Apologies for the insults; it was me being an idiot. 82.25.192.131 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I nominated the TPRP article at Template talk:Did you know. --Soman (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you referenced Enver Hoxha pretty well about the origins of his last name. Do you speak Albanian? Would you also consider helping me cover some topics on Communist Albania? I think that they are not given enough coverage in Wikipedia, although I'm trying through the creation of these articles:

• National Theatre of Opera and Ballet of Albania
• Academy of Music and Arts of Albania
• People's Artist of Albania
• Civil awards and decorations of Albania
• Merited Artist of Albania
• Politburo of the Party of Labour of Albania
• Hero of Socialist Labour (Albania)
• Albanian League of Writers and Artists

Is there anything in your mind that has a priority to be covered for Communist Albania topics? Thank you! --Sulmues _talk 16:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have created many articles on the Communist Parties and I noticed your interest to represent in Wikipedia Enver Hoxha and other communist subjects. You have created Zeri i popullit and Zai Fundo articles and I heartly thank you for doing that. In general this shows a very good preparation on the subject. I have an interest in better representing Communist Albania as it is poorly represented. For instance the article Politburo of the Party of Labour of Albania that I have created is extremely poor, because many of the members of the politburo have not published much on their own, and there are very few sources on them. However these people governed Albania for 50 years. Mind you it was full government as everything was State owned. They governed politically and economically. They had incredible power. Per Wikipedia they fullfill wp:politician, still many of them don't have an article.

My question to you is this: What are, in your opinion, the areas of Communist Albania that could be better represented in Wikipedia? Would you be able to give me three areas of priority? I praise your opinion in the matter. --Sulmues _talk 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! and also for your contributions! --Sulmues _talk 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on my talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhchivan has remained autonomous because the region has a military defense pact with neighboring Turkey. Thats why Armenia was unable to invade Nakhchivan eventhough it wanted to. Due to geopolitical reasons its risky for Azerbaijan to have a direct defense pact with Turkey (as this will effect the balance with Russia). Thats why Nakhchivan remain autonomous so it can actually have that pact - eventhough the Azerbaijani mainland doesnt have that pact. Neftchi (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legal base for author rights is Law no 9380, date 28.4.2005 "On author rights and other rights related to it" Returning before 1990 publications, although they are published by editing houses which do not exist anymore eg " 8 Nëntori Publishing House", the articles, photos etc are created by real people. These peoples are considered authors and hold the author rights for their works. However in case the article or photo has no name or uses a nick name the author rights on that, belong to the publishing house as long as the author does not reveal himself:

1. Law no 9380, date 28.4.2005 "On author rights and other rights related to it" Article 5 paragraph 2 "Në rastet kur vepra është shfaqur anonim ose me pseudonim përpara publikut, gjë që nuk lejon identifikimin e autorit, e drejta e autorit do të ushtrohet nga personi fizik a juridik, që është përgjegjës për shfaqjen e veprës në publik, për aq kohë sa autori nuk e zbulon identitetin."

So if the publishing house does not exist anymore and has left no legal descendant entity, there is a gap not covered by the law, if the author of the article has not revealed himself. Aigest (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you redirected this existing article to Albanian Constituent Assembly election, 1945, which you have created today. However, I have reverted largely on the basis that you should have moved the existing article, not created a new one, but also because it was not a Constituent Assembly election according to Nohlen & Stöver (in your new version it referenced this fact to the book, which is incorrect). If you would like to retitle the article, please use the WP:RM process. Cheers, Number 57 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I have added your recent edits to the CA article to the parliamentary one, so your recent work was not lost. Number 57 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your source claims it was a parliamentary election, but that's quite odd considering that there was no parliament nor even a constitution at that point. Albanian sources certainly don't class it as a parliamentary election. In any case I'll try to bring it up at WP:RM. --Mrdie (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable source written by respected election and electoral system experts, so based on this I've opposed the move. However, I won't be too bothered if the move is eventually made based on good arguments. Cheers, Number 57 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Rights section for the Hoxha article is highly POV primarily because it does not consider the work of Albanian authors and their positive assessments of the state of human rights during socialist Albania, particularly with respect to the principles found in the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights covenant. The work of Albanians about the state of human rights should be added to the section. What do you think? SadSwanSong (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Great work on expanding the Soviet-Albanian Friendship Society article! --Soman (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail yesterday I saw in a documentary for Enver Hoxha in Klan TV of the journalist Blendi Fevziu. According a dossier of Ministry of Interior of Albania the legal the coroner wrote that Nishani was suicide. Albanian dictator Hoxha probably wanted to hide that fact. Maybe in the book wrote by Fevziu for Hoxha is publish the document of Ministry. Irvi Hyka (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ismail! I found something about this. Mapo published an article by Prof.As.Dr. Gjergj P.TITANI: Prof. Titani published a biography of Omer Nishani. Tatani said in the article that Nishani was suicide according a document of Ministry of Interior of the People's Republic of Albania on 26 May 1954 he was suicide because Enver Hoxha humiliated he.[1] Another Professor Kastriot Dervishi published an similar article.[2] Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC

