User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2021/July

Asiatic Cavalry Division
You added a short reference to Kuzmin 2011, which doesn't match the associated long reference. Could you verify if the years are correct please? Also, you should install User:Svick/HarvErrors.js to get noticed of such issues in articles when making use of short footnotes. If you don't know how to install that, let me know, I'll walk you through it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and am eager to learn about it. As for the reference, I took it from the article about Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, who formed that unit. I started the article after seeing the template "page needed". I will recheck the article over the next day or two. I do not know how to install the link you sent me, I would be very happy and grateful to learn. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Basically, go to User:Itzhak Rosenberg/common.js and create that page with the following content:

importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: User:Svick/HarvErrors.js

Then if you go to Asiatic Cavalry Division, you should see something like
 * 1 ^ Kuzmin 2011, pp. 94–96. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation.

This lets you know there is some type of problem with that citation. Here the year doesn't match, so either you need to update

to

or

to
 * [and possible the rest of the citation too if you meant to refer to The History of Baron Ungern instead of Legendarnyi Baron]

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you fellow Wikipedian! You have taught me and in doing so, improved Wikipedia! Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Formatting in unit articles
Please stop changing formatting in unit articles to superscript, and revert the changes you have already made. In English, units are not referred to that way. Superscript is only used in the native names of units such as Italian and French units who use superscript, but you are adding to superscript to the English translations of unit names as well, which is incorrect. Furthermore, even native names of Russian units do not use superscript (for example 1-я). Kges1901 (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be very grateful if you showed me where it is forbidden to superscript particularly unit names in the English language. Yes, I am well aware that in Italian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish languages the ending is superscripted. I will refrain from superscripting unit names if it is more proper and thus makes more people happy. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:ORDINAL would be the relevant guidance. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying and correcting me. Now I know better. Have a nice day :) Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! (and about linking)
Hello, Itzhak Rosenberg, and welcome to Wikipedia editing!

I noticed the reference on your user page to Edward Betts's "Find link" tool. I took a quick look at it and it looks impressive for what it does. But I want to throw in my words of caution (influenced by Wikipedia's guidelines on overlinking.) Though I wavered about whether to say anything, the specific invitation on your user page, "If he makes a mistake, please let him know," convinced me to go ahead.

A hyperlink should be added only when it helps to clarify. If it doesn't clarify, it shouldn't be there. As a purely hypothetical example, if an article about chocolate refers to a cocoa tree, or a shovel, or picking by hand, these three nouns should not be linked. They are only very peripherally related, and they are terms that an average reader would certainly know. In my opinion, excessive, unnecessary linking is a common issue in Wikipedia, and eliminating redundant hyperlinks is one of my gnome-like activities.

