User talk:Gitz6666

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Balkans or Eastern Europe India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them post-1978 Iranian politics articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

2021, 2022, 2023

.

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gitz6666. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Santi Romano at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel and apartheid on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:International Churches of Christ on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Deep state in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gitz6666. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Antisemitism in Poland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me asking you first (I could go to WT:ITALY but I prefer personal touch I guess :>). Does it wiki have an article about the following award: "Premio Europeo Città di Caorle"? Does that award have an English name? I am working with some Polish sources about a book which won it (pl:Kluska, Kefir i Tutejszy) and wonder how to describe it and whether it can be interwikilinked to it wiki? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Piotrus, I couldn't find anything about the price on it.wiki, but I did find this abstract in English from an academic essay on the subject [1]. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're involved on the Yasuke talk discussion, I just thought someone should be aware of this. I'm not really sure what Wikipedia's policy is on coordinating on a Wikitionary talk page to coordinate changing to an article... Anyways, I just thought someone in that debacle should know it's happening. Cheers. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrhns (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Manyareasexpert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Stara Krasnianka care house attack, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. No reliable sources are there to justify your edit, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manyareasexpert, yes, I think you made a mistake and I will nor reply on your talk page as you requested. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They told you to reply on their talk page. Why did you say they didn't? Doug Weller talk 16:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller That is a typo. I wrote I will nor reply while I meant "I will now reply". In fact, I replied on their talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gitz.

I was gearing up to perform a GA review on Santi Romano (your nomination is from 17 Apr 2024), so I had a look at the bibliography. There are many helpful links to his works in full, hosted here by the University of Turin (DigitUniTO, Collezioni e fondi digitali dell'Università di Torino). They seem to think that the copyright has elapsed on all of the books they scanned and uploaded (since 70 years had passed since his 1947 death), and classified them as 'pubblico dominio' (which I assume means public domain). I do not fault you for taking their word for it; given how utterly confusing (and different from country to country) copyright is, you would be hard-pressed to make your own assessment, and since they're a large academic organization, you would think they'd have checked these things thoroughly.

My grasp on copyright law is tenuous at best. Still, I fear that the university may have mistakenly uploaded some works in contravention of copyright, and that by linking to the scans, our beloved encyclopedia might be exposed to liability under U.S. law (in the form of contributory infringement). In particular, I think that the German and French translations, published in the mid-1970's, are most likely still licensed exclusively to their respective publishers (Duncker & Humblot of Berlin, and Dalloz of Paris). Maybe Italy doesn't protect translations for as long as original works, I really have no idea; but I think Wikipedia is held to U.S. legal standards. My thinking is that the German and French translations each created a new work, which then seperately received a brand-new U.S. copyright (possibly retroactively, in 1996). Assuming the translators were hired to translate the works by the publishers, I think the copyright would expire 95 years from the date of publication (so, sometime around 2070), or if the translators licensed the right to create translations and then sold the resulting work to the publishers, I think it would expire 70 years after the translator's death (so, assuming the translator was alive when the works were published, definitely not before 2045).

Also, the original works by Santi Romano might be under copyright in the U.S. until 95 years after their date of publication. I have no idea whether linking to those works, which Turin University is hosting legally (I believe) in Italy, could be seen to contribute to infringement of the still-active U.S. copyright, though.

I've removed the links to the two translated works, but have left the original ones for you to decide how to handle. Maybe you could e-mail the university about this, requesting feedback?

Best, §§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 16:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @LegFun, for the message and your consideration. I'm inclined to trust the University of Turin when they say that the works they published online are in the public domain. Besides, I'm not sure I understand your concern about the German and French translations: Duncker & Humblot and Dalloz have copyright on their translations, not on the original Italian text. I'd be happy to drop an email to "DigitUniTO" (Collections and Digital Funds of the University of Turin) as you suggest, but I'd like to first have a better grasp on the issue. Given my limited knowledge of copyright, I'll notify this discussion to WP:CQ and ask form their help. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think asking at WP:CQ was the wise course of action; that option didn't really occur to me. I don't mean to make you feel obligated to write e-mails without having a full understanding of the situation and that might turn out to have been unnecessary.