My pleasure. I was concerned that you might be annoyed that I had changed to a different citation style. I find this style works well when most of the sources are books. You article on Trade Unions of Albania is very interesting. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at template:cite book you can see the parameters for a template that defines a cited book. I always use this template (or others like template:cite journal or template:cite web) because they automatically put the different bits of information into the right format. template:sfn gives a way to easily make a reference and footnote that link to the cited source, thus:

Displays as:

The trick here is that the "cite book" template includes "|ref=harv" which tells the template to make a footnote from the author's last name and the year of the book, e.g. "Smith 2009", and link it to the book definition. That may not always be possible, because the author's name and/or publication year may be unknown, in which case you can tell the template what name to use for the footnote, as in |ref={{harvid|Norwegian Blue}}

Enough! You just have to explore and experiment. Hope this helps. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes that include citations are a bit tricky. They can be done like this:

which displays as:

{{tag:ref |text... |group=fn}} tells the software to place "text..." in a special reflist called "fn" instead of in the default reflist. (<ref group="fn">text...</ref> does that too, but does not allow the text to hold citations.) Further down, the special reflist is identified by {{reflist |group="fn"}}.

Note that on the second reflist, colwidth=30em. Often you could get a good visual appearance with narrower columns, 20em or even 15em. Don't. Many editors never use any templates at all. They will stick in unformatted "bare url" footnotes like <ref>http://www.cyberarchi.com/actus&dossiers/portraits/index.php?dossier=81&article=3076</ref>. A width of 30em gives some room for that. Note also {{refbegin}} ... {{refend}} around the source definitions. This just says that the text should be the same size as in a reflist, which looks better.

You now know everything I know about citations and footnotes.  :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change article and hook. I have known you long enough to rely on your intellectual honesty and I personally don't know that piece of history very well as it was carefully obscured in my school history books. Mesfushor (talk)

The Soviet-Albanian Split is way more important in history than the Sino-Albanian split. I'm sure you'll do a splendid job. Mesfushor (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had quitted Wikipedia one more time, but it was the impressive work of yours (Soviet-Albanian Split), that brought me back. That's pure Good Article material. I suggest you nominate it and I will help to get it to GA status. Bolerodancer (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Make sure to come up with a good hook and nominate it for DYK too. As far as GA goes, the only general thing I'm seeing is that some of the quotes should be rewritten into prose - putting in quotes as the article does is often done in academic writing but in an encyclopedia it should be reworded (and still attributed). Of course having some quotes in there is perfectly fine.

I'm doing a bit of traveling right now, so my internet access is a bit sketchy but I'll try looking over the article in more detail as soon as I can.VolunteerMarek 00:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marek. Agreed: it's actually the only thing that will give problems in GA (too many citations). Everything else is perfect. In order not to lose those citations, let's keep the Harvard style refs, but let's just rewrite the content in other words, and put the citations close to the references. This way the article itself will be a little shorter, but the citations won't be lost, as they are fundamental. This is a practice that user:Antidiskriminator uses heavily, and, although the reference area won't be as clean as it is now, it actually makes the article solid from a verifiability standpoint. Look for instance at this article. We can do something similar. Bolerodancer (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Soviet-Albanian split. 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. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I replied to your message on my talk page. Peace, delldot ∇. 15:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about the maps. Check out Maps of the Vietnam War, especially Enemy Situtation, Early 1964. This one tries to show the entire war in one map. Vieth's Black April has good maps. Kauffner (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Vietnam War from the Other Side, which has a map of "war zones" on page xiii. Kauffner (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am trying to improve the (quite biased) article on Hoxha on the Croatian wiki, [3], and I'm in need of some help.

