User talk:Paul Siebert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:

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)


Hello, Paul Siebert,

I'm writing you about your statement at the Arbitration Enforcement board. Statements from editors are supposed to be limited to 500 words (Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs) and yours clocks in at 552 words using this tool which is used in arbitration cases. I'm not going to ask you to cut your statement UNLESS you decided to add additional content in response to other statements. Should you want to add any responses, please trim your original statement to stay roughly around 500 words. Let me know if you have any questions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Liz Read! Talk!, will keep that in mind.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Liz Read! Talk!, following your advise, I added a fresh response and trimmed the old one. It is around 650 words. I hope that is ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: updated C/R on your sandbox[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Paul, I hope when you are free, review your User:Paul Siebert/sandbox.

It is with your guidance that we would be most helpful to completing the task, since besides you and Nick-D (talk) there are few and far between who possess the moral compass and are instrumental and measure up to editing my work. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Eli, I am somewhat busy with a nasty AE quarrel and real life problems, may I return to that in early October?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul, by all means! Leave it be until you are free. Nothing is more important than your own life and family. I'm not sure what "AE" is, but if I can be of any assistance I am at your disposal. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bigeez: the latter will you learn about AE, the better. It is a nasty thing, but nothing terrible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svgThe following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from everything related to the Eastern Front (World War II) (i.e. the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII) for three months. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the reasons for the war, atrocities, etc., and also any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 19:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul, you're obviously very knowledgeable about the Second World War. I look forward to having some Eastern-Front-related conversations in the future. On AI and AE, I think the bar for classifying what is an unacceptable personal comment should be set quite high. I can understand why the administrators there might want not to be troubled by certain types of accusations. On the other hand, they should probably make allowance for the fact that those accusations may be honest opinions being made in perfectly good faith.     ←   ZScarpia   19:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Frankly speaking, your interference at AE was hardly helpful. From what I understood about NPA, the question that I (and we all) should have focused on was: if there was a ground for the statement I made, so to say "Well, probably, it was an exaggeration to say that Suvorov was ... etc" was not helpful. What you were saying could be a subject of a talk page discussion, not AE page. You raised a good point in an inappropriate place: admins don't need and it seems they don't want to know these nuances. What they needed to know was: some reputable sources support my statement, so I had a right to make it.
By writing that, I am not blaming you in doing any harm, for, as recent events demonstrate, I am the only person who can do any harm to me. When you are getting older, it doesn't mean you are getting wiser.
I will be busy during the next couple of weeks, I'll let you know when I am ready to communicate: you seem to be an interesting person.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Hello Paul Siebert (talk), I thought I'd check in to see if there was any update on the C/R thing, and not to push-in. But I was bewildered and perplexed at the other business. If that was the AE thing you told me about, I could only say humbug. You are the go-to man for WWII, and perhaps with Nick-D, the only ones with the know-how. Our discussions were nothing but helpful and never remonstrative. Your gentleman-like manners and forbearance serve as a reminder and a lesson for all. You do not kowtow to anyone, because you follow through with everything with perfect references. I don't wish to read anything more about it or say more about it. Anyway, please keep up the great work for World War II on your sandbox; some thought the pictures were too colourful? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Eli.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Paul, you have my sympathy to the extent that, having a similar misunderstanding to the way that AE and AI work regarding personal comments, I could very well be in the same situation. I think it would be better, unless comments are obviously unjustifiable, to ask editors to justify or remove their comments there at the time they are made rather than instantly, or some way down the line, issuing bans.
I realise that you will disagree with me, but I thought that Icewhiz badly misrepresented "Icebreaker", using a very specious argument. The aim of my comment was to neutralise that. If Sandstein's comment is true, statements by non-involved editors made little difference anyway. Unfortunately for Icewhiz, though, his statement, I suspect, probably provided some of the evidence used to ban him.
Before following the request in the previous comment, make sure that anything you write doesn't contravene the bit in the topic ban policy which mentions "user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)."
Regards.     ←   ZScarpia   12:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @ZScarpia:
Again, I don't think you comments had any negative impact, I just wanted to let you know that AE page is probably not a good place for discussions of that kind.
With regard to NPA policy, I am going to return to that in close future, after I resolve a topic ban situation. I already asked a question at the NPA talk page, and the answer is: every statement must be seen in a context. That mean, even a post like "A user X is Nazi" may be not a personal attack if the evidences are provided that the user is a real Nazi.
