Jump to content

User talk:Poeticbent/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

DYK for Stanisławów Ghetto

Harrias talk 12:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Poeticbent!

Happy New Year!

Poeticbent,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Talkback

Hello, Poeticbent. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A good 2015 to you and yours!

I hope it is happy and productive. Regards from Irondome (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WKS Śląsk Wrocław sockpuppet

Hi, I found another sockpuppet (Special:Contributions/Teufelsgrund). I know him as User:Germania Breslau because of his edits in Simone Moro. I am not familiar with the mechanics of en.wiki, could you report this sockpuppet? I read that you too have had to deal with him. Thanks in advance. --Rotpunkt (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rotpunkt. Will do, Poeticbent talk 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Pacifications of villages in German-occupied Poland

References have two small errors.
The name is wrong, the article describes "town and villages".
Luftwaffe destroyed not only Wieluń in Sptember 1939 but also Sulejów and Frampol. The bombings weren't exactly pacifications.Xx234 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Xx234. I'm looking into it right now. Poeticbent talk 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hans Krueger

Harrias talk 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to say "Thank you for your continued efforts to make this project better". Like a kitten, Wikipedia may occasionally scratch and bite, or barf, but it is still worth it! Cheers,

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisting of TfD for Template:Infobox academic division

PoeticBent, Template:Infobox academic division has been re-nominated for deletion/merger, following a DRV filed by Andy Mabbett. You participated in the previous TfD discussion, and I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the newly re-opened/re-listed discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Pacification actions in German-occupied Poland

I don't know how to quote Markiewicz in a short way. I can correct the wrong Kulesza reference in the Note a using a full reference to Markiewicz. I believe you understand the references apparatus.Xx234 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC) IPN doesn't limit its own inquiries into atrocities committed against Polish nationals to the present-day borders of the country due to legal and logistical considerations, see [1]Xx234 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xx234. I read it. Here's where the real confusion comes into play. The title of our article does not indicate upfront who committed the pacification actions described thereafter only that they were committed in German-occupied Poland. The massacre in Koniuchy was not perpetrated by the Germans. The official list of villages in our article includes only the present-day voivodeships, I don't have a concrete proof why so, and can only read between the lines. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 07:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
IPN declares partial inquieries, I don't know how to collect all inquieries regarding pacifications. Some of them don't use the word.
The Polish article describes all pacifications under Germans, ie. the UPA ones.Xx234 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
So perhaps we should consider mentioning all pacifications too in our own article (with all the needed clarifications of course), or, change the article title again in order to limit ourselves to what has already been written. What do you say, Xx234? Poeticbent talk 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

citation clutter

"please do not edit-war, the formatting of all other citations is neat and tidy. Forced line-breaks stand out like a sore thumb and make it hard to follow copytext in editing window uninterrupted, also, when copy-pasting, please update old access from 2013" [2]

No, they are not "neat and tidy" at all. The usual citation clutter that one finds in most articles, I find, makes them almost totally unreadable and uneditable. Just ask SlimVirgin. The idea that one can "follow copytext" in the usual cluttered-up form is absurd: it's almost impossible to tell where copy text ends and citations begin, or vice-versa. Moeover, because of the clutter, it is almost impossible to check citations properly; this is probably one of the reasons there are so many errors. My own guess is that writing them in an easily visually paresable form would reduce the errors by about half. Just a guess.

For this reason, on articles where I'm doing a substantial amount of work, I prefer, where possible, to use short-form citations, see WP:CITESHORT. This is quite easy to do for cites to books and academic journals (which usually also happen to be the best sources). For other sources, the best way to get rid of the clutter is to remove them all into list-defined references, see WP:LDR; LDR does have some disadvantages, but it's still vastly preferable to having the clutter in the article body.

The particular case you're complaining about is part of a clean-up exercise to fix a particular type of citation error; I don't have time to do a wholesale revamp of all the articles, but I probably do more careful checking of the cites than most people engaged in this sort of routine exercise. Because the usual cluttered horizontal form is so difficult to visually parse, I use a small script that turns the cite into a form that is easy to visually parse; this makes it much easier to spot mistakes and fix them.

Note that there is nothing wrong with the vertical form of citation; all the citation template documentation shows both forms. In fact my little script does try to reduce the amount of vertical scrolling by putting items that naturally belong together on the same line, for example "| last =" and "| first =" (it's still a work in progress); doing this also has the benefit of making it a little easier to check and visually parse.

