneously know about thousands of other articles that may have the same issue. But some people prefer to assume that anything inconsistent is the result of persecution and prejudice despite the existence of obvious, non-nefarious explanations.

(Having been accused of anti-Semitism and homophobia by editors unaware of the fact that I'm Jewish and gay, I can attest to the phenomenon of people leaping to persecution and prejudice to explain actions I've taken in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and reflecting no bias on my part.)

If you think Philip Gabriel isn't notable, then, instead of being indignant that some fictitious individual you imagine to be responsible for deleting it hasn't done so out of contempt for non-Westerners, why don't you be like other people who find articles that don't qualify for inclusion and nominate that article for deletion? Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Largoplazo,

I ameliorated the article's deficiencies as initially pointed out by Slatesteven.

Sincerely, Hyrdlak (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

You recreated this article with the comment "Relisted per delition review discussion." That discussion endorsed deletion. Unless there was some other discussion I'm not aware of, you are misrepresenting the outcome of that review. `OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ohnoitsjamie,

Have a look at the discussion 'Contesting the deletion of Bardhyl Selimi.' It was concluded on Sept 23, and no one contributed to it further. Hence, I believe that the improvements introduced to this article (as suggested in August) merit its relisting.

Sincerely, Hyrdlak (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Read wp:consensus, one user does not get to say "but I OBJECT". the result was delete.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also no one reply does not mean they agree, it means that anyone who did reply had not changed their minds (and I would also argue that your talk page is not the correct place for a deletion review, especially as it was reviewed and rejected). Not everyone would have seen this on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does [[3]] count, it was not correctly done. We have process that should be followed. Whilst not wholly analogous wp:forumshop might be worth a read, rasing the saem issue in 15 different places until you get the answer you want can be seen as WP:TENDENTIOUS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyrdlak,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Bardhyl Selimi for deletion, because it seems to be an article that has been already decided by a [decision] to be unsuitable for inclusion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read wp:overcite, a lot of your new sources do not seem to be about him at all.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slatersteven

The [decision] link you provided leads nowhere. The 'Contesting the deletion of Bardhyl Selimi' has been already done and no one has contributed to it since Sept 23, 2019.

The August 2019 version of this article was deleted, while awaiting improvements. I was away from my desk when the deletion was executed, despite my request for deferral.

The merits and shortcomings of the improved article have not been discussed yet. hence, it is inappropriate to delete it on the basis of the September decision.

Sincerely, Hyrdlak (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

As I said above, your talk page or other (odd) places cannot and do not trump deletion review.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've SALTed the article, since you seem to be a little unclear about how our processes work here. It can be un-salted if you can get consensus to do so via our standard deletion/restoration procedures. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, we are also not daft. Please do not try to recreate it under a slightly altered name.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking such a decision without a discussion, and without finishing the above discussion on Contesting the deletion of Bardhyl Selimi is rather daft to use your expression. As I replied to Largoplazo on 23 Sept 2019, the improved draft of this artoicle is under discussion, not the August draft.Hyrdlak (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

As OhNoitsJamie pointed out we have process to appeal deletions and your talk pager is not one of them. Moreover (as I said) I did not think your new version addressed any of the concerns, but did add new ones. This is my last word on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the appropriate palce to press on with the discussion? It was Largoplazo who pushed the discussion here. Your words that 'I did not think your new version addressed any of the concerns, but did add new ones' is an impressionistic claim, not supported by any proof. On the other hand, above in the section 'Contesting the deletion of Bardhyl Selimi, I replied to Largoplazo that 'I ameliorated the article's deficiencies as initially pointed out by Slatesteven.' Hyrdlak (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