About the translations; I did ramble a bit in my original message. I believe the files that the article linked to were in fact scans of the German and French translations (though I didn't actually check the contents of the latter, relying on what the metadata provided said about the language of the file contents) – most likely making them derived but creative works under American copyright law.

The copyright term on the underlying work by Santi Romano wouldn't be extended, of course, but I think the term for the translation would be either 95 years after the date of the translation's publication (so, 2070), or 70 year's after the translator's death (a date very unlikely to be before 2045).

The latter is definitely how it works in Germany (§ 3 sentence 1 UrhG specifying that translations, in particular, are granted the same protections as entirely new works).

That said, I still have no real clue whether merely keeping a hyperlink on Wikipedia that points to translations, possibly illegally distributed, somewhere on the internet could actually make Wikipedia liable in the U.S. But better safe than sorry, eh?

Keep up all your good work!

—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 23:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Both the German edition "Die Rechtsordnung" (Duncker & Humblot, 1975) and the French "L'ordre juridique" (Dalloz, 1975) are made available by DigitUniTO as "Public domain" ([2] [3]), but DigitUniTO states "Attenzione: l'anteprima visualizza al massimo 20 pagine del documento" ("Attention: the preview displays a maximum of 20 pages of the document"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then, below the (malfunctioning) preview, there's a download link for the whole document, 124 MB (under the heading Scarica il documento completo). I've checked now, it's all there. Also, no part of the document – even a 20-page preview – is likely to be in the public domain.

—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right again - I was able to download the German and French translations in their entirety. I can see that the German edition has "Alle Rechte vorbehalten 1975 Duncker & Humblot" (All rights reserved) on p. 4, and the French edition has a similar copyright notice from Jurisprudence génétale Dalloz on p. II. So they appear to be covered by copyright, and yet the digitised copies have been released with the explicit statement "public domain". Is that enough for us? Should we enquire? Let's hear from WP:CQ editors (this thread). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to apologize for disappearing and to let you know I'm not ignoring things — or rather, that I am ignoring things, but only because a member of my family was injured late last week, and I've been acting as caregiver. With any luck, I should be able to post the quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki (and its translation) tomorrow afternoon. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Eirikr, I'm so sorry to hear about your relative's injury. I hope they make a speedy recovery. As to the quote, there's no rush at all! I truly apologize if I made it seem urgent. Thanks for your message. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP Addresses are rightly blocked from participating on Talk: Yasuke, but there is more to Sayamaki than is being presently discussed on the page and since I shared this information with Erikr, I also wanted to share it with someone else. There is | this translation from 1913 of Arai Hakuseki's Sword Book in Honchō Gunkikō, and the Book of Samé Ko Hi Sei Gi of Inaba Tsūriō. In this book, it is written The word Sayamaki was originally used to describe a regular sword, but at present only the Makitachi is ever called Sayamaki, so that name is the same as in ancient days, although its meaning has become so limited. In a book (title and author not stated) quoted in the Sokutai Shikimoku, a statement is made that "the Sayamaki is so called because it is the Amezayamaki; the style is that of the ordinmary tachi. If the scabbard is wound round with string we say Sayamaki, as when the handle is bound with string we call the weapon Itomaki no tachi. It is a common weapon of modern and ancient days." Hakuseki then expresses his doubt about that opinion being a definite one" and also It is also mentioned in Azuma Kagami that 'On Katana and Sayamaki, both have Sageo, so that the sword called Sayamaki is undoubtedly a Katana' on page 36 and on Page 40 it also says "There are now two kinds of swords termed Katana, namely Chiisakatana, which is the same as the old Sayamaki, and those swords now ordinarily worn with Koshikatana, decorated as Sayamaki, but containing old Tachi blades".

