User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2023/October

Police battalions

Why did you remove allegiance to Nazi Germany from the articles about Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft battalions? These were units created and subordinated to the Third Reich, consisting of ethnic Lithuanians. Their association with the Third Reich should be made clear, otherwise we are dealing with the tampering of historical information. Diffs in question: 259th, 258th, 256th, 10th. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what those parameters on the infobox really mean.

The allegiance parameter is Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated. Clearly, these battalions were not part of any regular armed forces.

The country parameter is If the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state.

The Lithuanian auxiliary police were not part of the German armed forces, i.e. Wehrmacht. They were police units.

Your baseless accusations of me obscuring their connections to the Third Reich is simply absurd, because, e.g. in articles 259th Lithuanian Police Battalion and 258th Lithuanian Police Battalion, their subordination to the Ordnungspolizei is very clear.

Regardless, there is almost 0 likelihood that a person will click on any of these articles except through looking at the article Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions. These articles are so niche and obscure, meaning that your concern with them stems not from the topic itself, but can be presumed to only exist because of your obsessiveness with me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The allegiance parameter is Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state and the Lithuanian auxiliary police were not part of the German armed forces, i.e. Wehrmacht. They were police units results is logical conclusion that the allegiance parameter should be used. Marcelus (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering the territories on which those units were created and existed for most of their existence, adding Nazi Germany would be inaccurate because they were part of Reichskommissariat Ostland, which was not directly part of Nazi Germany, unlike e.g. the General Government.

At this point, my opinion is that the most that could be added in allegiance/country parameters would probably be German-occupied Lithuania in the country parameter just like there is German-occupied Eastern Europe in Schutzmannschaft. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

These were territories occupied by Nazi Germany, and the units were part of Nazi Germany's police force. Allegiance to Nazi Germany is clear as day. Marcelus (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Józef Abelewicz, 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. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive assessment and advice! Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is thread name. Thank you. Marcelus (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The notification here was not complete, so for posterity, the thread is Cukrakalnis. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Marcelus (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation

An editor has asked for a Move review of Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Marcelus (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I realize there are two units

I truly don't have time for this right now and have asked Piotrus to find out what he thinks he is doing. I will will confer with Piotrus later tonight or maybe tomorrow. Assuming Piotrus is even still willing to try Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally understand if you don't have any time for this and thus stop being involved at all in this. I myself am trying to restrain the time spent on counterproductive talks on Wikipedia to a minimum and it's a shame when time that could have spent building up Wikipedia is wasted on drama in talk pages. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

just wanted to maybe apologize to you, or ask some questions or something. Much of my exasperation stems from realizing how long this has been going, and thank you for taking that exasperation the right way. Marcelus is extremely invested in this for whatever reason. I am going to give it a little distance rather than jumping right back in this morning, since cough apparently I am not helping. But I think I should find this copy vio they are accusing you of, because that is a serious problem that should be addressed regardless of sides. And yet the automated system should have picked up on it before now if in fact it is a copyvio. But to the comment answered at the top, yes, I was talking about the LDF unit on the page for the police unit, assuming that you and Marcelus would understand me, which would be confusing to other people. I was questioning "collaborator" as a label for both. but the issues are different, right? Some of those police units, to my understanding did definitely participate in the concentration cams, but the big table about all the units says that the 258 wasn't one of them. A reference about this particular unit seems to be required. And the other unit may not have been voluntary recruits. Anyway, I suggest dropping this for the moment, and looking for other references. I realize the difficulties but that would be ideal if possible. Meanwhile... well. Have a good day. I am not sure you understood my point about "collaborationist" but we can talk about that later. Basically it has a specific meaning at least at its origin. I will think about all this, not just because of you, because much the same seems to be true of some other units. (have you seen {https://books.google.ca/books?id=rg2DDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false}?] Maybe not *right on point, but seems to extensively discuss police units including in Lithuania Elinruby (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't apologize in this situation because you clearly gave your best attempt at solving this mayhem and it's on Marcelus that he refused your practical suggestions of mediation and instead persisted with his misguided initial demands and, on top of that, submitted a baseless AE report.