So, yes, my change is not ideal; it would be better to convert it to short-form or use LDR, but that is not feasible in this sort of mass clean-up exercise. It is, however, vastly preferable to the usual unreadable clutter that infests most articles.

On the subject of the access date, two points: (1) access-date is not only the date when the url was accessed, but also when someone checked that the article text is supported by the source cited; that's the job of the article's main editors, so I never change it (if I tried to do so, I would probably wind up re-writing the whole paragraph, and looking for better sources) (from the citation template documentation: "Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not only be working, but to support the assertion being cited (which the current version of the page may not do)"; and (2) book sources don't change anyway, see the documentation at template:Cite book: "access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book".

For these reasons, I have restored the easy-to-parse form, but moved it into list-defined refs to reduce the clutter. I hope you find that acceptable.

--NSH002 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge templates?

I saw your name in the list of opposers to a merge of {{infobox academic division}} and don't quite understand your argument, please explain. To my understanding, the organisation of a university has nothing to do with how we call an infobox internally (which a reader doesn't even see), as long as the facts are displayed well. - I engaged in the suggested merge of {{infobox hymn}} and {{infobox musical composition}}. The character (and category) of a hymn is in no way diminished if the same (!) information appears under a different internal template name (I suggested {{infobox composition}}). Compare a hymn in two version: hymn and composition. You see that "composition" even tells the reader "hymn", a fact he doesn't see in the former. - If two templates serve the same function to the reader (!), why would we want to maintain and update two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda Arendt, funny you noticed, because I no longer have any objections to that proposal from a month ago.[3] However, spamming 19,369 transclusions while attempting to resolve mere 16 entries is what I don't like. Templates that make visually appealing infoboxes are all equally fine. As far as actual readers, there's no difference. Poeticbent talk 19:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The "spamming" comes with any TfD discussion, and is a good way to address all with a possible interest. If you know a fairer way say so at the village pump. (One idea was to have the notice for only 2 days, - I didn't follow.) - If you have no more objections please say so, it's still open. I noticed by the urge to close, - see Precious on the same page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case please strike your "string oppose" comment at the TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you please design an [X] button to accompany your TfD announcements for us to be able to click them off similar to all other announcements about ongoing discussions? Poeticbent talk 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please ping Andy for that, I never start discussions to discuss or delete ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy already responded to it, although remained noncommittal. Poeticbent talk 17:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy (pictured) is faster than I can type. - I mentioned you on my talk, with thanks for your poem! Today I start the fourth year of Precious, believe it or not ;) - Great music in prep, wish you could listen. Who knows what Bach thought when he kept the score of the Missa? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fritz Katzmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag. 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) 09:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Extermination camp

Hi there,

Many thanks for your assorted contributions to this article. If I may polite suggest though, the structure of the article was better before. Different areas of the article were broken down into different sections for Nazi and Ustaše. Under the edits you've made that logic is lost.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.208.18 (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word. But please keep in mind that this article is not about genocidal regimes of World War II but the Extermination camps as such. Dividing the article content in two, based on who run it, rather than how it was being run is not only confusing but also illogical. There were similarities between Nazi German and Ustaše camps whose purpose was mass murder and that's what interests us most. Both regimes formed together the Axis powers with parallel intentions. Let's focus on the extermination camp extended definition in here and not on the regional special interest categories so much, Poeticbent talk 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Your comment that the alternative your structuring is confusing and illogical is a POV. Who can we take this to so that we can canvass wider opinion? best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.50.150 (talk • contribs) from behind a Hong Kong proxy.

For discussions about article improvement, go to Talk:Extermination camp. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Anna May-Rychter
added a link pointing to Realism
Bronisława Janowska
added a link pointing to Realism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nazi nuclear bunker discovered?

Do you know about this? Not sure if there is an article relevant to it.[4] [5]. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I was watching a National Geographic program about Riese today - it was huge, maybe 19km of tunnels. Thanks for replying. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The speculation in the programme was that it might have been meant as some sort of underground facility to include weapons factories, etc. Just the sort of nutty thing you'd expect them to do. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's the feeling I get from reading about Organisation Todt and the unlimited supply of slave labour available if only temporarily. Poeticbent talk 15:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