So, I'd appreciate if you could give me some advice about what points to concentrate on and attach some references.

I'm asking this because the english article is too long for simple translation and I'm not an expert in the field so that I could just write it by myself.

Thank you, Štaki000 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you about this. --Ismail (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Lachin Kurdish Republic, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. E4024 (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Lachin Kurdish Republic, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. E4024 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ismail. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Connormah (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soviet–Albanian split, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warsaw Treaty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 19:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gogo Nushi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sino-Albanian split, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Plenum, Red Guards and Tito (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ismail, I noticed you have deep knowledge of the Communist Albania topics. I would like you to have a look at the article of Simon Stefani, one of the PPSH bureau leaders and Minister of Interior for a short time before 1990. In his wiki article, he is referred as Greek based on how a source from Pettifer and one from Vickers mention him (actually it is the same source, they are co-authors of the book). The source also mentions him as "the last Minister of Defense" of the Communist Era. I am pretty sure than Stefani was not Greek, and he has never been Minister of Defense. The last Minister of Defense until 1991 was Kico Mustaqi, who was of Greek origin. But Mustaqi does not have an wiki article. On my point of view, Pettifer-Vickers hava mistaken Stefani for Mustaqi, as they clearly state "the last Minister of Defense".
What do you think? Mondiad (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EnverHoxha.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Sino-Albanian split - one thing that jumps out after a very quick look is that the article could use a couple extra images.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the way of proper context images I could provide though. Also it has the same amount of images (2) as my Soviet-Albanian split article. --Ismail (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one [4]Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although that one is a non-free image, so you'd need a fair use rationale.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do like that a map of Albania and China was added to the article. --Ismail (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing that I see in the article that may be a roadblock on the way to a GA is that there's a lot of quotations in there, some of them fairly long. At least some of this should be paraphrased.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Grover Furr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable as professor, not notable for history hobby, media coverage would be BLP1E

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grover Furr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grover Furr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings; this is about the proposed deletion of the 'Grover Furr' article that you created.

I'm sure we both agree that User:David Gerard only wants the article removed in order to silence alternative viewpoints on Stalin. I know of another Wiki site where he is quite active (RationalWiki), and the content written by him on that site is not only extremely left-com biased, but aggressive, inflammatory, and outright offensive. His contributions over there make it quite obvious that his real motives are quite less sincere than he is claiming them to be on Wikipedia, and I believe that by showing this to the community on the wiki, we may be able to convince them to invalidate his proposal. If it weren't for the political drive to remove the article, everyone would agree/admit that Grover Furr easily meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Because of this, I would not be surprised if simply revealing the true reasons for deleting this page would be enough for the whole proposal to be trashed.

Relevant Evidence:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stalin_apologetics <--- David Gerard created the page, and also appears to have written almost 99% of its content.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard

If this were to happen though, at least two editors would have to 'try' to discuss this with him on his talk page first. 'Try' because I have my doubts of that doing anything, for obvious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

Do you think it's worth a try?

Thank you, Unrequestedsillything (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worth a spin - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly problematic, although whatever ulterior motives may exist for someone to want to delete a page, I think the best course of action is to demonstrate the notability of the subject of the article. --Ismail (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ismail. As it turns out, Eusebio Rodriguez Salas is my father's grandfather. We have been searching for more information on him for a long long time, but since we all live in Mexico now, it is a little difficult to go to Spain as offten as we would like. If you would be willing to share your information on him, we would be eternally grateful, specially on how you knew about him writing when he arrive to this country. Thank you very much. ––Fsrcsr (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talkpage. --Ismail (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit the article, you belong to an another culture and I don't edit article describing your culture. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "another culture"? Katyn is in Poland. Do I have to be Polish to edit the article, because if so I'm pretty sure that's a standard that isn't followed anywhere else on Wikipedia (and with good reason.) --Ismail (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, Katyn isn't in Poland. Please don't discuss problems you don't cere to check a map.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furr is a hobby historian of the SU. Iff you don't understand, don't vandalise.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "hobby historian"? Is that when you write a history of stamp-collecting? --Ismail (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may translate yourself " В свободное время увлекается вопросами советской истории и политики." It's a pity that you haven't, before you started to quote the ignorant. Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a professor, naturally enough any historical endeavors he engages in are going to be done in his spare time, not while he's in a classroom or busy grading reports or whatever. The bigger point is that his article was published in an academic journal, and you are objecting to the inclusion of that article for no apparent reason other than because you don't seem to agree with Furr's views. --Ismail (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which an academic journal? Academic journals have impact factors.Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wallis and Fortuna. Since you had some involvement with the Wallis and Fortuna redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Liam987 talk 15:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ismail. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a fellow grave digger :) That's one of the things I love about Wikipedia: people contact you about edits you did a decade ago :) 2005, those were the days...

