User talk:Poeticbent/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Raport o stanie zachowania Miejsca Pamięci w Treblince w roku 2013

Cześć, widzę, że cały czas pracujesz nad artykułem. Na pewno dobrze znasz ten raport, ale podsyłam link na wszelki wypadek, gdybyś chciał uzupełnić sekcję o topografii i stanie obecnym obydwu obozów. Boston9 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link to Treblinka 2013 Report. I was not aware of it. — Na marginesie, nie mam żadnego kontaktu z działaniami i planami Muzeum i wbrew pozorom, nie śledzę ich publikacji w Internecie. Dlatego każda informacja na ten temat jest bardzo mile widziana. Patrzę na historię obozu z bardzo dalekiej perspektywy i siłą rzeczy, koncentruję się na tym co napisano na jego temat za granicą. Ubolewam nad trudnościami finansowymi z jakim boryka się Muzeum. Osobiście nigdy w Treblince nie byłem a w ogóle, w kraju byłem tylko cztery razy od stanu wojennego. Nie rozumiem dlaczego pozwolono Treblince II kompletnie zarosnąć drzewami. Gdyby je wyciąć i sprzedać, to może brakujących pieniędzy by przybyło. Moim zdaniem, drzewa w obozie powinny pozostać tylko tam gdzie rosły one w 1944 roku. Jest zdjęcie lotnicze do wglądu. Proszę, bądź w kontakcie. Pozdrawiam serdecznie, Poeticbent talk 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Musisz tu kiedyś przyjechać. Dla wielu – w tym dla mnie – Treblinka bardziej poruszającym emocjonalnie miejscem, niż Auschwitz. Coś zupełnie niewyobrażalnego i nierzeczywistego. Cicha polana otoczona lasem. I milion ludzi wymordowany na tak niewielkiej przestrzeni. W tym wszyscy żydowscy znajomi i przyjaciele mojej rodziny. Pamiętam, o Twojej prośbie dotyczącej biogramu p. Edwarda. Mam nadzieję, że w 2014 spotkam go osobiście, i wtedy przekażę Ci informację zwrotną i jego zdjęcie. Dzięki za cała świetną robotę, jaką robisz dla Polski na en-Wiki. Powodzenia! Boston9 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Persondata on biographies is a must

Hi again, you're still forgetting to add in the persondata on the articles that you create. Please add it in when you have the chance.Hoops gza (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of your articles are missing it still, and it makes more sense for you to add it in on those because you know all the facts in your head. Happy New Year to you too!Hoops gza (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Renominating Treblinka

Hello there, and happy New Year to you! Once you finish addressing the 10-15 remaining comments of mine in the next week or two, I'd imagine that you're going to renominate the article at FAC. With renominating it, I would be happy to be a co-nominator if you'd like that. Either way, I'm going to offer my immediate support on the basis on prose and comprehensiveness, and I will follow the FAC review page closely. I may even help address some of the comments other reviewers bring up.

Also, once it's a FA, I think we should get it on the main page, because we've put a lot of work into it and, more importantly, it is the sort of thing that should be on the main page. I've probably spent at least 40-50 hours working on the article with you, and I imagine you've spent about that much time on it yourself.

Lastly, I wanted to let you know that I've greatly appreciated collaborating with you on Treblinka, not to mention the fact that you don't seem to mind that I copy-edit every change you make to the article and list dozens of comments for you to address. :) I think we'll have something to be proud of when we're done: a well-written article on an important topic with excellent sourcing. However, I do want to let you know that I don't plan on helping you get another article to FA status anytime soon; the whole process has been pretty draining, and I think I need a break from this kind of long-term, intensive collaboration on a major topic. (I imagine you probably feel the same way.) I'll probably stick to fixing typos and doing minor copyedits after Treblinka is all taken care of, but we'll see. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Happy New Year to you too! I think the best approach would be to ask the past reviewers to look it over again before re-nomination, per Ian Rose's suggestion (Squeamish Ossifrage, John, Cas Liber, Hamiltonstone, etc.). Let them know that all their concerns have been addressed in full after the nomination has been archived. BTW, I'd be delighted to have you as the new FAC co-nominator. I agree the process has been draining, but Treblinka gave me a more profound reason for reaching above and beyond personal limitations. I hope you can relate to that as well. Poeticbent talk 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Asking the past reviewers to revisit the article before renomination is probably a good idea, I suppose. Anyway, my non-Wikipedian family member finished reading the article, and the only thing she found that needed fixing was "Soon later the new home was set on fire by its new occupant who also fled to avoid capture", which I have changed to "A short time later...". Once you finish addressing the rest of my comments, then we can have the past reviewers look at it, address any remaining concerns they have before nomination, renominate the article, address any concerns reviewers bring up on the FAC review page, get the shiny gold star in the upper right-hand corner, and then get it on the main page! :) AmericanLemming (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiCup

I'd like to invite you to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2014 signups. The more the merrier! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles on Tropsztyn and Niedzica