In any case, welcome again and happy editing! - Jkgree (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, gnome called Jkgree ;) I absolutely agree with you. There are some articles that might be unnecessarily linked, but there are still some articles, especially newly created ones, that need to be connected to already existing articles so as to not become "orphan" articles, at least I think so. And thank for your warm welcome, feels very nice :) --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 12:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS
In general, a 1894 book is too old to be used for anything remotely controversial. I suggest using new sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps even Tadeusz Kosciuszko's letters are too old? After all, he did write them 200 years ago ;) Anyways, I find your statement ludicrous, and I quote "1894 book is not a very reliable source, modern literature generally uses the term Polish-Lithuanian. That's why we have an article on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and not Poland and Lithuania".
 * 1) The identical source was already used in the article, and prior did not raise a single eyebrow. Once I cite one of Tadeusz Kosciuszko's letters written in that book, which raises some eyebrows, its dismissal as "unreliable" because of the age of the book in which the letter can be found is questionable. Overall, the closer the source to the time period being studied, the better. Also, if a statement is wrong, argue against it with sources, and not vague baseless statements.
 * 2) It would be preferable to clear up some misunderstanding - PLC was composed of juridically and de facto two SEPARATE entities: GDL and KP. Both had SEPARATE armies. The Polish Wikipedia (which I rely on heavily for this time period) even has an article for each - "Armia Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego" and "Armia koronna" - something that is lacking in the English Wikipedia, which only has a single "Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth". Yes, someone could have transferred in between them, but to confound them is particularly inaccurate in historiography. In an article about Tadeusz Kosciuszko, we should write about things the way TADEUSZ KOSCIUSZKO viewed them, and not something thought up by historians 200 years later. Currently, the lede is factually wrong and should be made more precise where necessary.
 * I'll make sure to use better sources. I assume Good Faith in you--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kosciuszko’s letters would be WP:PRIMARY and using them in this case would beWP:OR.  Volunteer Marek   20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kosciuszko's letters in my case are not in conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines since they were in a secondary source - and I quote - "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source..." WP:OR. As for it being reliable, this sentence is authoritative enough to me: Nakładem Muzeum Narodowego w Rapperswylu (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzeum_Polskie_w_Rapperswilu).
 * With regards to age, in WP:RS AGE there is no objection to older sources simply because of their age. :) --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then our readings of this differ, as to me the cited RS AGE clearly discourages using old sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For my benefit, could you please cite the exact sentence? I am reading the particular section and seem to not quite grasp which sentence you are referring to... In any case, the paragraph there uses no imperitive language (an example of which would be "no original research"). --10:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Itzhak Rosenberg (talk)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Thank you for your recent articles, including Franciszek Ksawery Niesiołowski, 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&#124; reply here 06:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Take your time, but keep in mind DYKs have a short window of eligibility (7 days). Anyway, keep up writing good stuff and try not to get too bogged down on Polish-vs-Lithuanian. The answer to Polish or Lithuanian question is generally Polish-Lithuanian. Sharing is caring :) Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have no anti-Polish feelings, the whole issue is more of a broken telephone exacerbated by the lack of dialogue :) Anyways, the section of Wikipedia concerning the region of former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, its people, traditions, and history is mostly rather poor in my estimations (i.e. has many articles of unsourced, unconnected or unorganized statements, etc.). It's a complicated history, distinctions are often not made even when necessary and important. I'll keep up the good work. Cheers :) --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - I think its ready -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Quick note: all paragraphs need a reference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I'll go add it now.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Lithuanization
You changed: Nationalistic Lithuanian Catholic priests (Litwomans) promoted the Lithuanian language over Polish, which in many places had been used for centuries in church services to: Nationalistic Lithuanian Catholic priests (Litwomans) promoted the Lithuanian language in equal terms to Polish, which in many places had been forced onto the locals by central Church authorities. Where does Römer state that? Please provide the relevant quote from his article. Hedviberit (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which article was this at? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithuanization diff. The linked article is in Lithuanian (a translation of the quote would also be welcomed). There is also the Polish original (in "Z dziejów Romerów na Litwie. Pasmo czynności ciągiem lat idące…"), but it's not available online. Hedviberit (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm on the task, might take some time. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've corrected it accordingly.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages
Thank you for your recent articles, including Antoni Chlewiński, 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 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 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&#124; reply here 06:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know the tools, I will employ them. As for my recent articles, I am very happy to hear about your interest, although I will admit they are in need of refining and I would not consider them right now to be the best examples of my work :)--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Franciszek Ksawery Niesiołowski
— Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Baltic States
Please see my reply to your revert at Talk:Baltic_states. I hope to discuss this and get a better article. Are you willing? Zaslav (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am very willing.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Itzhak! :)
