Jump to content

User talk:Poeticbent/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Treblinka deportations graph

Sorry about not getting this done. I can make a graph based on this source, but since those graphs can be labor intensive, I need to know how the data should be organized. I don't want to put in a lot of effort to make it, then have it be unacceptable.

For example, taking the first data point, we have 199,500 people deported from Warsaw between July 22, 1942 and August 28, 1942. One way to do it would be to split up this 199,500 evenly across all the days during that period. Alternatively, I could combine data from [1] with data from [2] to try and get as fine grained/accurate distribution as possible. Likewise for deportations from Piotrkow Trybunalski, I could split up the 25000 among the 10 days equally. Etc.

Presenting data in graphical form always involves some compromises.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand your dilemma, Volunteer Marek, unfortunately, we don't have enough data to do what you intended to do originally which is to provide a day-by-day statistics of the number of trains "processed" at Treblinka extending until November 1942. Such daily numbers simply are not on record. — You have two choices, either shorten the duration of your graph to show only what we know for sure on day-to-day basis which is the Grossaktion Warsaw (1942) between July 23, 1942 and September 21, 1942 (the last transport sent to Treblinka from the Polish capital) and name it "Graphs showing deportations to Treblinka death camp during Grossaktion Warsaw, July 23, 1942 until September 21, 1942"... or, if you don't feel like it, change the graph style entirely to show "volumes" not "days", with major points of departure according to Jewishgen, i.e.: 1). "District of Warsaw", 2). "District of Radom", 3). "District of Lublin" (with only selected ghettos and/or regions, i.e. Warsaw Ghetto, Bezirk Bialystok, Radom Ghetto, Belgium, Częstochowa Ghetto, etc.) in a sliced circle (example 1), (example 2). Personally I prefer that you show only Grossaktion Warsaw (1942) "day-by-day" because it is referenced at the source, that's it. — I hope this helps. Poeticbent talk 21:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Something like this?

This is preliminary, info can be added to the graph and the style adjusted. Just wanted to make sure this is what you had in mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Volunteer Marek. This is exactly what I had in mind. It looks good, but if you want to improve on it, make the white title bigger. There's plenty of black space on either side and immediately below it. And please bold the totals from 0 to 14,000 with the comma. The numbers on the left are unrecognizable at such a small size and therefore are counterintuitive. Poeticbent talk 05:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the plan. Just wanted to make sure it's what you're looking for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
How about now?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Much better already, Volunteer Marek. Now, please remove the 16000 on the left as unnecessary and do something about the overlapping numbers on August 2nd, which seem completely unreadable right now, especially (what looks like) the 3008000 including the next three ones. Thanks a million, Poeticbent talk 06:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — And keep the resolution higher like before (236 KB), or even higher than that. Poeticbent talk 06:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for trying to improve My image, I appreciate it, sadly others don't. Regards, WCMemail 22:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pińsk Ghetto

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BA undue weight tag

Just want to note that the last paragraph in the BA Introduction section was also disputed, and the first paragraph in the Controversies section was also questioned for its opinion based text. So, moving the undue weight tab back to the top would perhaps highlight all the issues on the page. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not flag the entire article. The real issues are very specific. Use inline templates instead if you want, but only where they might be considered relevant, so as to alert the reader to exact paragraphs that have been challenged. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazi crimes against the Polish nation

