User talk:Chester Leszek

Welcome!

Hello, Chester Leszek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi crimes against the Polish nation

"Polish" can be either a nationality (i.e., a citizen of Poland) or an ethnicity (i.e. part of the Polish ethnic group). "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" is neither a nationality or an ethnicity, it denotes a person who belongs to the Catholic Church. Therefore, your edit and edit summary here makes absolutely no sense at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polish specifically refers to ethnicity in this regard. By your logic you wouldn't say ethnic Jews would you? -Chester Leszek (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tussled with this terminology too. Polish Jews were Poles too. And not all Poles were Catholics (especially when they needed a divorce). A couple of possibilities: "Polish gentiles", "non-Jewish Poles". I suppose, if one wants to get ethnic: "Polish goyim". Let me know if you come up with a good concise wording!

Nihil novi (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we put it into that context then I guess ethnic Poles sounds fine. Gentile or goyim sound a bit too much in my opinion because everyone non-Jewish is considered as such. I understand if I made an error regarding this edit. -Chester Leszek (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naliboki massacre

Thanks for getting in touch.

When I run into a quandary at Wikipedia, I often turn to: User talk:Piotrus. He knows how to navigate Wikipedia procedures, and is generally very helpful. I suggest you send him a copy of the information about what is happening at "Naliboki massacre". Feel free to tell him I referred you.

I'll put "Naliboki massacre" on my radar too.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Nihil novi (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CANVASS and WP:NOTVAND. Nihil novi, you too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate being asked, and the first thing I'd point out in addition to the above would be WP:BRD. Nobody has tried to talk things out on that page, people are just reverting. This is bad. Continued reverts and warring without discussion are likely to results in blocks, so I strongly encourage discussion, both through edit summaries and on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Just letting you know that I noticed your removal of content from unofficial languages in the Second Polish Republic. Firstly you have no source, secondly Yiddish was widely spoken by religious Jews (just letting you know that Jews overall made up roughly 10% of the entire population) and also Ruthenian was a synonym for Ukrainian during the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Under the Second Polish Republic, Ukrainian was the official term. I also noticed you replaced Russian and Yiddish with such insignificant languages as Slovak and Hungarian which weren't as widely spoken in pre-war Poland. What's going on here? Oliszydlowski, 11:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mean to remove the Yiddish part. Also, you do realize there are no sources for the other languages listed, either? And may I ask how can you claim that Slovak or Hungarian were "uncommon" when Poland 'literally| borders and has neighboreed them for almost a thousand years? For example, the Subcarpathia border between Poland and Hungarian had villlages of both populations, therefore both languages were spoken. Not to mention, how come you say nothing regarding Russian when Russian is the uncommon language listed on the page that you speak of? Given the fact there was never any historical Russian population in Poland, yet Slovak and Hungarian are the ones uncommon? And dude look at the page, Czechs and Slovakia were part of the Second Polish Republic so naturally you'd find speakers of them there. -Chester Leszek (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second Polish Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kashubian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote but don’t redirect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polish_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany

Noted, but why such page exists when there already are pages with similar material? This sounds like a Polonophobic attack frankly. -Chester Leszek (talk) Chester Leszek (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explained removal

See [[1]], she was not talking about Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of control editing

Hello, Chester. I'm an administrator and after witnessing you committing personal attacks on a talk page, I reviewed your editing history. My conclusion is that overall, it's completely out of control, and is out of line with both content and behavioral policies. For example, you're falsely labeling editors as vandals, even though you've already been warned about this. You're edit warring. You're failing to communicate. You're failing to listen. You're failing to cite sources. You're arbitrarily changing terminology. You're inserting labels. This is all considered disruptive editing, and it appears to me that you're either unable or unwilling to edit responsibly as a member of a collaborative project whose priority is consensus building. As such, you have been blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I was on the edge of blocking you yesterday. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I am not disagreeing with you, but could you cite some diffs to support this block? All your links here are to policies. PS. In fact, I had some time to review this editor's history, and I don't see anything that would warrant an indef block. Yes, he is not a shining example to follow, but all I see is him calling another editor a vandal - once, and being engaged in some edit warring, but not breaking 3RR. He received warning messages from a single involved editor yesterday (for the record, I know that editor, I respect them, and I agree that Leszek was warring too much). A second warning, or a 1-2 days block might have been justified. But an indef block is totally NOT justified, unless I am missing something else in his recent edits. And the fact that you did not provide diffs to justify it is particularly worrying. I think you should undue your block after 24-48h at most, and if you think this editor needs an indef block, we need to have a community discussion. Bottom line is that you, a single administrator, have no authority to indef block anyone (per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Authority_to_ban). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Please get your terminology right. The editor was not banned but indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing which any single admin definitely has the authority to do (and many "working" admins frequently indef block for disruptive editing). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I didn't block for edit warring, though that is part of the behavioral problem. I didn't block for him calling an editor a vandal, though ignoring the warning for that and doing it again, which is considered disruptive editing, is part of it as well. The failure to reply to messages, participate in consensus building, and cite sources in their editing should be self-evident. I can provide diffs for the insertion of contentious labels, if that's really the point you're hung up on, but, really? As an admin, this was not a tricky/difficult decision to make. This is a net negative, highly disruptive account, and this indef was clearly warranted in my view. I cited all the specific policy violations that justified the block, and I find it hard to believe you're seeing none of those violations, so let's make this simple and you can just tell me which specific violations I cited and you're not seeing. Swarm ♠ 16:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]