User talk:173.228.123.207

From my talk page
There might be a bot archiving stale threads, but it doesn't archive them fast enough. Sure, a few of the ones I archived were a bit premature, which I apologize for, but a lot of them hadn't had discussion in days and were clogging up the noticeboard- I often use a slower device to edit, as I'm sure many editors do, and if it isn't kept archived then the noticeboards don't load in a timely fashion. The last edit the bot made was three days ago, and that archived two discussions which hadn't had discussion in three days. I see no point in keeping days-closed discussions up- especially when one discussion is clogging up hundreds of kilobytes. If you respond, please respond here, but ping me. -A la d insane (Channel 2)  23:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:A lad insane, hmm, the boards aren't that large compared to the picture laden bloat on most other sites... I'm on fairly slow DSL and they load fast enough for me in firefox. ANI right now is around 360k uncompressed or 87k compressed, not bad unless you're on a dialup or the like.  Does your browser support gzipped transfer?  If you're on mobile it shows just the headers but I'm not sure it downloads the content.  I think the bot archiving speed has changed now and then: 3 days of no comments does seem pretty long.  I thought it was more like 24h for ANI which is reasonable.  AN might be slower.  You could open an AN or WT:AN thread if you want to suggest changing the bot settings.  I think there's an explicit practice on AN that certain kinds of discussion are supposed to stay open for a week, so the bot might archive everything slowly because of that.  But maybe it could be programmed to recognize those explicitly extended discussions.  For a while there was a hack where people would post a timestamp a few days in the future to make sure that the bot left the thread alone til then. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The device is a crappy Chromebook issued by my school, and ANI takes about 25 seconds to load on a bad day. It's not a massive issue, but it does take time- and since you mentioned it, most other websites are also very slow to load, so it's not specific to Wikipedia. (I'm pretty sure mobile form does have the content pre-loaded behind the headers, but since that's not the issue, that's slightly irrelevant.) I usually don't archive open discussions, so the discussions staying open shouldn't be really much of an issue.  -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  01:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You did archive a couple of active ones. Generally anything that has a comment less than 12 or so hours old should be considered active if someone else might have anything to say, since they might have gone to bed right around when the last comment was.  Try disabling javascript in your chromebook browser and seeing if pages load faster.  I hate the modern web. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the active ones, I'll be sure to check in the future. And the Chromebooks have "settings" disabled, so I can't disable JS, but thanks for the thought. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  17:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrative Notice Board Incident Report
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

RE
In regards to diff. The page error is since I was using google-scholar's auto-generated citation (which gave the first page of the chapter and not a page range for some reason) - sloppiness. As for village/forest - the underlying citations refer to Naliboki village, however the passage itself refers indeed to Naliboki forest. This was also twice discussed at AE - GizzyCatBella, and Icewhiz. It's pretty obvious the passage refers to the self defense in Naliboki village (and this is supported by other sources as well - however I will note that good sources for Naliboki massacre are scarce) - from the citations and context, however you could say this is WP:OR. After it was pointed out on the talk page - Talk:Naliboki massacre/Archive 1 (header the first point of contention was the underlying Gluchowski & Kowalski 2009 citation) - that there is a forest/village mismatch - I backed down - 07:32, 11 June 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah I figured you found the article from a citation in some other place that pointed to the beginning of the article, which is why the page number didn't bother me. I didn't look into the article talk pages or any place like that.  That's all too deep in the weeds for me.  I just figured that "page 283 doesn't say anything about X" was something I could check by just looking at what it said, but on looking carefully it didn't seem obvious.  I see you mentioned not having access to the Grossman book but it doesn't seem hard to find.  Then there is that Tec book but it might be too popular-level. Anyway, I suspect the massacre was yet another poorly documented series of atrocities, where all the historical narratives have an axe to grind and are basically part fiction.  I'm not into this particular topic at all, but from a general NPOV and editing perspective, I'm somewhat anti-revert, and I certainly don't believe in the idea of using only the best sources.  I believe NPOV says to do the opposite of that.  I.e., it says to emphasize what the best sources say, but also to give some coverage to the not so good ones. In other words, put everything out there with some kind of rough grading, and let the reader decide for themselves what to pursue further.  Don't try to control what readers are allowed to see. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: the Perelman article at forward.com is from 2012 and mentioned an investigation into a Naliboki murder that was taking place at the time. I wonder if the investigation finished and if any results were published.  173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The best English language source I found covering this in a comprehensive and detailed manner was - this book by Vadim Sidorovich - which seems to have undergone some peer-review, but is by a biologist (he wrote an ethnographic sketch of the forest as part of a collection of volumes on the forest). However subsequent discussion precluded this. Detailed sourcing for this in English (or Polish and Belorussian for that matter) on the topic - simply isn't great (e.g. good sources cover this briefly, detailed sources are quality wise far from great). Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of the IPN investigation (an organization with issues... but that's more involved) - it is ongoing...... Since 2001. Still open as of May 2019 - source. Their current version on Jewish involvement (again - this has changed over the years, early days (but some such sources still in the article - e.g. we're still citing a 2002 IPN communique) were investigating Bielski involvement) is - " The officers were NKVD officers, directed to these areas from Moscow, and the individual troops consisted of hiding soldiers of the Red Army, local Russians and Belarusians, as well as people of Jewish nationality - escapees from the ghettos. " And - "Witnesses mention familiar names of partisans taking part in the attack, pointing out that among them were also women and Nalibok residents of Jewish nationality.. I personally think it is unlikely they will close this investigation until 2030-2040 (when they'll declare everyone involved presume dead. The massacre is an issue in the far-right press - and they'll just get a bad rap if they close it. It's unlikely they'll come up with anything definitive that's new (as all those involved are dying from old age) - so it will probably just linger as an open case). Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Restored your response to original wording
I've belatedly restored your response to the original wording [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2019_July_11&diff=910802034&oldid=906902183] before it was modified by a third party. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=906060909] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=905992974] I'm letting you know in case you would have made the modification yourself but never got the chance because someone else modified it without asking although frankly as perhaps you already know, your original wording seemed fine and has a subtle but significant difference from what it was modified to. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you do ever notice your responses have been modified in such a way in the future, do feel free to restore and let us know. Such things are a violation of WP:TPO. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't notice the change, but per AGF I'm not upset by it.  I see you already left the person a note, which is appreciated.  173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)