Ok I deleted the duplicated material, however I cleaned up the lede which had statistical data which was poorly sourced and incorrect. In any case there should be no dispute using the IPN figures.[POLSKA 1939-1945 STRATY OSOBOWE I OFIARY REPRESJI POD DWIEMA OKUPACJAMI. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking good. Poeticbent talk 17:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We need to on the same page with the IPN when it comes to the numbers, otherwise the credibility of the entire article goes down the tubes. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the help with the Polish translations, my Polish is just so-so. If you know of a Polish editor in NYC, have them drop me a line.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Woogie10w. I got your quick mail already but I don't know anybody there in NYC. I am going to look into that article again later. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Please help me to understand the Polish in this passage. Do tych strat należy doliczyć ponad 100 tys. Polaków pomordowanych w latach 1942-1945 przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich w tym na samym Wołyniu ok. 60 tys. osób' I believe that it is saying that the 100,000 are not included in the figures and that 60,000 in Volinya are included in this figure of 100,000. Please let me know if this is correct?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct Woogie10w. It says exactly: "To these losses one needs to add over 100,000 Poles murdered in 1942–45 by the Ukrainian nationalists including 60,000 in Volhynia alone." – The reason why such great number of victims was withdrawn from these statistics is because the murders were not state-sponsored like the rest. Ukraine did not exist yet and the perpetrators came from a "grey zone" of either Soviet or nominally Polish citizenry by prewar standards. Some of them went back to Poland after the war ended.[3] The true nature of the beast... Poeticbent talk 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
— The issue of identity during genocidal conflict brings about some incredible moral dilemas. For example, the Tutsi and the Hutu peoples of Rwanda actually spoke the same language. In the the 1994 Rwandan Genocide an estimated 500,000 to 1 million Tutsi were killed by the Hutus. We cannot however deny either of them their identity as members of the same society. Conversely, we cannot deny anyone born and raised in the interwar Poland their place of origin. Not only Poles and Ukrainians but also Jews and Germans lived there. Were they Polish? Are the Scots British? Even though the foreign invaders did most of the extrajudicial killings, there was the Polissian Sich on the one hand and Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz on the other. That's where we draw the line. Poeticbent talk 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I am a retired old man with grey hair. Forty four years ago while visiting Germany I was the guest of a German from pre-war Poland. He spoke perfect Polish. During the war he was an SS officer commanding Russian troops in the 1944 battle of Warsaw. Later that summer I visited Warsaw Poland. I came home a different person.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I am glad you are looking at the page, Polish is not my native language. On Wikipedia I edit articles relating to casualties since I have experience working as an accountant for over 30 years. My goal is to post to Wikipedia the details of the statistical data from the various reliable secondary sources, published government reports ect. I try to avoid posting single solitary figures taken from tertiary sources that attempt to push a POV, web pages and politicians ect. If there reliable secondary sources that are in conflict, I strive to faithfully post the details of the numbers without any analysis of my own. I never try to determine on Wikipedia the "correct" figures. However, off Wiki I can offer my analysis --Woogie10w (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Woogie10w. You might find my latest DYK about Sonderdienst somewhat relevant. All best, Poeticbent talk 04:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army article

Hello, I have made some changes to the BA article, if possible please add the page to your watch list to monitor for possible changes that may display POV. --COD T 3 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sonderdienst

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Podpis pod zdjęciem

Ryszard, kapitalna praca z artykułem o Treblince, jedna uwaga na gorąco: podpis pod zdjęciem (..) Inscriptions indicate places of Holocaust train departures with at least 5,000 victims jest niestety nieścisły' Upamiętnione zostały także miejscowości, których przedwojenne żydowskie społeczności były mniej liczne niż 5,000. Napisów na kamieniach jest obecnie bodajże 216, z tego z terenu Polski 197, masz je również wymienione w muzeum tutaj. Popatrz na te nazwy i porównaj ich przedwojenną ludność. Niektóre z nich to duże wsie. Po drugie, wiele z nich nie miało połączeń kolejowych. Żydzi byli spędzani na najbliższe stacje kolejowe z kilku miejscowości naraz, albo do obozów transferowych, jak w Bezirk Białystok (o ile pamiętam były ich trzy). Podstawiane pociągi rzeczywiście zwyczajowo liczyły 50-60 wagonów, po 100 osób w wagonie, stąd pewnie ta liczba. Ale byli w nich ludzie czesto z kilku i więcej miasteczek i wsi. Pozdrawiam serdecznie. Boston9 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dopiero teraz przeczytałem te uwagi do artykułu. Widziałem zdjęcie Umschlagplatzu w źródłach polskich (bodajże wczesne, powojenne wydawnictwo ŻIH), które kwalifikują je także do PD-Polish, ale ponieważ było juz tyle źródeł, to nie dopisywałem. Spróbuję odnaleźć dla pewności. Kończąc sprawę powyżej: z miejscowości, z której pochodzi w 1/2 moja rodzina, w Treblince zginęło ok. 1300 Żydów. Ale jak dziesiątki innych, także ona ma swój kamień z inskrypcją w Treblince. Raz jeszcze – powodzenia. Boston9 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Polish Righteous Among the Nations

Hi. In this edit of Polish Righteous Among the Nations, you changed:

In some cases, Jews were saved by the entire communities...

to:

In numerous instances, Jews were saved by the entire communities...