The reading and research that a Sayamaki is just a fancy tanto is rather incomplete and based on the assumption of the one who did the research. Makitachi, or Itomaki no Tachi, can be read more about here, seen here. The book also describes the Sangi-itto says, in describing the costumes of the mounted attendants of the Emperor: "Oguchi, Shitatare, and Sayamaki no to shall be worn." This is evidently the sword which we call now Chiisa Katana and Since Katana were made, the Sayamaki no Katana has become known as Chiisakatana just in the same way as when the long tachi was called O-Dachi to distinguish it from the ancient Tachi, this later became known as the Ko-dachi. So that it is clear that in olden times the characters 小刀 were read Kogatana, and in middle-ages a sword was called Sayamaki which we now call Chiisakatana. The characters are the same as in the old days but the pronunciation has change.

In short, according to this translation, the primary sources use of "Sayamaki" could have simply referred to a Makitachi or to a Chiisakatana. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Per WP:SYNTH, we cannot combine Inaba Tsūriō's Book of Samé Ko Hi Sei Gi with the quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki, and say that Yasuke was given a "Makitachi" or a "Chiisakatana". However, the source you shared suggests that it would be wrong to translate sayamaki with "short sword"; we'd better just translate it as "sword", and leave the potentially hard question of "what kind of sword?" unaddressed by our translation. I will notify this exchange on the Yasuke talk page. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable! If you all want to peruse the soruce yourself, it is available here. I think some of the confusion that is present on the talkpage regarding the quotes that I provided is that I am not suggesting there is one definitive translation for Sayamaki. Rather, I am saying that according to this book a Makitachi was also called a Sayamaki, and a Chiisagatana was called a Sayamaki, as well as what Erikr found was also something called a Sayamaki. My point mainly is that according to this translation of a near-contemporary primary source (not specific to Yasuke, but rather to the definition of the word Sayamaki itself) Sayamaki had a multitude of possible meanings. For instance, Page 37 reads The word Sayamaki is not used only for the kind of sword with string-bound scabbard, but sometimes it is adapted to swords which have strings to fasten the scabbard through the belt so as to prevent it from slipping out (see above the reference to Sanada Yoichi).

The above reference to Sanada Yoichi is on Page 36 and reads Moreover, we find in Gempei Seisuiki that during the war of Ishibashiyama, Sanada no Yoichi Yoshitada, while wrestling with his enemy Matano [no Goro], wished to cut the latter's head off, but he could not stab him, and feeling astonished, he lifted his sword and looked at it above the (clouds) sky, when he found that the Kurikata of his Sayamaki was broken, so that the sword came out of his belt with its scabbard. It is also mentioned in Azuma Kagami that "On Katana and Sayamaki, both have Sageo, so that the sword called Sayamaki is undoubtedly a Katana.

Since Sayamaki seems to have multiple possible meanings, we cannot know for certain what meaning of Sayamaki the document is using since it isn't specified. While we cannot say the Sayamaki mention in the source is a Makitachi, we also can't say it wasn't one, which is also why the historian in question said that Sayamaki could have also referred to a tachi. We have a subject matter expert who on Twitter has said that Sayamaki could mean a great sword, Per Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Acceptable use of self-published works, The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so, and I have no presented a source, translated in 1913, which supports the statement of the expert that a Sayamaki could be a tachi. Per the post on the talk page, The K. Hirayama poster on Twitter maintains here on July 19 that there were tachi greatswords with a sayamaki mounting. While I have found pictures online that appear to be this kind of setup (such as the fourth from the top in this image at Wikimedia Commons), these are often described as "ceremonial", and the use of a sayamaki mounting on a longer sword does not seem common; in almost all cases I've seen or read about so far, the sayamaki mounting is reserved for tantō..

The twitter in question is here. Specifically, this section でも、「鞘巻」は「鞘巻之太刀」を示す場合が多いのはご存じでしょうか。 Which reads, in essence, "However, did you know that [Sayamaki] often refers to [Sayamaki no Tachi]". Per WP: Guidelines, the translations of sources is to be trusted over the translations of Wikipedians Per Wikipedia:RSUEQ, which means the translation of Sayamaki from the book is preferable to the translation of any Wikipedian. So we have a historian who is a subject matter expert that says Sayamaki often referred to Sayamaki Tachi, and a book translation from 1913 that also says Sayamaki once referred to Makitachi. The article should not definitively represent the Sayamaki as just a shortsword. Even to that end, depicting it as a tantō is possibly incorrect.