The reason Marcelus is even involved in this article is because he stalks my editing history already for two years, as evidenced by this self-admission from December 2021: Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. If you look at the history of the article LTDF, you can clearly see that Marcelus starts editing at 22:04, September 10, immediately after my edits that day from 21:34 to 22:02. It's obvious that he has a vendetta against me, which is probably the reason he is so intensely involved there. Somehow this issue of stalking seems to have been ignored whenever I bring that up at administration boards.

I'll address the alleged copyvio little by little in the coming week and I have already re-written some parts. Basically, Marcelus thought it was too close of a translation to the original.

The issues concerning LTDF and the police unit are different in my current view as there is a clear distinction in the relevant historiography between LTDF and Lithuanian AP, even if they are somewhat related in the sense that they happened in German-occupied Lithuania during WWII. I thought you might have confused them because you wrote about the LTDF on the talk page of an article about 258, a Lithuanian AP unit, which would have confused anyone outside of us three. Indeed, 258 did not participate in the Holocaust.

I have indeed seen the book "The Waffen-SS: A European History" and have cited it for some articles already. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say about collaborationism because that is clearly something you are more well-versed in than myself.

Thanks for the wishes, Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

the thing about "collaborationism" is that in the academic literature as of earlier this year it is solely used with reference to Vichy. It might be legit for it to become an adjective like quisling, but it should still apply to organizations that could arguably be of the same type as Vichy, assuming we don't mind minting new words. Personally I do not think that we should. English's closest equivalent to what I think is intended here (fr: collaborateur) would be "collaborating". Collaborationism is agreement with the ideology, and organized willingness to implement it. Assuming there isn't a definition out there that I am missing somehow. Then there is the definition of collaborating; most people would agree that guards at a concentration camp were collaborators, I think, as long as that was sourced. Hope that helps.

I came over here though to ask you about this alleged copyvio, though. Has that been taken care of? If it really is a copyvio it should be deleted. Yesterday. If it's a translation it's probably not a copy vio though, but either way you really should address it. LMK please

re translation: I see now that you already answered that, thanks. Yes apparently quite close but ok, glad you are working on it. Elinruby (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would refrain from Wikipedia minting new words that contradict what RS say about the topic, just like you said.

It was a translation and not a copyvio in the sense that it was directly copy-pasted text from an English-language copyrighted source. I've already changed some of the text and the rest will be soon changed as well. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right. Translations are their own separate intellectual property. You know to put a translated tag on the talk page, right? But the only rule about translation is that it's better not to translate things that don't meet the RS standards at en.wikipedia, and you have to give the provenance when you import in translated material. And you are responsible for the contents of what you submit. Sorry, I had a minor brain bubble there; it sounded so convincing.

Axis order of battle edits

G'day, I've reverted your formatting changes to the list. There is no explanation in an edit summary, you have only changed one section, and there is no discussion on the talk page. Please don't edit in this way, especially when the list has been stable for years and is an FL. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't aware that such articles were practically untouchable. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

AE result

I am closing the AE request opened against you. The finding of uninvolved administrators was the your editing is not in keeping with the standards expected of editors in contentious topic areas. In particular, you have repeatedly focused your comments on other editors and their perceived motives rather than on content matters, and treated Wikipedia as a battleground. The aim of Wikipedians should always be to reflect sources as neutrally and accurately as possible. Editors may disagree in good faith about the best way to do that, in which case they should use the talk page to professionally and civilly discuss their concerns. Where editors cannot agree, you can ask for a third opinion or use another form of dispute resolution, or ask for wider community input (for example with a request for comment). If another editor is being disruptive and obstructing a discussion, you can request administrator intervention at WP:AE (for subjects covered by a contentious topic designation) or WP:ANI. Please consider this a final warning that any further personally directed comments will result in sanctions. This warning will be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log and can be appealed by following the appeals process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)