Paul Siebert

≤

Welcome! Hello, Paul Siebert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Death Barnstar
		Awarded for your great contributions in the discussions of various articles discussing genocides and mass killings. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 25 August 2021

Arbitration case notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland 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, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Glaukopis

Paul, check the timeline portrayed in the G&K article:

• " In February 2021, an editor called Buidhe challenged Glaukopis’s reliability on Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources" (my emphasis)

then

• "Outnumbered, Buidhe lost this debate and Glaukopis remained a permitted source on Wikipedia. Indeed, the nationalist-leaning group uses it to justify other unreliable sources, as in the case of Piotrus embellishing Ewa Kurek’s Wikipedia biography."

But the "Footnote" they provide for Piotrus' edit is... June 2019

So they're trying to make it seem like Piotrus (or this "nationalist leaning group" (whatever that is) - though they provide no other evidence)) continued to use the journal as a source even after the RSN discussion (2021), even though their diff is from 2019, so obviously false. Oh and here is their evidence of "embellishing Ewa Kurek's Wikipedia biography" [1]. I mean... maybe? But they somehow omit the fact that the edit also included criticism.

They also omit the fact that I said in that RSN discussion that Glaukopis was not RS. They also "doctor" my quote ("Volunteer Marek agreed that ‘this [journal] shouldn’t be a concern,’ ") by putting the [journal] in there as if I was referring to it. Instead I said that the concern wasn't who published the journal but rather who was on the editorial board. Volunteer Marek 08:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me be frank. 1. You guys are really POV pushing. 2. The article needs to be carefully checked, because some statements, including some accusations against you look wrong.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

But that is only my preliminary opinion. Paul Siebert (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Other interesting part is how the authors go out of their way to avoid explaining WHY "Buidhe lost this debate" (I don't think she really did, I haven't seen anyone try to use it since). According to them it was because she was "outnumbered" but a quick check clearly shows that it was because... drumroll... Icewhiz disrupted the discussion with his socks. [2]. Volunteer Marek 08:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vilna Soviet of Workers Deputies 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 20:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Paul Siebert,

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/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Allies of WWII

Hello Paul Siebert

You reverted my edit to this article with the explanation "by allies we do not mean those that signed a military alliance with UK." What then is the definition the article uses for an allied power? The first sentence states that the Allies "were an international military coalition" and a "military coalition is defined as " a group that temporarily agrees to work together in order to achieve a common goal." You can't have a military coalition without some form of formal agreement and the agreement that formally attached the Soviet Union to the other allied powers was the Anglo-Soviet agreement (given that the UK was the only major power formally at war with the Axis at that time). The Soviet Union didn't automatically "join" the allies the moment it was attacked by Germany, it joined them when a formal military agreement was signed with the leading allied power at the time. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that is tricky. If we are too focused on formal alliances, we face an obvious problem: there were no Allies after the fall of France till 22th of June, 1941, because the United Kingdom was fighting alone (I write "United Kingdom, not "Great Britain", which is important in this case). Furthermore, the coalition that was fighting with the Axis from September 1939 till June 1940 was the remnant of Entente cordiale, former Triple Entente (the WWI time formation). It ceased to exist after fall of France, and a new alliance formalized after 22th of June, 1941 and then extended after 7th of December, 1941.

Therefore, if we will be too formal, we should speak about different alliances during different periods of WWII.

Therefore, the most logical solution would be to focus on real military activity: who declared war on whom. If two states declared was on the same opponent, they should be considered de facto allies. The war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany started in June 1941, which means it became the Ally in June. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your point and agree that it's not straightforward, but this article and other articles on WWI and WWII focus on formal alliances and we should strive for consistency within articles. The Allies continued to exist as a formal grouping after the defeat of France in 1940. The first inter-allied war conference was in early June 1941 and included the UK, its Dominions, and the governments-in-exile of Poland and other nations. So there was a formal grouping of allies which the Soviet Union joined in July 1941. Remember also that China was at war with Japan for several years before it formally joined the allies in January 1942. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Scope of Evidence

Hi Paul. I wanted to note that I removed the section "Highly misleading edit summaries and wrong pretext for removal" as it is out of scope for the case. The scope of this case is Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep.

I respectfully disagree. The scope on the case is Holocaust in Poland. If we consider the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact illegal (and the majority of scholars agree with that), the territory of modern Ukraine that belonged to Poland before WWII is considered as a part of Poland at least until 1945 (when an agreement about new borders in Europe was achieved). Taking into account that Ukrainian nationalists were active mostly in the territory that belonged to Poland before WWII, it would be correct to include the discussion of their activity into this case. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)