In my opinion, a declared zero tolerance to Nazism implies two things: (i) false claims that a user is Nazi supporter are considered a serious personal attack, and (ii) all reported cases of real or perceived Nazi support must be carefully analyzed. Actually, many admins seem to be more focused at "i", but they tend to see "ii" as a content dispute. That means a declared goal of zero tolerance to Nazism became a policy of zero tolerance to whistblowers. In reality, "i" is senseless without "ii", and a correct implementation of the declared zero tolerance policy towards Nazism implies two things. First, no sanctions can be imposed on those who accuse others in being a Nazi supporter until evidences have been analyzed. If no evidences have been provided, or the evidences are obviously laughable, the user who throw such accusations must be blocked. If evidences confirm that a user is Nazi supporter, the result should be to ban the accused user. However, a third situation may be possible: the evidences look serious, but they are not sufficient to inequvocally conclude a user is Nazi supporter. In that case, no actions should be taken against both parties. In my opinion, a declared goal of zero tolerance to Nazism cannot be achieved if good faith whistleblowers are punished.
With regard to me, all of that has no relation to my case, for I didn't accused anybody of whitewashing Nazism. My statement was much softer, but all of that is my and Sandstein's busyness (so far).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Paul, why are you skirting the topic ban in Gas van? While the Soviets used them before World War II, Nazi Germany used them in the Eastern Front after 1941. Your topic ban specifically prohibits this. You have made more than 20 edits on the talk page after your ban. @Sandstein: as the admin who placed the block, how do you see this? --Pudeo (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The 1937 events definitely do not belong to the EF topic. The Holocaust (except the territory of the USSR) is also not a part of EF. The usage of gas vans by Nazi has always been beyond the scope of my interest. Asking Sandstein, who already expressed his opinion on that, is senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gas van and also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#An eyewitness account. Just to keep you informed.--Assayer (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Assayer: Your are doing a great job, and my interference is not required so far (I am the party of the dispute, so I would prefer other users to voice their opinion at that noticeboard).
Just few comments. In the collection of testimonies assembled by Lipkov I found one interesting comment:
"А показания самого Берга, что бы он сам о себе ни говорил, отнюдь не являются доказательствами. Может быть, из него их выбивали точно так же, как он выбивал их в свое время из других. "
Google translates it as:
"And the testimony of Berg himself, no matter what he says about himself, is by no means evidence. Maybe they knocked them out of him in the same way as he knocked them out of others at one time."
In general, all these testimonies are very interesting, and they should be discussed in some article related to Great Purge.
It is also important to note that Lipkov is not a historian. His speciality is cinema. In addition, he neither comments nor analyzes the testimonies, so his book is a just collection of primary sources assembled by a non-professional historian.
I have an impression that some user is going to game a system and eliminate you from a consensus building process. I am going to resolve this problem in a reasonably close future, but, for a while, I recommend you to be cautious in your statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
No pasaran! GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Nosotros pasaremos.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your consistency over the years. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Goldsztajn submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I first interacted with Paul Siebert editor about 10 years ago (and awarded a barnstar for his/her work at that time) and I believe s/he has, with extraordinary consistency, not only promoted the values of genuine collaboration and knowledge sharing, but remained steadfast in abiding by the principles of Wikipedia. Moreover, s/he has engaged with some of the most sensitive subjects related to Eastern Europe and has consistently shown an evenness of temper and commitment to scholarly, collaborative outcomes. Her/his editing work is first class, but even more noteworthy in my view is the effort s/he makes to diligently engage productively with editors in conflict and seek mechanisms to resolve that conflict. In more than 13 years on Wikipedia I cannot think of an editor I have interacted with more deserving of this award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Crosshairs Red.svg
Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability member
Paul Siebert
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning October 20, 2019
13 year veteran editor. Promotes the values of genuine collaboration and knowledge sharing. Steadfast in abiding by the Principles of Wikipedia. Engages with sensitive Eastern European subjects. Shows an evenness of temper and commitment to scholarly, collaborative outcomes. First Class editing work.
Recognized for
extraordinary consistency and engaging productively with editors in conflict.
Notable work(s)
Talk:World War II
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  13:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC) @Buster7:&@Goldsztajn: Thank you very much! I really appreciate it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I nominated you back in July, but it took awhile to process ... reading some of the things (hmmm... let me stay polite) you've been involved with (subject to!) since then, I would say it's even more deserving. Congratulations! --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, sometimes, an emotional support is the most precious thing...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV discussion[edit]