stating:

please do not interpret data in a contradictory manner

The original language was just:

Jews were saved by the entire communities...

with no qualifier, implying this was always the case, which is in conflict with the sources and reality, which is why I changed it. Your edit might imply somewhat more cases than mine, which may or may not be correct, but I don't understand how mine could be considered (incorrectly) contradictory of something when yours is not. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally. For the benefit of our readers, I changed the qualifier you chose yourself, to reflect not only the content of one paragraph, but also the content of the article linked (or piped) in the same sentence: Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust which includes the table naming one hundred and sixty settlements where the Jews are known to have been saved by entire communities. The list of communities is well referenced. Perhaps you would like to further expand the aforementioned statement, to better reflect that fact. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 15:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
My point was that the reason for my edit was that the previous language implied that all settlements were like this, which they unfortunately were not, which is why I used the qualifier "some", which is purposefully as vague as the information available. Do we know if 160 represents 10% or 100% of the instances? How many settlements were there at the time (i.e. in how many cases did they not entirely participate)? If the ratio of the two is 1:50, I think you can agree that "a few" would be a better characterization, while, if it is 5:1, "a vast majority" would be better. I do think that your "numerous" implies a "significant" number, which may (or may not) be overstating things. With all due respect for every single person who helped, of course (some of whom saved my own relatives). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the kind of debate that has been going on among professional historians for more than fifty years. I am not in position to help you. Oftentimes the quantitative techniques stir controversy due to selective evidence and preconceived notions. I don't know which group you belong to and that's OK. Your choice of "some" was inappropriate because "some" can also mean "not much"... More importantly, the use of "some" is expressly discouraged in Wikipedia by policy/guidelines which you may or may not be aware of. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Neither group, really, and I try very hard to not involve any personal feelings on the subject, other than to get it (perhaps painstakingly) right. I think we just disagree on the neutrality of the word "some", or maybe whether a neutral word is correct choice. If you're talking about the policies at WP:VAGUE#Expressions that lack precision, I am aware (though I can't find specifics regarding proportion descriptions therein – it must be somewhere else). However, I think this is a circumstance where the article as currently cited and written is vague as to the relative number of instances (i.e. 160 out of how many total settlements), requiring a vague adjective. If a reliable source is found to characterize the number differently, I'm all for repeating what they wrote. Ideally, it would read something like "in over 160 of the estimated 800 settlements in Poland, almost every resident was involved..." I ack that this is a nit-picky thing, and could easily drop it here. I wouldn't have noticed it at all, except I was doing some other work on the page and thought the existing language seemed awkward. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Harvard errors in Treblinka extermination camp

It looks like Treblinka might finally get promoted, maybe by the end of the month or so. Anyway, I've installed Ucucha's Harvard-error finding script, and there's four Harvard errors in the "References" section. That doesn't necessarily mean that something's wrong; it might just mean that those sources weren't used to cite any specific information in the article.

You can learn more about Ucucha's script at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors; it has directions on how to install it, if you want to and haven't already done so. The page states the reason why the four "errors" aren't necessarily a problem:

The check for citations that have no links pointing to them is prone to false positives, because citations do not always need to have such links. For example, the citation may be in a "Further reading" section or Harvard citations are not used in an article.

The four "errors" are as follows:

1. Glazar, Richard (1999). Trap with a Green Fence: Survival in Treblinka (Google Books preview). Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 978-0-8101-1169-1. Retrieved 8 September 2013. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGlazar1999.
2. Lanzmann, Claude (2011), Shoah (Google Books), Sue Vice, London: British Film Institute, ISBN 1-84457-325-7, retrieved 8 September 2013 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLanzmann2011.
3. The Encyclopedia Americana (1999), Treblinka, Pennsylvania State University: Grolier Incorporated, p. 499, ISBN 0-7172-0131-7, retrieved 8 September 2013 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFThe_Encyclopedia_Americana1999.
4. Yad Vashem, "History of Treblinka", This Month in Holocaust History – Resources (The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority), retrieved 10 November 2013 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFYad_Vashem.