I would like to bring something to your attention. Both articles claim that a supposed Inca treasure is hidden at that castle. I think Niedzica is correct, but I didn't feel like editing either article. I hope it was okay to put the same inquiry in the talk page of each article. I didn't get any response to either inquiry. Thanks. 99.9.112.31 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)NotWillDecker

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kazimierz Orlik-Łukoski, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Katyń and Piatykhatky (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) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kielce Bus Station

I think you may enjoy reviewing this (and perhaps contributing more the article?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Poeticbent talk 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World War II crimes in occupied Poland

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article World War II crimes in occupied Poland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarcusBritish -- MarcusBritish (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, PoeticBent. I see that you have an article being reviewed at GA status. Since you're almost done addressing my comments, I'm fine if we don't ask the FAC reviewers to take a pre-renomination look at the Treblinka until the GA review is finished. There's no hurry getting the article up to FA status, we'll probably try to have it on the main page on 22 or 23 July (when Treblinka II began operation) or on 2 August (the date of the prisoner uprising). It looks like this GA review might take a lot of your time; I may pop over there and help you address some of the concerns MarcusBritish has brought up. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, AmericanLemming, your offer is much appreciated. The new GAN review announcement from MarcusBritish for which I'm immensely grateful of course, refers to nomination that has been sitting on the waiting list for quite some time already. I think it's wonderful that our work on the FAC update is almost finished at a roughly the same time. We have a few days to wrap up things at Treblinka, but you know how hard it is to get someone like MarcusBritish commit themselves to a difficult subject. Please tell what your preference is, but I thought that perhaps you'd be interested in doing us both the honor of formal re-nomination of Treblinka; a fresh new start, so to speak. Poeticbent talk 07:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm afraid I am being very picky with this article, I've received a few GA reviews but never performed one, but I do respect attaining high-standards. I realise it is a subject area that attracts a lot of attention, and can be very controversial. I'm surprised no one picked up this GAN since last October. I'm entering this topic area having never edited in it, so I'm fairly impartial. I'll try to pick up on anything doesn't fit right in the context of the prose, as well as typical things such as MOS standards, wikilinks, etc. It would be quicker for me to correct half these things myself than point them out, but I'd rather stay uninvolved in the article's development so that I can review it objectively. I may perform the odd copy-edit towards the close of the review, should there be any lose-ends. Don't feel there is any rush to correct things, I'm in no rush.. if this GAR takes a month, or more, so be it. Feel free to check off anything I list on the GAR page with {{done}} so I can monitor each concern and the progress point by point. Please don't worry yourself about how difficult it is to keep me committed.. once I set my mind on something I try my best to see it through. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, MarcusBritish, will do. Glad to have you on board, Poeticbent talk 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've finished my preliminary read-through.. only took 8 hours! *rolls tired eyes* – The comments I've left don't cover any of the GA criteria specifically, but will apply to it for the most part. Once those initial concerns have been addressed and the article appears more stable and productive, because there are currently a few readability concerns, I'll refer to the criteria itself and see if there are any remaining issues. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I checked whether GA reviewers can edit articles they're reviewing and it seems they can, so I've gone ahead and performed a lot of what mostly compromises of non-controversial copy-edits, MOS tweaks and such, as well as a few edits that improve the neutrality of the prose where POV is clearly unbalanced. I'm leaving any suggestions I made that relate more to content issues as I'm not familiar with the sources or the history of some of the events detailed, that will need you to look into them. If it appears I've changed too much we can always request a second opinion at GAR later on, but what I've done in copy-edits should save you a lot of time and trouble. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks MarcusBritish, you did a tremendous ammount of good work there. I intend to start addressing your comments tomorrow one by one. It might be slower in the beginning, so please bear with me, Poeticbent talk 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Some additional clarity in War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II#German pacifications of Polish settlements to reflect the operational differences between the General Government vs the directly "annexed" areas. I started putting some referenced bits in, but the flow of the section needs some additional thought. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will follow up on it. Poeticbent talk 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II

Hello, Poeticbent. I see that you are engaged in a bitter dispute with MarcusBritish over his review of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. Although he has said some unkind things to you, you have also said some unkind things to him. I have asked for immediate mediation by uninvolved editors, and I ask that you would please refrain from personal attacks. Please consider the possibility that you may be at least partly to blame for the situation, and apologizing for some of the things you've said may be in order. I will post an identical message on MarcusBritish's talk page, and ask that you would please remain civil in you disagreement with MarcusBritish. Please respect the consensus that is reached. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if there is anything you believe I am doing wrong in attempting to mediate this dispute, please let me know. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and I am willing to consider any criticism you have of my conduct. If you have any advice on how I should conduct myself on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate you sharing it with me. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II

The article War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II for comments about the article. Well done! GregJackP Boomer! 02:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Clarification needed