As to the topic at hand, ZSL did not do much more than that. Running newspapers and journals (not too big), running cooperatives, supporting education of farmers and such. In theory it was "allied" to PUWP, but in practice it meant very little.

There are four notable periods when it comes to ZSL. Initially after 1945 it was an entirely bogus party usurping the name of a long-established political movement. However, chief positions were occupied by people from pre-war tiny communist parties. Which is why the early ZSL was in practice an extension of PUWP, it didn't even have its own program, instead officially supporting the program of PUWP, including the support for collectivisation, criticising pre-war peasant movement, some of its' members went as far as to officially admit that the ZSL party has had served its purpose in the early years of communist Poland and that it should be disbanded.

After the Polish October situation changed and so did ZSL. In 1957 an official agreement was signed between the PUWP and ZSL regulating their relations. ZSL lost any and all influence on agrarian politics of the state, but instead got some seats in parliament and other bodies. It had a couple of members in the Council of State and every Sejm (some 25%; nothing to do with free elections, mind you), but the Sejm in practice had very little power and its' role was mostly to cheerfully accept what the politburo ("Central Committee of the PUWP") came up with. Often the minister of agriculture was officially a member of the ZSL (you know, "peasant party running peasant business"), but then again, in a centrally-planned economy ran by the politburo the role of the minister of agriculture was symbolic as well. What's more important, the ZSL got some influence on a local scale: local cooperatives (some 30% of directors seats were given to ZSL members), local administration (some 20% in the National Councils) and so on. And it was slightly less concrete-minded than the PUWP, which is why after 1956 it became a little less unsavoury alternative for all the people who had to join the party or risk loosing their jobs (say, university professors, journalists and so on).

The situation changed again after 1971, when Edward Gierek "turned the screw a little tighter", as we say here, and ZSL again started to drift closer to being just PUWP under a different name. And then again it started to change the other way after 1980 (Solidarity!) when ZSL's members of parliament started to ask questions that would seem unsavoury to the PUWP politicians. But then again, it was never a real opposition - and it never had a chance to win any elections since in communist-led Poland there weren't any in the first place (or rather there were, people could vote - an in practice they had to - but their results were known long before the first ballot was cast). But it is a fact that in the 1980s ZSL started to act more independently, trying to rehabilitate Stanisław Mikołajczyk, asking for a thorough reform of Poland's economic system ("socialism with a human face"), lobbying for official recognition of the rights of individual farmers (see the article on Collectivization in the Polish People's Republic). The ZSL was officially in favour of further collectivisation, but wanted some legal confirmation that the farms that were not collectivised would not be forced to do so - which they got in 1983, probably because the commies were trying to appease the farmers during the Martial law in Poland.