Anyway, did you intend for some sources in the "References" section to not have any corresponding inline citations in the body of the article? If so, should we move them into a "Further reading" section or the existing "External links" section? AmericanLemming (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please move these unused refs to "Further reading". Lanzmann isn't of any use anyway, but Glazar is mentioned in the article as an author, so his book might as well be listed there for the record. Glad to hear that the FA nom seems to be working. Poeticbent talk 02:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Hello, is there a way to confirm IP source for the two users who added all the controversial material, in Controversies of the Polish–Soviet War, and Blue Army (Poland). Also, regarding the text can we add a line form

  • In Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War on page 25 we can find this statement: "their ordeal [Jewish casualties caused by BA] could not be equated with the raw genocide committed by Petliura's and Denikin's armies in the eastern "integral" Ukraine".
  • In Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43, historian Norman Davies is quoted, that Jewish casualties were "minimal" during the war, questioned whether the term "pogrom" was properly applied to the events in question (when an even larger amount of Ukrainian civilians were killed then Jews), and a figure of about 400-500 actual casualties is provided; (in contrast to the 25,000 to 50,000 jewish casualties caused by the Ukrainian army commanded by Symon Petliura, during the same time).

These are secondary sources, and provide a numeric definition of who did what, as the article stands now, the Poles are listed as the primary aggressors, yet in reality they actually were responsible for the least amount of casualties. --COD T 3 (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pinedo

I think the issue with the image is when you blow the size up, it looks better slightly smaller. Any objection to sticking with the smaller size? WCMemail 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wee Curry Monster. I'll be happy to see you improve on it. I've done my best already. Poeticbent talk 12:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Polonia Palace Hotel

Hi, you sent a message regarding Polonia Palace content. Please let me know which informations have you found as a conflict? All content is coinfirmed with official documents about Polonia Palace Hote: Polonia Palace Hotel Monograph, polish newspaper Kurier Wartszawski, official official websites. You can also confirm it on official Warsawe Office websites like http://www.warszawa1939.pl/index.php?r1=jerozolimskie_39&r3=0 and many more official city documents. Please let me know which content, in your opinion, seem to be doubtful? BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Polonia (talk • contribs) 09:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Poeticbent. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trami

The intended target of Trawnikis is section "Camp operation", the section where the term is introduced. Are you telling me that the WP:ANCHOR/{{anchor}} syntax is broken? I've been using it for quite some time at different browsers without problems.

Anyway, when I started messing with these redirects, my intention was to split Trawniki men into a separate article, since this is a pretty much independent subject: Trawnikis were trained in TCC, but operated in in many places. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Staszek Lem. Firstly, I don't like the idea of splitting the "Trawnikis" from the camp, although I don't mind you writing a separate article with a lot more data from reliable third-party sources and than perhaps trimming the camp article ever so slightly. Secondly, the {{anchor}} template does not work in all browsers contrary to what you say, and it certainly does not work in my version of Internet Explorer. Please don't use it. Make redirects to section titles instead. They work always. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok with anchor. However about "ever so slightly" I slightly disagree. Of course, I am not going to remove the whole Trawnikis text. There is WP:SUMMARY guideleine to follow. Still, the section "Known names of Trawnikis serving at death camps" definitely to be moved out completely. I do agree that significant text must be kept, since training of Wachmänner was one of two major functions of the camp. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Staszek Lem. I agree with you that the "Known names of Trawnikis serving at death camps" would be a perfect supplement to a new article, but the new article would have to say a lot more about the attrocities committed to be justified. The info as it stands is based on only two sources, Browning's book and H.E.A.R.T. webpage. A lot more can be found I'm sure. Poeticbent talk 01:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Market Square in Wrocław

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted my edit of adding a historic photo of the market square in Wrocław and said that it's because it's nearly identical to the picture in the info box. The picture in the info box is of the square in modern times. The one I added is a featured image of the historical square in 1900, before Wrocław suffered severe bombing and destruction during World War II. There's a high encyclopedic value to showing that despite the destruction that Wrocław suffered during the war, efforts at restoring, rebuilding and preserving the city have brought back historical sites to their original look. I hope you understand why including a historical image adds significantly the article.

Best,

--AutoGyro (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PS. The main value comes from giving the reader the opportunity of comparing how the square looked 100 years ago versus today. That was my main interest, and the reason why I added the image.

PPS. Also, the article discusses the history of the square, however there were no historical images of the square included in the article, which is another encyclopedic value of the historical image

PPPS. Here's a cute kitten ^_^ Yay for kitties!