Regarding this: Poles and Lithuanians are like a long-married couple after divorce; when they meet they just look at each other and understand without saying a single word. (watch starting 17:55) Remember what Piotrus said a while ago? - er:GizzyCa GizzyCatBella 🍁  08:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree if that was the truth - but it isn't... It wasn't as much a divorce between Lithuania and Poland, but more so Lithuanians loyal to an independent Lithuania and Lithuanians loyal to a continued Union - a continuation of the Lublin Union in 1569. I am always puzzled how simply speaking Polish makes the entirely Lithuanian nobility become ethnically Polish. I find it funny that Chopin was Polish, yet Mickiewicz would be Lithuanian by the same standards ;) If there is anything I absolutely dislike, is how no one points out the ethnically Baltic roots of Poland - I am also puzzled, why are most of the best leaders of Poland always Lithuanians? The Jagiellonian dynasty was entirely Lithuanian, Pilsudski called himself Lithuanian, some have even pointed out that Yotvingians and other Balts covered all of Poland, hence the Piast dynasty might have been one of them... Many ideas, but I doubt you agree with barely anything written here ;) Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:GizzyCatBella Also, I don't remember what Piotrus said - so much is happening on the internet all the time, plus Piotrus has written a lot, so yeah... By the way, as a Lithuanian, best years were 1200 to 1430 - everything else was mistakes and their result... Most Lithuanians don't look at Poles as Poles look at Lithuanians - from what I gather, the Poles are very nostalgic about the PLC, but Lithuanians are only nostalgic about our independence from Mindaugas to Vytautas the Great. That's my insight into the outlook from Lithuanians to Poles. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Too much to write about it, Itzhak, one day I'll write more. You have valid points, but you are not entirely correct on all of them. Lithuanian nobility became Polonised without even realizing it, etc., etc., etc. Being Lithuanian at the time meant being from that region of the ethnically mixed Commonwealth. Like nowadays, one would say that they are from Poland's Masovia region, as Mickiewicz said... "Litwo ojczyzno moja" (in Polish :) ), that's what he meant. Who would have thought that the Commonwealth would not last forever at that time? Yes, the Lithuanian region of the Commonwealth produced many great Poles or Lithuanians, as you probably would like to call them. I appreciate the Lithuanian national revival in the 19/20th century. The pride the Nation takes in their history, but sharing is caring (that's what Piotrus said :) ) Still, this matter is more complicated; you understand that as well as I'm :). And if not, as I said, I'll write more when I find the time. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Or Samogitia instead of Masovia. Or Texas in the US context, or Quebec in Canada. We know they were neither Poles nor Lithuanians in the modern sense, hence the Polish-Lithuanian identity article. And I think many sources simply the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into "Polish" just for brevity, which causes confusion (also, Poland was more populous, I think, which had more relevance due to culture strength's than Lithuania's geographical size, which is why the Crown > GDL in the culture and politics, though I think legally they were mostly equal - mostly, since the placement of capital in Warsaw instead of Vilnius was I think significant on many levels too). Anyway, anyone who suggests that Radziwiłłs for example where ethnically Polish just doesn't know much about Europe. Blood and culture were mixed everywhere. As were the rulers, from Jogaila to Piłsudski. What is a shame is that the era of nationalism destroyed the earlier budding tolerance, which is now only slowly coming back. I'd take Międzymorze over facist-like endecja anyday, myself. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't take much to make Pilsudski, Mickiewicz, etc... into Lithuanians, as the main issue is language, something that is a non-issue in most of Europe when determining nobility... Speaking French didn't make German and French nobilities fuse ;) Just simply recognising that one can be Lithuanian by identifying themselves as part of Lithuanian history and containing at least some Lithuanian ancestry should be enough. Mickiewicz in Grazyna called the Lithuanian language as the native language of Lithuanians, however, he thought it doomed (everyone did that actually lol). If you remove the language, all the Polish claims for them (Mickiewicz, Pilsudski, etc...) fall away from what I see. Having same kings doesn't equal having the same history :)
 * Another issue is the bizarre perspective - everyone, even Pope John Paul the II said that The Commonwealth was a forebearer of the European Union. This for me means that the PLC should not be approached as a single country like France, but as a mini-version of the European Union, with two separate countries (even more if you consider the condominiums) inside. From reading mostly what Polish write, I clearly get the idea they identify Lithuania as a region of Poland, which would make sense from the perspective of PLC being one country, but doesn't if you consider it as an UNION. The Polish tend to gloss over the attempts of Lithuanians like Radvila family in 17th-18th century to secede from the PLC, which failed because the Swedish were defeated... I say that the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Lithuanian even in a modern sense, the sole difference being language, as the history and ancestry are identical - I assume Poles are fuming at this ;) Even if they chose to continue the Lublin Union, them choosing union with Poland after ww1 doesn't make them Polish in my eyes - just "unionists". Unfortunately, this unionist feeling led them to do evil deeds against Lithuanians who were against the continued union... The thing not accented is that the Lithuanian nobility itself (!) split into two during the nationalist revival - one into the Republic of Lithuania and another wishing to continue the Lublin Union (the majority being latter). As much as a quarter/fifth of all "Polish-Lithuanian" nobility as you would call it went over to Lithuanian nationalists. It seems people make those wishing to continue the Union of Lublin are instantly called Polish (quite understandably, yet not a view any of them would have endorsed...)
 * From what I gather, nationalism had a knock-on effect - it started with the French (to the best of my knowledge), went over to Germans, Germans elicited nationalism in western Poland, which is what partly caused Endecja, in combination with the nobility left over from the Commonwealth...
 * Let's not forget, Warsaw was chosen because it was in the centre of the road between Cracow and Vilnius. Even the name Warsaw comes from the Yotvingians - who are much closer on all counts to Lithuanians than Poles.
 * Frankly, I would be wary of another union between Lithuania and Poland, unless the Poles start speaking Yotvingian, which after all was the language of their ancestors a Millenium, maybe even half, ago. If we both speak a Baltic language, then the main problem between Poland and Lithuania disappears :) Something to look forward to ;)--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe one day :) in the next 500 years, from the Baltics to the Mediterranean as Piłsudski imagined :) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * :) --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Алексей Евграфович Чурин.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Алексей Евграфович Чурин.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 13:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