Interestingly the finest hour of the ZSL was also the beginning of its end: in 1989 it took part in the Polish Round Table Talks (usually supporting the Solidarity rather than the PUWP) and after the 1989 legislative election its' members of parliament officially switched sides and formed a coalition with the Solidarity, entered the government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki - and put a silver bullet in PUWP's heart. And shortly afterwards the ZSL dissolved/transformed into the modern PSL. //Halibutt 21:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of this. ZSL initially was a "refuge" party for people - from rural backgrounds - who didn't like what was going on but who at the same time thought that the whole "doomed soldiers" thing was a pipe dream based on empty hopes of intervention from the West which wasn't forthcoming and idiotic romantic fantasies which make for great folk song but at the end of the day did nothing for the guy with half a cow and four chickens. At the national level, you're essentially right. It was more or less a faction of the PUWP. At the local level it made a lot of difference. Whether the local wojt that was appointed was a die-hard Stalinist or some local guy who, yeah, everyone knew was a sleek opportunist who shouted Marxist slogans when the people from Warsaw came to visit and then who went back to just regular graft and corruption (which everyone was used to and knew how to work with) when they left - ZSL had a lot of say in that. And that may not sound like a great choice but given the circumstances, it mattered. Like PSL before it, ZSL people were very pragmatic, in a very "peasant" kind of way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the key here is understanding what "private" and "collective" farming meant in practice. Historically, most parts of Poland were mostly owned by large landowners (initially the szlachta, later also bourgeoisie, tsarist henchmen in Russian-held part of Poland and so on). Which in practice meant there were millions of peasants who were either landless or had barely enough land to feed their own families, let alone sell their crops. Most food production was actually done by large farms (as was the case everywhere else).

After 1944 the commies instituted a land reform, parcellating most large estates (large in this context means anything above 50 hectares in most voivodeships). That way the people responsible for most food production got evicted from their land, while the landless were given *some* land. Typically a landless family could obtain up to 5 hectares within pre-war borders of Poland and somewhere between 7 and 15 hectares in the Western and Northern Areas obtained from Germany after WWII. While this allowed plenty of people a chance to feed themselves and their families, 5 or 10 hectares is still not enough to support modern, large-scale food production.

Simultaneously the commies tried to force farmers to collectivise their farms. The means were mostly brutal: millions of people were arbitrarily ordered to pay huge sums of money for not meeting food delivery quotas (instituted by the Germans shortly after their invasion of Poland, but kept by the commies as a means to pressure the farmers into collective farms), often "unknown perpetrators" would simply beat people up and destroy their machines for speaking against collectivisation, and so on and so forth. By 1955 some 200,000 farmers joined the collective farms, but those who had larger estates mostly resisted, which means that less than 10 percent of arable land belonged to those collective farms. This meant that an average collective farm of some 20 families had only approximately 80 hectares of arable land - which meant the production efficiency was actually lower than in case of individual farms. What was the response of the commies to that problem? Tightening the screw, as always. Instead of working on improving the efficiency of collective farms, they tried to force more people into them - and in the process destroyed the efficiency of private farming as well. It was still the 1950s, Korean War, the arms race in full swing, so production focus further shifted to arms instead of civilian production - which meant that even those private farmers who didn't have problems with the commies, could not obtain fertilizers, buckets, plows and whatever they needed. Again, ineffective collective farms were prioritized while effective private farms were being punished. By the end of Stalinism in Poland the food shortage was so dire that commie propaganda had to explain to the people of Poland that the situation is the result of sabotage and "American imperialists dropping potato beetles from their strategic bombers" (really!).

That's why after 1956 Gomułka decided not to proceed any further with collectivisation, acknowledge the existing private land ownership and called it the "Polish way towards socialism", distinct from all the other countries of the bloc. Sure, this lessened the pressure on private farming, but it did not end the problems of both private and collective farming in Poland. Gomułka's decision simply froze the situation, without solving any real issues that limited the efficiency of both types of farming. In 1962 the collectivisation efforts were resumed in line with a secret (!) act of parliament that assumed full collectivisation by the end of 1980, but in practice this only meant that private farming continued to be persecuted, while subsidised collective farms were not reformed in any way.

And that's the background of the numbers you cited on my talk page. Some private farms were extremely effective (notably in the more profitable branches, where the state-owned farms couldn't meet the demand, like fruit or poultry production), but most were not - because they couldn't be due to small area, inability to buy more land and problems with even basic tools, let alone mechanised ones). And the same applies to state-owned "collective" farms: most were extremely ineffective because they couldn't be. And with the advent of next generations social problems started to plague them, as collective farms "rural workers" received payment regardless of whether they actually did anything or not. Compare it to families living on benefits in some Western European countries and you'll get the picture.