At WT:NPOV you said whereas NPOV dispute is seen as a conduct dispute. I believe you meant "content". ―Mandruss  21:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

My bad. Fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

topic ban violation[edit]

This thread [[1]] could be seen as a topic ban violation, I suggest you drop the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust in general is not a part of Eastern Front. 1937 events also are not a part of EF. If in doubt, consult with admins. The usage of gas vans in EF has never been an area of my interest, and I am not going to discuss it in that thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Have it your way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem. By the way, your discovery of Wheatcroft's opinion about Soviet gas van was really helpful. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I asked for second opinion, but got none, so I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Paul Siebert. The very least there will be a clarification. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid refactoring at AE.[2] Thanks in advance. El_C 16:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


Congratulations are in order for you. Thanks. Cheers, Eli !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeez (talkcontribs) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This is in response to being named "Editor of the Week." I truly hope would hope other editors would learn your sincerity and patience. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

talk page ETIQUETTE[edit]

You really should not really add to comments after they have been replied to as you did here [[3]], please revert.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I've just fixed this: you are not supposed to add text into my post, it is a violation of talk page guidelines. I thought it was you unintentional error. If you have done that in purpose, and if you insist that was not a mistake, I can restore that edit, although that would be against the rules.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, I seem to have inserted a comment between yours. My applogise.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem :)--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dismissal of Robert Rialmo[edit]

Hello Paul, Would you give me a thumbs up/down on the draft for the article I wrote on CPD Officer Robert Rialmo? An adminstrator (RHorwath) wrote I needed to clean up references. He deleted my first article, "the Shooting of Quintonio LeGrier and Bettie Jones." I know this is a diversion from your normal metier, but still treasure your advice nonetheless. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Who added a notability template on the top of the draft? The page history doesn't tell that. In general, I don't know anything about that story, and I have no time to read it right now, but the article seems to be well sourced, so I would like to read more about RHorwath's objections.
BTW, if RHorwath believes you need to clean up references, they are acting not as an admin, but as an ordinary user: that is a content dispute, not a conduct issue, so RHorwath's opinion has not more weight that yours. Usually, a user cannot delete an article without a serious reason, a normal procedure is WP:AFD. In some cases, admins can bypass the deletion discussion, these cases are described in WP:CSD.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't notice the notability thing, but it is notable since it was the final nail in the coffin for Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Superintendent Eddie Johnson, and of course, Rialmo was the fall-guy for the other politicos and was fired. I will look into it, thank you so very much! Cheers, Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeez (talkcontribs) 17:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep on mind that no admin can prevent you from creating this article. If some people believe notability or other criteria are not met, they can start the AFD discussion, and if a decision will be to delete, the article will be deleted (or merged). I doubt any admin has a right to delete your article unilaterally (there are exceptions, but they are exceptions, see above).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Paul, you are a treasure! To be honest, it's probably more my doing than RHorwath's. I left out some quotes where they were required, then we had a brouhaha over FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) from the Cook County District Attorney's Office about what I could quote and what I couldn't, etc., from the shooting of Robert Rialmo. See my user talk page on my article fraft. RHorwath deleted my first article. The title for the article on the "dismissal of Robert Rialmo" was recommended by RHorwath, which I agreeed with. He is what's called a "Wikipedia deletion administrator." No worries, I know he is only doing his job, and a fellow Brit. I will submit the article, thank you for your guidance. Always looking for improvement ..., Cheers Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paul Paul Siebert (talk), I submitted the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. If you have time, it's an easy read, no need to do a tap dance around this topic, unlike C/R! What do you think? It's a much-debated national concern here, especially when President Trump brought the issue up. All the best, Eli Bigeez (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