This will explain what you have to do WP:DRV. As to the rest As another user put it "I just looked at a sequence of 20 of the sources, arbitrarily starting at #49. Out of these, 17 either didn't include his name or were bare credits as author or translator of a book on display.". This sums up my findings, Trivial or non existent mentions in almost all of your improvements.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you label as 'trivial' and 'bare credits' nevertheless prove that B Selimi's work as translator of literature between Albanian and Esperanto is globally noticed. Furthermore, Selimi is an author in his own right, unlike English-language translators of Haruki Murakami's novels. (Wikipedia articles on such translators hinge on a single or a couple, usually defunct references.) Unless a Wikipedia principle says that translators of literature into other languages than English by de fault should be excluded. Hyrdlak (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Your comment demonstrates your failure to accept that the criteria you keep applying don't match Wikipedia's actual criteria for inclusion, which, among other things, require significant coverage and explicitly call for trivial mentions and bare credits to be ignored. If you want to take issue with this project's criteria for inclusion, this talk page isn't the place to do it. For now, the criteria are what they are, and, even taking into account all the sources you've supplied, Selimi doesn't appear to meet them. Largoplazo (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange coincidence—your user name is one letter away from being an anagram of "Bardhyl". Largoplazo (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to you re Haruki Murakami. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Largoplazo (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does significant coverage apply to the hardly referenced articles on Murakami's English translators? is a digression on anagrams an argument in this discussion?Hyrdlak (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Irrelevant, if you have an issue with Murakami's English translators AFD them, Crap exists is not a justification for more crap, but removing the crap we have.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also a reference being "defunct" (whatever that means) is also irrelevant, notability is not temporary.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to you continuing to pursue the Murakami article as an argument. If you haven't read it, read it. If you've read it, read it again, because have evidently not gotten the point. I don't need to keep explaining to you what's already been explained. Largoplazo (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifies the actual double standards of accepting 'crap' articles on US translators of literature, but not ones on their Albanian/Esperanto counterparts. Otherwise, you should follow your principled stance and show by example how 'crap' articles on US translators should be speedily deleted or improved.Hyrdlak (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

No, what we are saying is that it does not justify other crap articles. Without seeing one of these other articles its hard to judge why they are here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not according to me, that is according to you, as you persist in ignoring every valid reason you've been given for the outcome, solidly grounded in guidelines that have been placed right in front of you so you can read them for yourself, in favor of your original, thoroughly unfounded persecution theory. The really inane thing about this particular argument of yours, that there are "actual double standards of accepting 'crap' articles on US translators of literature, but not ones on their Albanian/Esperanto counterpart" is that Haruki Murakami isn't a US translator, besides which:

• Wikipedia has contributors from all over the planet. It isn't an American project.
• In the United States (in contrast to a few countries like Italy), Albania (along with Albanians), in comparison with, say, Canada, France, China, Russia, Iran, is hardly on most people's radar, let alone would it be a special focus for prejudice.
• Look at List of Albanians and then try to tell us again, with a straight face, that Wikipedia suppresses articles about Albanians.
• At the moment, there are 2,307 articles containing the word "Esperanto" and over 1,000 articles that link to the Esperanto article. Look at List of Esperanto-language writers, List of Esperanto speakers, List of Esperanto-language films, and List of Esperanto periodicals, and then try to tell us again, with a straight face, that Wikipedia suppresses articles about Esperanto writers or Esperanto in general.
• I am not remotely against Esperanto myself. Why would I be? I love languages. I've studied 15 of them. When I was in high school I bought a smalll Esperanto teach-yourself that I found at, interestingly, a checkout counter in a store in Belgium that said on the cover something like, "Parlez-vous Esperanto?" "Jes! Ĝin mi lernis per la Flash metodo!"

Largoplazo (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that, but somehow the hard work of Albanian/Esperanto translators of Albanian and Esperanto literature seems not to count as notable.

Otherwise, the August pieces of advice that I should improve this piece by adding references turned out irrelevant.

(My request for a delay with the original discussion - due to my holiday - was disregarded.)

The relisted article did not become the basis for the current discussion, as it should.

Furthermore, the length and amount of effort to prevent the posting of the piece on Bardhyl Selimi could have been put to better use so that you and your colleagues could improve it as you see it fit. On top of that you would be also able to improve the substandard entry on Philip Gabriel, a translator of Haruki Murakami.Hyrdlak (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Does it occur to you we tried, and could find nothing that passed muster? Again, we do not keep crap because there is other crap, nominate that article for AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, saying that something is 'crap' is no argument or a proof of insufficiency. In case of this re-listed draft of the piece on Bardhyl Selimi, no reasoned discussion ensued that would prove the lack of substantial improvements.