Whether the numbers you cite are accurate or not is another matter completely, farming was a sensitive issue to the communists, so I wouldn't trust official efficiency statistics. And to add even more complexity to the issue, regardless of food shortages on domestic market, large part of Polish food production had to be exported to the USSR due to Polish satellite status within the Eastern Bloc (officially it was normal export within COMECON, but in practice it was equal to economic exploitation of a colony). All this meant the shortage of even basic food products was inherent in commie Poland. This led to the price rise of 1970, which in turn sparked the 1970 Polish protests, the same problems with lack of food led to the 1980 strikes and the creation of Solidarity. //Halibutt 13:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China-Nanjing. Since you had some involvement with the China-Nanjing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Sadads. Ismail, thanks for creating Albanian People's Army!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. THough the article appears Notable the content of the article will likely not persist,

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sadads (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ismail. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fidél Castro. Since you had some involvement with the Fidél Castro redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Korean people. Since you had some involvement with the North Korean people redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ammu-Nation. Since you had some involvement with the Ammu-Nation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ismail. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kam nevoje per ndihmen e dikujt qe kupton proceset e wikipedia me mire se une. Gjeta faqen WikiProjects Albania dhe pashe qe jeni pjestar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleni_Foureira https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermal_Meta

Kto dy kengetare do perfaqsojne Qipron dhe Italine respektivisht ne Eurovision 2018 dhe jane me prejardhje nga Fieri. Te lindur ne Shqiperi. Ne momentin qe u shpallen fitues te vendeve te tyre respektive, ja hoqen prejardhjen shqiptare nga pershkrimi nga perdorues anti-shqiptar ne Wikipedia.

Komenti respektiv i fshehur karshi origjines ne background eshte Eshte teper rraciste te thuash qe nje person i lindur ne Shqiperi, dmth shtetas shqiptar, te quhet nje Shqiptar etnik.

Wiki users qe po bejne kto ndryshime jane Alexikoua (ngjan nacionalist grek duke pare ndryshimet qe ben ne menyre konstante) dhe Jjj1238

U bllokova nga nje admisistrator i Wikipedia per 1 jave sepse po beja ndryshime tek te dyja faqet. S'di c'te bej por sdua ta le kete pune me kaq sepse eshte turp te mos mbrojme identitetin e bashkeatdhetarve tane.

Nese nuk ndihmon dot per kete ceshtje, te lutem me drejto te ndonje perdorues qe mundet. Faleminderit. Talksensenow (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ismail. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Zealand Communist Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Communist Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lenin Circle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenin Circle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ismail. I disagree with some of your edits regarding the opposition bloc in Stalin's USSR. You argued in the bloc page that "Source does not say that Zinoviev and Kamenev "joined the bloc"." However, in Broué's article, he specifically states that the zinovievists groups had Kamenev and Zinoviev negotiating with trotsky and sedov to join the bloc. And, in the appendix, sedov's later says: "The (...)* is organised [15] it includes the Zinovievists, the Sten–Lominadze Group and the Trotskyists..."

Broué said the missing word seems to be "bloc".

Because of this, everything leads us and Broué to think that Z and K did in fact join the bloc. Notice how he never opposed the idea like how he did with Bukharin, in which he argued that "there is no indication to support the hypothesis that these people carried on any activity in 1932, or even that they maintained a certain oppositional spirit."

So, yes, while Broué never said with all words that zinoviev and kamenev joined the bloc, the fact they were negotiating with trotsky at the time and sedov's remark about how the zinovievists joined the bloc, makes it clear that they did indeed join the bloc.

Do you disagree with any of my assesments? I'd be glad to dialogue with you. Seekallknowledge (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broué's article, as I said, doesn't claim Zinoviev and Kamenev actually joined the Bloc. Broué indicates that Zinoviev by 1932 had regrets about having "capitulated" to Stalin and was aware of efforts by others to renew oppositionist activity, but does not say Zinoviev and Kamenev themselves joined. J. Arch Getty, in his article "Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International," writes that the Bloc "included mainly lower level, less prominent oppositionists: followers of Zinoviev, but not Zinoviev himself." By the standards of Wikipedia, I think your argument ("while Broué never said with all words...") slips into breaking the website's policy of no orignal research (specifically the section titled "Synthesis of published material" which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.") --Ismail (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concede you're correct. Seekallknowledge (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-Colonialism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 8#Anti-Colonialism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Organization for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Communist Platform (Italy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Platform (Italy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grover Furr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grover Furr (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Originalcola (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ismail

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Rich Smith and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Cromwellate, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Cromwellate.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rich Smith}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Malecki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Malecki until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]