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hitler's Willing Executioners may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Daniel [http://www.h-net.org/~german/discuss/goldhagen/gold9.html "The Evil of Banality" (excerpts from Goldhagen's Review, H-NET List on German History.] Originally in ''The New Republic'',

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Józefów, Biłgoraj County may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 20300/Jozefow_eng.pdf “Jozefow, Poland”] (PDF file, direct download) accessed February 29, 2012), p.20.</ref> The Jewish Cemetery, dating back to the early 18th century, was partially destroyed

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reserve Police Battalion 101, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radzyń (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) 08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bronna Góra

Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see it as being objectionable myself, and the article does use the word "processed". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit regarding EE/CE at Poland

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit at Poland. I want to point out that I was inspired by how they handled things at Switzerland, so perhaps you should let them know that they're breaking the rules too (they probably have no idea just like I didn't know). Since I put a lot of effort into researching, writing and sourcing this, I hope you know that I did not intend to break any rules and was just aiming to improve the state of things at the article for Poland. Much of the content related to this country is poorly written and without sources (once even when it was sourced, I've seen someone alter a quote to change its meaning), much of it seems to have a political agenda or aims to promote Poland as if it was the centre of the world. This makes it seem like propaganda or a tourist information brochure - sometimes both at the same time. In this case, it's just an example of pushing a single point of view regarding a controversial topic (Poland being in Eastern or Central Europe). As such, I wanted to show more than just that point of view (the "Eastern" view is actually severely underrepresented on Wikipedia). I would appreciate it if you could help me change the article for Poland to reflect this in a way that doesn't break the rules. I've tried much simpler techniques to get this done several months ago, but whenever and whatever I tried, someone always kept reverting my edits (usually without an explanation) even when consensus was reached at the talk page. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've found a better way of doing this without self-referencing. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the same person who used to be part of the gang that opposed all of my edits has already reverted my change. If you knew the history behind me and Powertranz then, like me, you'd probably think that at this point he is trolling. Can you please help me with this guy? It's impossible to achieve anything and I believe he was never penalized for the edit warring he loves to do. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Samotny Wędrowiec. I think you need to be reminded right now that your account was restored by JamesBWatson from having been blocked indefinitely on the condition that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:STICK and act accordinly. I'm afraid you don't appreciate enough the courtesy extended to you. Please refrain from further edit-warring. Poeticbent talk 21:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand and that's why I took things to the talk page for Poland again (which will probably end in more inaction on the part of admins). But I don't understand why you are referring to what I'm doing as edit-warring whilst you turn the other way when we speak of Powertranz or those other people who have been breaking rules. Why aren't you going to him and warning him? This is injustice at its finest. Is he your friend or do you support his POV pushing? This is beyond ridiculous. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
If you don't like my friendly suggestions you should get going, because I mean well. I have been listening to you. I know what the best course of action is based on experience. You've been reverted by multiple users. It's a fact. Perhaps there is a reason for it. Poeticbent talk 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
A friendly suggestion and an accusation are two completely different things. If you mean well, then why are you instantly accusing me of things after I've turned to you for help? I am not trying to start an argument - I simply do not understand why users like Powertranz always get their way regardless of how many rules they break. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Museum, Kraków, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamienica. 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) 10:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Poland peer review

I welcome any constructive input. Orczar (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Orczar. The first thing I noticed, is that the wp:lede does not summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Please read what the guideline says about the lead section of a Wikipedia article in WP:MOSINTRO. Quote: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This might require some effort, but it needs to be done. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 06:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I just started working on this article because Piotrus suggested it needed to be rewritten. I'm nowhere close to being done with the content, referencing, organizing etc. I'll get to the lede, but I have not produced the material to summarize yet. The article is at a temporary stage. Orczar (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you make it easier on yourself Orczar and borrow from the leads of each major sister article already written. This way, you would be summarising not just one article, but a block of relevant articles listed in Category:History of Poland (1939–45). All of them were written under a single banner of History of Poland (1939–45). This includes Invasion of Poland, Occupation of Poland (1939–45), War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II, Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union, The Holocaust in occupied Poland, Rape during the liberation of Poland etcetera. Good luck with it, Poeticbent talk 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ...I R'n'B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish. 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) 08:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Reserve Police Battalion 101

The DYK project (nominate) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Image added to article you removed

With regards to you removing my edit under the belief that it is not related to the article. May I ask, how is it not?