Information icon Concerning the page Gas van I have requested sourcing restrictions according to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. [4]--Assayer (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that it will work, but I added my 2cents. Are you sure a format of your request is correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Assayer, as I expected, the format was wrong. Feel free to use fragments of my text for resubmission.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the way the restriction is meant to operate vis-à-vis Arbitration enforcement is to establish that an individual is not adhering to the sourcing requirements. The standard format needs to also be adhered to. Good luck. El_C 22:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
El_C, in my opinion, this request should not be directed against some concrete person, its goal is to eliminate potential roots of disruptive behaviour. And, frankly speaking, that approach should be applied to a wider range of EE related articles, because many conflicts in that area are caused by attempts of some national POV pushers to use local poor quality sources, which may be acceptable for articles about some low importance local topics, but are intolerable in the articles devoted to important history topics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not see the restriction having been formulated any other way. The final sentence reads: Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action. El_C 23:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
El_C, I think we are speaking about the same thing. What I mean, this concrete request does not imply any immediate actions against some concrete user, although it creates prerequisites for such actions in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you lost me. Either it's a request that involves a concrete individual, or it should not be submitted. El_C 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
El_C, I am not sure you are right. This action by NeilN was possible because the topic was under ARBEE. That means DS allow any admin to do the same with Gas van. Therefore, some procedure is supposed to exist that allows us to request for such an action (Arbitration/amendment would be an overkill). I know no other forum where I can request for that. However, if you think there are other mechanisms, please, explain them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know. I already added the AE notice to the article talk page earlier, though it is the standard notice only and does not touch on sourcing requirements. El_C 23:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Give me a sec, I'm looking into this. El_C 23:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I struckthrough my contention that there needs to be an individual editor mentioned in the request — per MVBW, it seems like this was my mistake. But the request was nonetheless still malformed with respect to its actual format. So it may be resubmitted with the proper format (section for comments, sections for admins, etc.) adhered to at any time. El_C 03:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I decided to request sources and revert restrictions from uninvolved admins to establish that the page in question was covered by the recent Arb Case decision and to ensure that all participants were aware of that. It was be easily to be forseen that this would have been questioned.[5]. Therefore, this step was a sort of prerequisite to establish that an individual was not adhering to the sourcing requirements. I wasn't sure, where and how to place my request, so I asked at the Help Desk and did not receive an answer yet.[6] Altbough I realized that the standard format for requests did not fit my purpose, I turned to WP:AE, because it provides to request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions. Maybe the information how to place such requests on that page should be clarified.--Assayer (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have re-opened the request. El_C 03:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

mis-use of RfC[edit]

Regarding this malformed RfC, you should not initiate an RfC without having first reached an impasse in discussion. Further, RfCs need to present a crystal clear question. Please read the instructions before you attempt this again. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Chris Troutman, upon having looked at first comments I came to a conclusion that the question was quite clear. And yes, this RfC was inspired by a discussion elsewhere. This is a discussion about our policy, not an attempt to resolve some concrete dispute, and I want to know the opinion of a broader community. Therefore I have an impression your assertion about malformed RfC is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Let me explicate. I watch that page, which is how I found your RfC. I saw no flurry of edits being warred over. When looking an any RfC, I immediately scroll up to read the preceding discussion; there was none on this question. Your RfC features four different question marks failing to establish a clear binary for consideration. What I would have preferred was a discussion of the inclusion of the word mainstream with attendant talk about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the function of WP:RSN, perhaps ending with an RfC that plainly said either keep the word mainstream or remove. None of those things happened and now nothing good will come of your actions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Chris Troutman, from your comment, I conclude that the question is really not very clear: my question was not about keeping the word "mainstream", but about the criteria that define "mainstreamness". However, this RfC gave a start to a discussion where people expressed some interesting ideas. I am not sure what should I do in that situation: probably, we should wait and then formulate more focused RfC based on the results of this discussion? What do you think?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I point to WP:RFCCLOSE. Maybe give this another day as you're soliciting input and then go to WP:ANRFC to ask for closure. You could withdraw your question sooner unless you find utility in the responses you're getting. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I still would like to see more comments, what about the option #5 in RFCCLOSE?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Well before 30 days pass for the bot to remove the tag, you'll get input from editors summoned by a bot and they might not appreciate an unfocused discussion. It is up to you, unless a third party closes it sooner. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's wait a couple of days and decide, ok?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, that RfC has lead to an improvement of our policy, which seems to be not contested, so I don't think I misused the RfC template. Since the discussion has come to a logical end, I removed the template.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

New Montage for WW2 infobox[edit]

Hi Paul, I’d like your thoughts on the proposal for a new montage on the WW2 talkpage Roddy the roadkill (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)