I don't understand your last revert.[6]
This is a reliable source. The user who removed the text did so based on a blog entry. Did you see my comments on the talk page? Demanding that I go to RSN because of this, just looks like harassment. -YMB29 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
When you added a foreign language source to the article I did not revert it and demand that you go to the RS board. -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My request for WP:RSN discussion is not harassment. How can you say such a thing and keep a straight face. Confirmations of reliable and unreliable sources are a building block of Wikipedia. Poeticbent talk 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
See this section.[7] The frequent references in other reliable sources alone prove that it is a reliable source.
Again, it was removed based on what a blog said.[8] This is a dubious reason. How can you defend that? -YMB29 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no stake in this issue. I placed an Alert on you page to make you aware of possible consequences of edit warring in this area. I did it in good faith. The rest is up to you, Poeticbent talk 22:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that, but I was attempting to restore legitimate text, which was removed based on false accusations, and you reverted me twice. -YMB29 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Further on the topic of the removal this apologetic text, I see that it is currently appearing on Rape during the occupation of Germany#Criticism from Russian historians. I guess if it does not belong on Soviet war crimes then it does also not belong there. Or conversely, if it is found to belong on Rape during the occupation of Germany#Criticism from Russian historians then I guess the same text could be added to Soviet war crimes (and in all fairness to the Russians I think that would pretty well exemplify the Russian inability to acknowledge the crimes of their past). Lklundin (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion, but these are reliable sources and their view is significant. Anyway, the text was removed based on a dubious reason (accusation from a blog) and should be restored. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian Central Rada

Twice 1940 - maybe 1943?Xx234 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Xx234. Please explain what you mean by a question mark. The article is a joke. More than half of it has no inline citations. I looked around for confirmation of claims made in it and found nothing. I will try once more, and probably delete most of it. I have already indicated in Talk:Belarusian Central Rada#January 2015 that the unsupported claims exist only on my good faith assumption that they somehow originate from the 1958 (!) book in Spanish ... which is nearly as bad (or worse) as if there was no references at all. Poeticbent talk 14:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that Germans had any talks with Belarusian activists in 1940. It's either 1941 or 1942 or 1943.Xx234 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bronisława Janowska

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Auxiliary Police

There may well be data available, especially if reliability is not a premium, but what you're citing so far is terrible: axishistory is a website run by an amateur historian, which at best collects primary data. What is the point of listing the individual, minor components (of 140 people) that made up the Schutzmannschaft-Brigade Siegling? If you have to cite axishistory or papers from Academia, it's probably not worth citing. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. I see your point about WP:RS guideline, but please look at the author. Per Anders Rudling is an associate professor of the Department of History at Lund University (Sweden). Therefore his paper uploaded at Academia.edu for the ease of access is just a carrier. The same paper can be found at the Romanian Academy Historical Yearbook Vol. VIII, 2011 by Offprint, Bucharest; also reprinted there. Having the battalions listed by dates and numbers enabled me to find books by other authors. We have to start somewhere, and the numbers by themselves in my view cannot be perceived as controversial. Many other articles concerning World War II history have various raw data quoted from Axis History. Personally, I see no "redflag" in it unless controversial claims are made along the way which is not the case. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Poeticbent, thanks for the response. See, I had a look at that Axis history website yesterday, which is cited all over Wikipedia, and I have no faith in it as a reliable source: no peer review, no Ph.Ds, no editorial board. I get your point about Rudling--but he's not automatically reliable because he has a Wikipedia article (which he wouldn't have gotten if it weren't for that one incident, and his "Selected publications" need to be cut from the article), and the fact that his paper is on Academia means something. I know it does, because I just got a paper rejected by a journal--I can put it up on Academia, though, as if nothing ever happened. For the purposes of RS, Academia is simply not acceptable. Petrouchkevitch is a master's thesis--and we typically don't even accept Ph.D. dissertations as reliable sources. Now, you cite Schiessl, and that source is fine--but note that Schiessl does not go into the level of detail that our article does, for one reason or another. RS, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't just mean "cite something reliable"--if information is available in reliable sources it also indicates whether something is worth noting in the first place. The internet is full of factoids, and our policies are meant as a sieve, a tool to separate the wheat from the chaff, which in the case of the Ukraine is of course an apt metaphor which you are free to use anytime. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies. Just like you, I have no faith in Axis website for anything of greater importance. We use it routinely though (often without citing the actual source) for things like NSDAP and the SS card numbers and military ranks of German officers. Many of those entries at Axis however do have sources listed along the way thus making it somewhat more acceptable. I'm inclined to see things on case by case basis with anything. Please tell me, where are the references to Petrouchkevitch and Ukraine by Stephen Rudnicki? Names sound familiar, but where did you get them from, for illustration? A snippet view in Google Books tells me nothing,[9] but I'd like to be aware of any possible issues for the future. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Petrouchkevitch is cited in the article, note 32. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies. I did a little more digging, because the issue of Wendel's reliability was already brought up earlier.[10] I see now that the article is not being singled out, the source is. Please remember, not all our articles are meant to live up to the highest standards of academic inquiry. You're setting the benchmark very high across the board. Meanwhile, Wendel has been acknowledged by other historians for his contributions to the subject, notably by Terence O'Reilly in his Hitler's Irishmen (ISBN 1856355896) and C. M. Vasey in his Nazi Ideology (ISBN 1461685303).[11] [12] Wendel runs The Third Reich Factbook noted for his massive collection of data by Signal webpage devoted to Nazi German Signal (magazine) among others. As far as I'm concerned his featured articles at Axis can be quoted if needed, unless our own Wikipedia:RSN members decide otherwise. Please reconsider, Poeticbent talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ravensbrück concentration camp