When it comes to 'trying,' more often than not, by the way of supposed discussion, I heard such strange things as 'I'm Jewish and gay' or 'your user name is one letter away from being an anagram of "Bardhyl".' No explanation was ever provided why my request for a delay in the discussion due to my holiday was not considered. No help or guidance is ever provided regarding specific improvements that an editor may have in mind, just referrals to longish policy entries. No explanation was provided why the improved relisted entry was removed for the first time without any discussion. At my end it looks like 3-4 pal editors band together around a decision that they force through, without listening to the one concerned. I have contributed to Wikipedias in different languages for over a decade. The level of aloofness and ideologized highhandedness in this case reminds me of what I got in the past from closet anti-Semites and Polish ethno-nationalists, when I added to articles some referenced facts that were not to their ideological liking.

Thanks for 'trying,' but now I pen off on this aimless discussion that fruitlessly goes in circles.Hyrdlak (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Ottoman Sofia map in 1879 with the 1881 master plan of today's streets superimposed.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, uploaded for >6mo

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed our disagreement at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study. You will probably wantto comment. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop edit warring at Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach. The fact that he is a war criminal is well-documented in the article and does not negate the fact that he was also an industrialist and Olympic medalist. Consensus on the project is clearly against your edits and you're not going to get anywhere breaking consensus, edit warring, and calling everyone who disagrees with you a genocide denier or facilitator. Please review Wikipedia:Civility. If want to discuss matters based on the project's policies and have discussions with editors, you are welcome to and will get a lot further than simply reverting and insulting them. Canadian Paul 18:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. O3000 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placing an improper template instead of discussion on the talk page is a blockable offense. User:Hyrdlak Hyrdlak (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placing an improper template instead of discussion on the talk page is a blockable offense. User:Hyrdlak Hyrdlak (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. [4]OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including In the Claws of the GPU, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including In the Claws of the GPU, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 13 June 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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hyrdlak, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

_pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a CheckUser here on English Wikipedia. Several accounts were reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hyrdlak as sock puppets of yours. I closed the case without blocking anyone, but it seems unlikely that all these people would randomly show up on the same day to make edits similar to yours. When people recruit friends or like-minded people to make edits for them, we call this meat puppetry, and it is forbidden. In this is what you did, please instead seek dispute resolution to resolve content issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalise and disrupt the article page on Poland. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Poland, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your piece on new eastern europe and you included links to your Wikipedia account. There is no issue with an academic feeling comfortable editing on Wikipedia - we are a platform built on the democratization of information. HOWEVER, it is COMPLETELY unacceptable for you to edit your own article - Tomasz Kamusella - so dramatically. This is a violation of conflict of interest. Considering the past investigations you have gone through, I must ask you to refrain from editing your own article. In order for this to be resolved adequately, I will request your article for deletion, and request another formal investigation into your behavior. You will most likely be banned. You have crossed the line many times and many of the articles you have created - such as Alhierd Baharevich - completely violate Wikipedia's policies on tone. You can make a case to a tribunal if you feel as though this is an unfair complaint. - Esmost ^talk 15:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tomasz Kamusella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One of the primary editors of this article has been exposed as having a conflict of interest.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esmost ^talk 15:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tomasz Kamusella is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomasz Kamusella until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SeriousCherno (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for messaging you out of the bloom. I just want to say that your or your associate's book about the Turkish expulsion in 1989 from Bulgaria was an interesting read although I think you left out a bit about the Ottoman atrocities in Bulgaria.

I have attached a book below that you may be interested in about the Macedono-Bulgaro Language dispute.

https://www.scribd.com/document/497634788/White-Book-About-the-Language-Dispute-Between-Bulgaria-and-Republic-of-North-Macedonia

In German: https://www.scribd.com/document/501067787/Wei%C3%9Fes-Buch-Uber-Den-Sprachenstreit-Zwischen-Bulgarien-Und-Der-Republik-Nordmazedonien

--SeriousCherno (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Laterthanyouthink. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Kuku Yalanji seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:New manhole cover with the name of the Belarusian city of Grodno Chinese, City Center, Saviecka St, June 2018.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Silesian-language books in standard orthography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Silesian-language books in standard orthography until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nationalisms Across the Globe, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationalisms Across the Globe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]