Although sexual relations with all Poles was not prohibited, it was prohibited for Polish workers and this image shows one of many Poles being charged with the crime of having sexual relations with Germans.--Policja (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note this is a sock of User:English Patriot Man and is now blocked. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

New "Death count" section for Treblinka

Hello there, Poeticbent. I recently overhauled the entire "Death count" section, putting all of the estimates into a table and then mentioning only the most important ones in the prose in chronological order. I also revamped the "Camp after the uprising" subsection, which is where I put all of the information from the last paragraph of the "Death count" section, since it didn't seem to fit very well there.

I managed to keep almost all of the information that you've added over time to the "Death count" section; I just organized it in a more-reader friendly manner. Anyway, with all of the copying, pasting, and rewording that went on, I'm a little worried that I've made some typos and/or factual errors here and there. Do you think you could reread the "Camp after the uprising" subsection and the "Death count" section to double-check my work? I'm especially concerned with anything I say about any Polish historians, since some things may have been lost in translation.

I'm glad to see you're still editing and writing new articles; we need some people to write a lot of decent-quality articles (like you) and some people to write a few really high-quality articles (like me). Don't feel obliged to help me out; either way, the FAC reviewers will find any mistakes, typos, or inconsistencies that you don't. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AmericanLemming. I just re-read the Treblinka article for the second time after your overhaul of "Death count." The new table looks good, the extra effort you put into it really paid off. My only comments are about the revisions you made to the "Camp after the uprising" versus the "Arrival of the Soviets" sections, and the resulting disturbance in the natural progression of thought. The Soviets arrived first, the actual estimations of the number of victims followed therefore they should be switched. Also, the paragraphs about the German withdrawal have been moved right above "Operational command", to the bottom of the "Camp after the uprising" section although the withdrawal took place a year after the camp closure. It used to serve as an intro to the liberation of the camp including the new farmhouse set on fire by its new occupant who fled to avoid capture. All this happened immediately before the Soviet arrival, and it would read a lot better if it was returned where it used to be. Generally, the article is in a pretty good shape already. Your new "Table of estimates" could use a short opening paragraph explaining why the estimates are so plentiful ... if you could only find a source shedding some light on it; and don't forget to include Timothy Snyder in a separate slot of your table, because he was not the only one who repeated someone else's total, so did Yad Vashem and others. Thanks for the work you put into this entry. I'm glad I run into you to start with. Poeticbent talk 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll start working on some of the issues you've raised above later this week when I have more time. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Please take your time, AmericanLemming. You might also be interested in checking out the (above) thread at User talk:Poeticbent#New photos from Treblinka. There's one more source for the 800,000 estimate from 1961, not quite resolved yet in out talk. See: Google Books preview (snippet). Here's the link to Google Books description of the Polish edition from 1962. Poeticbent talk 14:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

New photos from Treblinka

Hi Poeticbent, I have just uploaded a few photos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 from a new source. I thought you might be interested. Boston9 (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Boston9. It's good to have these images at our disposal. Thanks for letting me know. I haven't read the book Treblinka by J. Gumkowski, A. Rutkowski but if you did, please let me know if there was an estimate of the number of victims in it. It's quite relevant now, with the new table just added to the article in English. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 14:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is more a brochure or an album, 90% of the content is photographs and documents. I would not use it as a source in the article. But is says: (...) The Nazi exterminantion camp in Treblinka swallowed up about 800,000 victims (...). Boston9 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I see. Thanks, Adrian. The Museum says the same thing of course. The only notable fact is that the book Treblinka by Janusz Gumkowski and Adam Rutkowski was published in 1961: first edition, Council for Protection of Fight and Martyrdom Monuments, Warsaw ASIN B004D0MT0M, a few years before the Monument was erected at the site. Second edition: 1963, OCLC 255338060. Third edition: 1980, ASIN B00GJKQG2G (featuring snapshot of the book cover). Please tell me. Does it say where the estimate of 800,000 victims come from? Poeticbent talk 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bibliographic information for the Polish edition from 1962
Title          Treblinka: Opracowali teksty historyczne oraz wybór dokumentów archiwalnych i fotografii J. Gumkowski i A. Rutkowski.
                 Wstępy: St. Poznański. Opracowanie graficzne : T. Babicz...
Authors      Adam Rutkowski, Janusz Gumkowski, Stanisław Poznański
Editor         Rada ochrony pomników walki i męczeństwa (Varsovie)
Publisher     Rada ochrony pomników walki i meczeństwa, 1962
Length         56 pages