I had a question about your most recent edit. I partially reverted it but I am new to WP and I wanted to ask more about it especially as I may be in the wrong. You removed information for being original research, however from what I could tell the information was not original research but rather was lacking a citation. I was able to easily find a citation to support half of what was removed. (I didn't look for a citation for the other half. It looked harder to research and I just have a minute today.) I am wondering when it is appropriate to remove information for being original research and when it is appropriate to use a CN tag instead. Are there guidelines on this? I would have used a CN tag in this instance and I want to make sure I am understanding the WP guidelines. Tripleahg (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kriegslokomotive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilsen. 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) 09:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Poeticbent. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
In appreciation and respect for your consistent ability to remain civil even in the most egregious situations. Your level-headedness and predisposition towards thinking through both the content and discussion of content issues is invaluable to the project. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Barbarossa

Thank you so much for adding the table to the order of battle section. I myself thought it filled up a huge amount of space, but was not aware of any such tables, so I'm very glad you added it. Thanks a bunch, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome, Poeticbent talk 15:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Behaviour of Poeticbent. Thank you. (This is a procedural notice; I have no opinion on the issue.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned you on Lightshow's talk page as you have also implied that he has COI. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Poland redirect

Don't worry about it, you did the right thing. We've parallel discussions at AfD and RfD now but I am sure it will be quickly sorted out. You did the right thing. Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SimonTrew, much obliged. Poeticbent talk 14:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Poland. 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) 09:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madagascar Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist. 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) 09:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Höss

I read your post here. Presumably, you wrote that regarding my edit made here. What are you referring to in your assertion that something was a "blatant piece of lie with a made up source fabricated out of thin air" by me? What specifically are you talking about? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, but next time, please have the courtesy of not quoting statements from before they were revised. Unfortunately, my post in talk resulted from a major confusion inspired by the original text of article published at Holocaust History. Quote: "If there was an attempt by his Polish captors to falsify these memoirs or to have Höss lie, this information would have never appeared. Höss explains (179): "During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip." Clumsy grammar (!) in that paragraph gives the false impression that he was beaten by "his Polish captors." However, our article does not say anything of the sort, and names the British captors corectly. I'm removing my post from the talk as misconstrued. Sorry about that. I hope you can forgive me, Poeticbent talk 18:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I assumed it was a misunderstanding of some sort, and was notified of the initial post you made via the user notification service. No worries... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions

Renata just created this article. You may want to review it and nominate for DYK, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Piotrus, I saw it already. Lot's of impressive work there. Also, the article was long overdue, but I think we need to have a follow-up discussion on the article talk page first, because the content was based solely on a handful of Lithuanian sources; and, not a single English language book was ever used (or even listed in bibliography as if they didn't exist ... but they do). Poeticbent talk 02:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Többens and Schultz

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Opatów Ghetto

Not DYKing it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just looked at the article history for the first time. – No can do. The article was created seven days ago. I don't know how I missed that. Shit happens I guess. Two events contributed: the income tax deadline, and the weekend invitation to a dinner party, no doubt. Poeticbent talk 03:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fotka z Łodzi ?