transparent / white
Hello Itzhak Please do not change the background in location maps from white to transparent. Especially with relief maps the text becomes then difficult to read and accessibility of content for all readers is paramount for such maps. Thank you, noclador (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but in other cases, the labels go over one another, so you still can't read it... --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited In the Search for Our Past, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aryan religion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Order of battle for the Battle of Vienna (1683), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morsztyn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In the Search for Our Past moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, In the Search for Our Past, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok! --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A discussion of interest
Hello Itzhak! I thought you might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Lithuania Tatars. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me! Much appreciated. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

António de Oliveira Salazar
Hello Itzhak. You have recently added a change akin to vandalism, where you labelled scholars who describe Estado Novo's rule as "Communist". This violates Wikipedia's original research policy, and also WP:UNDUE labelling - we don't label other scholars as capitalist or anything else. Could you please self-revert. BeŻet (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 13th Wilno Uhlan Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kyuko (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, including tendentious editing, personal attacks as well as engaging in ethno-national and homophobic provocations. 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:. El_C 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you and noted :) -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Welcome back :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Piotrus and thank you for the welcome :) -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cavalry regiments of the Confederate Army


A tag has been placed on Category:Cavalry regiments of the Confederate Army indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:In the Search for Our Past
Hello, Itzhak Rosenberg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:In the Search for Our Past, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve 4th Infantry Regiment of the Lithuanian King Mindaugas
Hello, Itzhak Rosenberg,

Thank you for creating 4th Infantry Regiment of the Lithuanian King Mindaugas.

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

"Can you copy through the references from Lithuanian article as an unsourced article may be tagged for deletion. Thank you for translating and adding this article"

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

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

JW 1961 Talk 20:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * JW 1961 Thank you for the suggestions, I will add the references from the Lithuanian article and find some more. Thanks for your attention! -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * JW 1961 Thank you! I noticed you already added the sources in the Lithuanian article. Now I'll go find some more sources and expand the article. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you, I was afraid it might get tagged for deletion and as a former soldier I am interested in keeping/improving military articles. Keep up the good work  JW 1961 Talk 10:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rinkuškiai


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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michał Kleofas Ogiński, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration case about Pahonia
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pofka, Thank you for notifying me. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Pahonia. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pofka, Thank you for notifying me, I have already contributed to the dispute. Thanks again! --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Pahonia case request declined
The case request Pahonia that you are a party to has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. You may view a permalink of the declined case request here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Litvin
Do not change the MOS:LEAD at Litvin, because it is supposed summarize key facts. No such information that you imply on listing there is written in the page's paragraphs so just stop it, because this is becoming childish. In addition, you are supposed to start a discussion per WP:BRD when you are reverted. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sabbatino 1. What I added is already in the article, more-or-less.
 * There is the sentence "The Poles still use the words Litwini and Litwa when referring to the Lithuanians and Lithuania respectively" (backed by two sources). So, this validates "Currently, the term is used internationally to describe Lithuanians", which I had written. Furthermore, to validate the term "internationally", I included the languages of Magyars, Serbs and Macedonians, because usage by many different countries would imply "international". And, as all four languages are living languages, that means "Currently" is a correct assertion.
 * 2. In WP:BRD it says "BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here."
 * Hence, none of your claims are legitimate and you were wrong to edit the article Litvin as preposterously as you did.
 * Peace --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that I am wrong to edit something is WP:AOBF. Therefore, I see no reason to discuss anything with you ever again. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sabbatino, I proved that "none of your claims are legitimate" and so I made a conclusion based on that. Assuming of bad faith (WP:AOBF) would be to 'a priori' assume you are wrong and talk from that position there. Instead, I challenged your statement and reasonably disproved it, which is what discussion is all about. That is definitely not against Wikipedia's guidelines (I recommend seeing the triangle in WP:DR).--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A report was created at the administrators noticeboard about Лобачев Владимир's constant malicious activity
Hello, I am writing to inform you that a report was created about Лобачев Владимир's constant, systematic malicious activity in Wikipedia. Since I noticed that you encountered such actions of his recently, I strongly invite you to provide your opinion about him. Additional evidence would very welcome.

You can find this report here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asiatic Cavalry Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McFarland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)