Arai Hakuseki in "My Father", translated by Hiroaki Sato in Legends of the Samurai describes of his father After he passed seventy, my father developed pain in his left elbow. On account of this he offered to resign from his post, but the Kohō would have none of it. From then on he went to work wearing only a sayamaki sword14 that was two inches wide and about a foot long, making a servant carry his long sword until he reached his office. When I think of it now, it must have presented a strange spectacle, but people didn’t object to it, and of course the Kohō didn’t seem to want to say anything. Come to think of it, my father must have thought, If something happens, it won’t do if you carry a sword but can’t use it. On the other hand, I have pain and can’t possibly use a sword. Well then, if it’s something useless, I might as well not carry it myself. Until his death my father always kept this sayamaki close at hand and, following the word he left when he died, I sent it to the person he adopted as a child and brought up, who now lives in Michinoku. As for its decorations, the iron part had waves carved on it; the sheath was lacquered black except for the part called “thousand coils,” which had gold foil underneath. After taking the tonsure, he kept it in a bag made of “toad-skin” leather

A foot long would place the sword more in-line with a wakizashi than the proposed tantō. Per The Japan Weekly Mail circa 1875, "Chisakatana is about two feet long to two and a-half feet, and lighter than the ordinary blade, and is worn with the naga hakama and the court dress called daimon" and "Sayamaki has a portion of the scabbard bound with silk. The mountings are numerous and the making of them is a special and honourable trade. Goto Yujo was a celebrated maker of the 15th century, whose descendants still exist"

Per the Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society, London, 1897, "The ordinary war tachi had frequently a scabbard of plain wood, or of plain or decorated lacquer, and the upper part was often wound round with braid or leather, like the hilt, and was then called "ito maki" tachi. When this braid covered the entire scabbard it was a "sayamaki" tachi. Some were wound with rattan or covered with brocade, and there were at least eleven varieties of tachi worn at court on different occasions" and The scabbard of the "chisa-katana," a sword intermediate between the katana and the wakizashi, and worn by itself, was more highly ornamented, having frequently not only a kozuka, but large menuki and an elaborate "kojiri."

Likewise, Here the term dai [from the word daishō] does not refer to the katana long sword but actually refers to the tachi great sword. There is a type of tachi great sword that is worn with a katana-obi (刀帯) and this is called the efu no tachi (衛府太刀). The efu no tachi was so named because it was worn by those within the six sections of e (衛) and the six sections of fu (府) – these were military officials in the imperial court.323 You should know that there are a variety of styles of tachi great sword. Furthermore, understand that the word sayamaki (鞘巻) is a subtle way to refer to a tachi great sword from Samurai Arms, Armour & the Tactics of Warfare: The Collected Scrolls of Natori-Ryu (Book of Samurai), Page 264.

Antony Cummins has a degree in Ancient History and Archaeology and a masters in Archaeology. He is the founder of the Historical Ninjutsu Research Team, who examine and translate ancient documents to reveal the truth about the Ninja. He has appeared in the documentaries Ninja Shadow Warriors, Samurai Head Hunters, Samurai Warrior Queens and Ancient Black Ops. He is the author of ten books including the best-selling Book of Ninja, Samurai War Stories, and The Illustrated Guide to Viking Martial Arts.

Further, we see Nodachi when they wear underdress ready for armors, and Sayamaki when they are on battlefield in 馬埸辰猪全集 Volume 3 by Baba Tatsui.