(Google Books)
I do not why, but the National Library says it was published in 1962. No, i does not, simply mentiones this figure twice (...) This paper depicts one of those dots on the death of map. This dot marks the grave of 800 thousand people who died in gas chambers (...). Anyway, it was published by the state i.e. Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa, so I am sure this figure had been researched. I this that this brochure was also partly used to attract donations from abroad, as my copy has a big red stamp: "If you wish to contribute to the erection oof the Mausoleum for the memory of the victims of Treblinka, payments may be effected to the Bank Polska Kasa Opieki...." Boston9 (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Galicia page move

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. --hmich176 10:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Monowitz concentration camp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • sentenced to life in prison in 1953 for murder of prisoners (pardoned in 1971, died in 1980).<ref>[http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/organisationsstruktur_und_kommandantur_en ''
  • Should the Allies Have Attempted It? USHCM Michael J. Neufeld (Editor), Michael Berenbaum (Editor Publisher: St Martins Pr; 1 edition (August 2000) Language: English ISBN 0312198388 ISBN 978-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johannes Hevelius may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ', Wydawnictwo Polskie, page 46, 1937.</ref> after 1945 renamed as Piwna Street (Beer Street)),<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://books.google.de/books?id=LMuuwvSxrj4C&printsec=frontcover#v=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Holocaust Kingdom by Alexander Donat (cover).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Holocaust Kingdom by Alexander Donat (cover).jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Voivodeship (Poland) question

I noticed that you removed all images and information regarding the marshals of the voivodeships, claiming that it was political advertising. I would like to know the reasoning behind this edit, as other pages regarding the States of Germany, the Autonomous communities of Spain, the Provinces and territories of Canada, or the States of Austria (just to name a few) all clearly show who are their respective minister-presidents, premiers or ruling coalitions. Is it a fair question to ask why we are allowed to see the governing parties or personalities in those sub-national entities, and not those of the voivodeships? My earlier edit was not meant to show party preference, but only to show the current political reality before local elections this year. This is just a friendly question, and in no way is meant to be hostile. Miles530 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Miles530. Thanks for contacting me about this. I checked the articles above. The only one with photographs and names of Heads is the States of Germany article. That's it... The Heads, and the States, are not inherently synonymous with each other. The people come and go although the regions remain as they were. I guess that's why the Autonomous communities of Spain article or the Provinces and territories of Canada both have separate tables added for the Current provincial/territorial governments (with a defined date in the case of Canada). I would not object to a separate table like that. The German article suffers from the same problem as the Voivodeship (Poland) in your original edit. The much elongated table does not fit on a standard computer screen. To rehash, the List of Voivodeships in my view should be left alone. It serves a different purpose from the list of political parties and current elected Marhalls who are not the "rulers" of any Imperial States for life. Therefore you're free to create a separate table for them. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Poeticbent, that makes much more sense to me now. I appreciate all of your hard work and efforts. Miles530 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion at Geography of Poland

I would like you to provide a reasonable explanation for why you have deleted part of the Eastern or Central Europe? section of the Geography of Poland article. It was an introductory segment that was completely neutral and consisted of established facts, rather than different points of view that need sources. Europe and its subregions are social constructs; there is no one wholly accepted definition; all words carry certain connotations (e.g. the adjective "Eastern" carries negative connotations for you so you don't want your country associated with it); there are many different maps of Europe - these are all facts that are obvious common knowledge. What surprises me is that the majority of that article lacks sources, containing numbers that need proof and more, yet you decided to delete this part of the article rather than the three quarters of it that are unsourced? Did you do delete it in "retaliation" after I reverted your opinion? There is no need, unless you are holding a grudge against me. I don't understand why you're trying to start another edit war. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marian Lutosławski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel. 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) 09:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marian Lutosławski may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • – projekt elektrowni napędzanej silnikiem spalinowym Diesla dla zespołu hotelu Bristol w Warszawie (''English:'' 1900 – first [[electric generator]] design with [[Diesel engine]] for [[Hotel Bristol,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Marian Lutosławski

Hello! Your submission of Marian Lutosławski at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki kitten is here to thank you for your steady production of well-formatted Polish-themed articles :)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poeticbent/Archive_9&oldid=1138927008"