Witam :) Ta fotka (101 rezerwowy battalion policji) [File:Polizeibataillon 101 in Łódź.jpg] NA PEWNO nie została wykonana w Łodzi. Zostało to stwierdzone kolegialnie przez niewątpliwie wybitnych znawców ikonografii łódzkiej (hiSamstorycznej). Silne typowanie to Poznań, ewentualnie Hamburg. Jedst to do sprawdzenia. Podałeś jako źródło Muzuem Miasta Łodzi... hmmm ... sprawdze, ale żeby aż taki błąd popełnili !? Sam to skorygujesz w oparciu o kontakt z Poznaniem czy Hamburgiem, czy ja mam to zrobic ?? Pozdro AusLodz (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mało to głupot zostało opublikowanych "na zachodzie" dotyczących Polski... Vide ostatnie amerykańskie "polskie obozy koncentracyjne"... No już o "Enigmie" nie wspomnę.... Nie wiem skąd pochodzisz, ale ja już kilkadzisia lat, od urodzenia, miezkam w tym mieście i "od zawsze" interesowała mnie jej historia i zakątki. Takich budynków w Łodzi NA PEWNO nie ma, ale już napiksałem do POznania, żeby spróbowali zidentyfikować miejsce... A jak nie Poznań to będe szukał dalej... To wpisz choćby ..."prawdopodobnie w Łodzi (Liztamnnstadt)", zeby dalej nie ciągnąć tej mylnej z gruntu informacji. AusLodz (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious update

That you are precious is known and still valid ;) - Regarding the talk last year: I looked at the examples and found 2 solved. I listed the others in our record of reverted infoboxes. By now, none of them should be a problem if you replace the unspecified ibox by {{infobox person}} , {{infobox poem}}, {{infobox event}} or whatever suits the case. Feel free to add others, if possible with a link to the diff where an infobox was installed. Feel free to restore, also those you did not mention unless there's an open discussion on the talk, then better discuss (in alphabetical order Bach, Barber, Beethoven, Bizet, Chopin, Gielgud, Leclerc, Le Mesurier, Olivier, Tippett, Yeats, Wagner). After restoring, please change red colour to neutral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • In 2013, the arbs decided that no rulez apply, ibox or not needs "consensus" on every article individually. (Giant waste of time.) There's great belief in the power of the Main contributor to choose a style (as if it was a style). Nikkimaria has now better things to do than reverting, so just return to your versions and see what happens. Look at our list, remembering that it was all red once. Handel, Carmen, Siegfried, - resolved, and more to come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

General Government - many issues

Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the Hague text but later realised the critics [13], so I have removed the text again.
I have corrected a number of errors, but the article is big and my knowledge limited. Xx236 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I am going to be trying to put a bit of mileage in at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114. I'm not sure how long I can manage it - it is my least favorite CCI; it can take me hours to review a single article, and it literally makes my stomach hurt - but it's been sitting there long enough and I have today verified that problems persist. :( Given your expressed interest in the area and experience with working on repairing copyright issues, I just wanted to let you know. There's likely to be some damage. If you want to keep an eye on anything that you feel like patching up after, that would be fantastic. I hope to avoid blanking any of the articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Moonriddengirl. I can see your most recent CCI work in the area of my interest popping up in many articles on my watchlist. The list of entries affected by your investigation is huge; good to see you're at it. Regards, Poeticbent talk 20:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

On pl wikipedia

It may be of interest to you: pl:Wikipedia:Propozycje do Dobrych Artykułów/Władysław Szlengel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Per Anders Rudling - Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism (cover).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Per Anders Rudling - Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism (cover).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. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I just stopped by to check you out after we both made edits to the same article. I ended up reading everything on your userpage. I'm amazed by your work and all the DYK's. Keep editing WP and be happy with your work! Accept this cheese burger from me for all your efforts. —M@sssly✉ 05:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jakub Kagan‎

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
This original barnstar is here as my recognition that those days you are more active here than me. Thank you for carrying the torch, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Stanisława Leszczyńska at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Religion in Poland, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. – Sdino (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Read my reply at Talk:Religion in Poland. Poeticbent talk 23:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

The hops may help you to cool down.  :) JimRenge (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Religion in Poland

Hi, please try to focus on the talk page. Relax, additional reverts (or removal of content) might get you into trouble. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Stanisława Leszczyńska

Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Władysław Dziewulski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rector. 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) 09:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks ready to me

You've done good work with the article and it looks ready for mainspace to me. The main issue raised in the AfDs was that more reliable sources were needed and that is definitely covered well now. I see no reason why it isn't ready to go. Don't forget to also add a link directly into The Holocaust in Ukraine template for it. SilverserenC 03:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

PLADL

Rozumiem, że nie przypadek? [14] (I guess that's not a coincidence?) :-) odder (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:williammacewen

Are you out of your mind? Stop using <font size="250%"> if you don't want to have your page deleted, please. Poeticbent talk 18:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kapuściński article

Is there an explanation of why you chose simply to delete the section on the controversy over the reliability and the supporting references (in contradiction of Wikipedia editing etiquette) rather than amend them? Robma (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grzegorz Motyka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adjunct. 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) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poeticbent/Archive_11&oldid=1146693478"