Overall, it's safer to translate it as "sword", because while Erikr might state in almost all cases I've seen or read about so far, the sayamaki mounting is reserved for tantō, I've just found a bunch of sources that disagree with the notion that it can be definitvely declared a tantō, a tachi, or a shortsword since it has, historically, been used to describe all three of those things. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but yesterday I changed the translation to "sword" and I was not reverted, so now there is nothing to correct. I have no idea who is right and who is wrong, but "sword" cannot be wrong. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sword is the best possible solution, yeah. I mostly wanted to provide additional sources to demonstrate that we cannot definitively say what the "sayamaki" used in the source was since there are a number of possible items which could have been described as a sayamaki. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont necessarily want to start any drama or anything explosive so i hope you dont think thats my intent.

However the past couple days/week I've begun to feel that Eirikr, has begun to display behavior that's sort of sliding in between stonewalling or bludgeoning or if there's a policy specifically about attempting to force ones POV as the objective truth as opposed to what I think wikipedia is meant for.

That and the influx of people who have suddenly appeared from seemingly unrelated works and whose post all seem to align specifically with him makes me hesitant about the intentions due to the wikitionary event.

Im by no means trying to say that its something hes doing purposefully or is doing bad faith but his recent comments seem contradictory to his supposed stance and his statements seem more inclined to mislead or direct people in a way that they arent getting the actual truth or information on the subject that and the other accounts just make me wonder if maybe theres a need to look into his behaviour on the page? I am attempting to talk with him first about this cause i dont want to cause some sort of drama unnecessarily or anything but I just aort of just have this bad feeling and felt i needed to say something. 66.226.103.77 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you write to Eirikr directly? I don't understand why you are complaining about someone else's behaviour on my talk page. I'm neither their tutor nor an admin. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I included "usage of the word is unclear" because the translation is being furnished entirely by Wikipedia editors with no input from professional historians. While it might be crystal clear to historians, I did not think it would be WP:OR to contextualize the translation being provided by stating that it is unclear what the intended meaning is per Wikipedia:These are not original research which stated Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicitly in parenthetical notes. My apologies. Brocade River Poems 08:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to apologise for, there's room for disagreement on this kind of things related to article content and in that case the talk page is the right place to adddress it. Thanks for your message, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you want to abuse Wikipedia rules to revert my notifications to other users about ideological trolling on talk pages. Please explain to me, however, how I can follow the rules while still notifying users of the above? Symphonic Regalia used Thomas Lockley as factual evidence to belittle and troll others into his worldview and opinion which has now been discredited. He continues to do this behavior. I understand you are not him, but you clearly sympathize with his opinions and feel the need to defend him since he agrees with you, so I'd like to understand the best way for me to indicate to people on the talk page of his agenda and history of incorrect claims without getting it reverted. Thanks. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see WP:TALK. On article talk pages, WP users are expected to discuss only article content (and strictly related topics, such as article sources). We should not discuss user behaviour there, as it is off-topic and can easily become inflammatory (the article talk page quickly becomes an unreadable mess of off-topic back and forth). If you want to discuss user behaviour, you can do so on their user talk page (in this case, here), or on the appropriate dispute resolution forums, such as WP:AN/I. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected my inquiry of your "behavior" to the admin on my talk page, I look forward to his response either way as I am starting to think something suspicious is going on with your conduct. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brocade River Poems 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was this deletion accidental? M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was accidental. Sorry about that. I'm going to revert. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already remedied my clumsy edit abd restored your comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz, do you know who this jackass is? Drmies (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who? The short answer is No - I don't know anyone on that talk page but... who are you referring to? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Sorry, I'm slow. No, I've no idea who they are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my removal of your comment citing WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. As the edit summary noted, I was applying a valid reason for doing so: OTHERSCOMMENTS gives an example of appropriately editing others' comments saying Removing prohibited material such as libel; legal threats; personal details; content that is illegal under US law; or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies. (See also below for removing comments by banned or blocked users.) (emphasis mine). I would suggest you self-revert your re-addition of your comment, as given Khelif's public statements and actions, it is a clear WP:BLP violation. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replied on your user talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, I am notifying you that - per the instructions in the header of the article's talk page - I have now reported this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Imane Khelif JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz, please just step back for once, heed the otherwise uninvolved user's concerns and self-revert this latest BLP vio before you find yourself the topic of the latest subthread at ANI. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to JAC on their user talk page, I don't think that my restored comment is anywhere near a BLP violation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Imane Khelif and Talk:Imane Khelif) for Continuing to speculate on a medical condition.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gitz6666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My partial block may be contrary to policy and is certainly not necessary to avoid disruption. Before appealing, I contacted Valereee to clarify the reasons for the block (see User_talk:Valereee#Block_from_Khelif) but some questions remain:

• Does WP:MEDRS apply to individuals' medical info such as diagnoses?
• If so, how can Wikipedia cover public debates about the medical conditions of public figures?
• Does WP:BLP/MEDRS forbid mentioning unconfirmed diagnoses, even hypothetically, if widely reported in non-MEDRS sources?

The block stemmed from a comment Valereee perceived as "speculative":

• Special:Diff/1241727178

Please note the following:

1. My comment is a conditional statement, not an assertion. Its structure is "If X, then Y". It does not claim that Khelif has a medical condition (DSDs), only that if she does have it, then certain actions would be harmful. Speculation is a "bad theory" that states that things are a certain way without sufficient evidence (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary) and is clearly different from a conditional statement that makes no claim about how things are.
2. My comment acknowledges existing discourses: it is not baseless speculation, but responds to real-world discussions. Numerous sources have reported on the possibility that Khelif may have DSDs, e.g. news organisations (The Independent, NYT, DW, BBC, any many more), reputable sport journalists (Barney Ronay [4], Alan Abrahamson [5], Martin Samuel [6]), more or less WP:BIASED experts and commentators (Doriane Lambelet Coleman [7], Colin Wright [8], Helen Lewis [9]). My comment does not introduce a new speculation, but engages with the existing ones.
3. I am not sure WP:MEDRS applies to medical information about individuals. This has been denied in previous discussions (e.g., here) and does not reflect WP editorial practice (see e.g. Vladimir Putin re Parkinson's and Julian Assange, passim). If WP:MEDRS does apply to individuals, however, it should be construed in a way that does not prevent coverage of public debates about the medical conditions of public figures. If such debates are notable, editors should be allowed to address them in talk page discussions without waiting for MEDRS-level sources that will never arrive (a "review article" about Imane Khelif in a "reputable medical journal"...?). Therefore blocking editors for merely mentioning widely-reported medical hypotheses is counterproductive: it could prevent the coverage of notable topics and hinder the writing of BLP-compliant articles.
4. Without making any medical claims, my comment focuses on the negative consequences of suggesting that Khelif does not have DSDs, if indeed she does. My comment prioritises Khelif's wellbeing and focuses on how certain cherry-picked and suggestive information could harm her, particularly given the abuse she's suffered. In fact, even if Khelif has DSDs, she was entitled to compete and win the Olympics according to the IOC's eligibility criteria (the only ones that matter). These criteria may be questionable, and have been questioned, but there is no doubt that Khelif's gold medal is fully legitimate even if she has DSDs. In her BLP, there's no need to suggest otherwise, thus implying that the gold medal would not be warranted if she has DSDs. Therefore, if we are to avoid unsubstantiated claims and damaging WP:BLPGOSSIP, we should not state in the lead that Khelif was born female; we should rather say that she was "assigned female at birth". And we should not state that no medical evidence that she has XY chromosomes [...] has been published; we should avoid speculating about her chromosomes altogether, and simply say that she has always competed in the female boxing category. However, if an editor wants to argue for these changes, as I and others have done on the Khelif talk page (e.g., ([10][11][12]), they are bound to mention the possibility that Khelif has DSDs. Well-intentioned but short-sighted attempts to phrase the article in such a way as to suggest that Khelif does not have DSDs could lead to an unbalanced BLP.

To sum up, my comment employs a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the potential harm of certain narratives, rather than making a definitive claim about Khelif's medical condition. It is an argument about responsible editing, not unfounded speculation, and it's the kind of consideration editors should be free to make in a talk page if they are to write BLP-compliant articles. Blocking an editor simply for mentioning a hypothesis widely reported and discussed by media outlets and experts is absurd. It does not prevent disruption but interferes with reasonable content disputes.

Relevant links

• Imane Khelif article and talk page: Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Imane_Khelif_should_get_1RR_Arbitration_Enforcement
• BLPN thread: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imane_Khelif
• Valereee talk page: User_talk:Valereee#Block_from_Khelif

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think the block was correctly placed. If you feel the policy needs clarification or correction, that's a matter for WT:MEDRS. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Gitz, I've unblocked you in response to your agreement not to edit Imane Khelif or Talk:Imane Khelif, per this post on my talk. Conditional unblock logged at voluntary editing restrictions. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• While I see that this is resolved and don't believe that further action is necessary, I'd to mention that the back-and-forths you were engaging in throughout the RfC on this article made it more difficult to close. I suggest keeping WP:PEPPER in mind to avoid the appearance of bludgeoning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thebiguglyalien, your comment prompted me to review the RfC, particularly my own and others' behaviour.

  I made 12 comments, including my !vote - perhaps too many? While there's always room for improvement, all my comments were civil, based on sources and policy. You mentioned WP:PEPPER, but editors on the opposing side of the argument, whose views prevailed in the RfC, made 14 (M.Bitton) and 9 (TarnishedPath) comments. M.Bitton falsely claimed that "Khelif was born female and identifies as female" is easily attributed to a raft of RS (way more than the proposed "assigned"); this was demonstrably wrong (see my comment at 11:39, 15 August 2024) and when Barnards.tar.gz and JacktheBrown asked them to substantiate the claim, they refused saying I'm not interested in convincing you (I know where you both stand on this). Both M.Bitton and TarnishedPath repeated their arguments several times, which is the definition of WP:BLUDGEON, including the latter's flawed claim that We should expect MEDRS sourcing if we [are] to include material in the article which makes medical diagnosis.

  Yet you only chose to comment on my behaviour, not theirs. May I ask why? Given that my views did not achieve consensus in the RfC and I am "de facto" banned from Imane Khelif, your choice feels like "kicking someone when they're down" - it doesn't even give the appearance of fairness. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The validity of claims is not what I'm talking to you about, so you might have missed the point of my message. Those users would have been wiser if they had walked away after leaving their !votes, but theirs weren't the ones that slowed down the close. I had to sort out four different arguments to figure out M.Bitton's positions on the two issues, and two arguments to sort out TarnishedPath's. You said the same things nine different ways. I'm simply advising that you lay out your thoughts all at once instead of in a scattershot style. And as a side note, I don't know how I was supposed to figure out you were "de facto banned" before I came to your talk page to leave this message. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did I say the same thing in nine different ways, or did I make nine different arguments? I'm not convinced my comments were repetitive. What I mean by "de facto banned" is clearly explained in the thread you are commenting on, so you were obviously informed and in fact noted I see that this is resolved, etc. By the way, if I'm not mistaken nine users opposed including the sentence about unpublished medical evidence, and 11 supported it. Is this a consensus for inclusion?

P.S. There's no point in pinging users who were asked not to post on my talk page Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 08:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Heterodox Academy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Indian National Congress on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke 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, Yvan Part (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Santi Romano you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pbritti -- Pbritti (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gitz6666, in the open Backlash to diversity and inclusion arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some content to Italian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, based on a footnote/ref from Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II which I wrote, but that f/r is based on content from Allied war crimes during World War II and the footnote is not clearly written, and the source is Italian... the linked article needs major c/e (very few footnotes, sigh). The issue of Italian prisoners could be likely expanded into a dedicated section in that article I wrote. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Piotrus I will check this and also Antisemitism in Poland as soon as I'm finished with a couple if things in RL and on Wiki, hopefully in the next few days. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pitrus, you're right, the article does have some problems, and in my opinion it's not just a matter of copy editing. I've ordered some books on the subject and plan to work on it in the next few days. Unfortunately, this means that Antisemitism in Poland will have to wait a little longer... Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]