I have made clear that the edits I made were due to the fact that I did not consider one editor's overriding of another editor's GAC closure to be legitimate. Since then, I have made clear that I consider both editors to have behaved inappropriately, and both have expressed dissatisfaction because of that. I have no interest in taking any position in the debate in question. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Invariably you did take a position in the debate in question by making your justifiable edits. However, if the original WP:GAC rationale for the preemptive closure was potentially not legitimate either, than my little request would seem reasonable enough. Poeticbent talk 23:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I would drop it. He won't do anything about user misconduct, whether it be racism, attempted outing, or on- and off-wiki harassment. GregJackP Boomer! 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Zdjęcie

Cześć, gratuluję kolejnego artykułu. Mam jednak małą uwagę dotyczącą zdjęcia w infoboksie. Nazwa pomnika jest niestety nieprawidłowa, to nie jest Momentum, tylko pomnik Poległym i Pomordowanym na Wschodzie [1], upamiętniający wyłącznie ofiary wywózek za Wschód, a nie w czasie II światowej. Swoją drogą, krytykowany w Warszawie za swoją lokalizację (d. plac Muranowski) i rusycyzm w oficjalnej nazwie (powinien być dopełniacz, a nie celownik). Pozdrawiam serdecznie, Boston9 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Would you know of another monument devoted to all victims? I don't know if I should change the caption and keep it, or look for a more suitable replacement? Please, make a suggestion. Poeticbent talk 00:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not for ALL the victims. For 6 million, icluded 800k inhabitants of Warsaw, murdered by the Nazi Germany we have this modest plaque in the Saxon Garden. My suggestion is to use something very symbolic that everyone recognizes (like Auschwitz or other death camps), or simply correct the caption. Or add something to counterbalance the picture somehow (people might ask you have used the USSR memorial while the number of victims was larger in the area occupied by Germany). BTW, for examples from Warsaw Uprisisng massacres (your timeline) have a look at this new aricle on pl-Wiki pl:Tablice pamiątkowe Tchorka w Warszawie. Boston9 (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Boston9. The monument doesn't need to be in Warsaw. Please take a look at pl:Pomnik Ofiar Faszyzmu w Krakowie. Quote from article in the Polish Wiki: "Na tylnej części rzeźby znajduje się napis: W hołdzie męczennikom pomordowanym przez hitlerowskich ludobójców w latach 1943 - 1945. [...] Rzeźba nie posiada żadnych bezpośrednich odniesień do tożsamości upamiętnionych osób, ani odniesień w formie napisu do samego hitlerowskiego obozu." (end of quote) Poeticbent talk 15:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maybe consider some black and white, for example this one? Boston9 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Renominating Treblinka by myself

I wouldn't mind renominating the article all by myself, but in that case I'm going to need you to at least follow the FAC review page, as you have access to almost all the sources in the article, which I don't. If I renominate Treblinka, my plan will be as follows:

  • 1. Immediately start a new section on the talk page of the article pinging all of the relevant reviewers from the first FAC and asking them to take a quick look before renominating.
  • 2. As soon as they're done doing that, renominate the article and immediately give my support (it's going to be a little awkward supporting my own nomination, but I'll make sure to explain.)
  • 3. Address any additional concerns that come up to the best of my ability (though I'll have to direct any questions that involve consulting sources to you.)
  • 4. Once it's a FA, nominate it to be on the main page in early-to-mid July (you can only nominate articles a month ahead of time). I've already got the blurb ready (the limit in 1,200 characters with spaces, though I only got it down to 1,222 characters with spaces.)

I would be glad to take care of the FAC nomination while you deal with your GAN of World War II crimes in occupied Poland, but I'm going to need a commitment from you to help out with any sourcing questions that come up along the way. As soon as I have that, I will set the process in motion. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I was thinking of renominating the article together with you (I mean, by acting as a team). Strength is in numbers, and the article is a collaborative work anyway, but in practice, we both would lose the voting right in this case. Which is OK because the article is now ready. Asking previous reviewers would be a definite advantage I think. You and I are accustomed to providing fixes and answers to questions from reviewers already and most importantly, in a team 50% of the load would come off my shoulders while the speed of replies would double. On the other hand, renominating the article by yourself entirely would give me a chance to cast the first "yes" vote (similar to what you did previously), so that would be the advantage, but like you say, it could also lead to further difficulties. Poeticbent talk 09:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the confusion. I thought you wanted me to renominate the article myself and take care of any issues raised during the FAC review while you worked on the issues raised by MarcusBritish on his GA review of World War II crimes in occupied Poland. I'm perfectly fine with being the primary nominator and you being a co-nominator, or you being the primary nominator and my being the co-nominator. That being said, I still intend to follow my four-step plan given above. Thus, I will start a new section on the talk page inviting the FAC reviewers to look the article over now. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking good. Thanks AmericanLemming. I'll double-checked the already addressed points once more just to make sure that nothing of substance has been overlooked. Also, after a couple of days we can start sending personalized messages I think, with invites for a new feedback. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 05:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward from War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II

Poeticbent, I'm sorry that your GAN of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II ended so badly. The review started so well, with you and MarcusBritish getting along quite so nicely. And then the referencing dispute doomed the article, despite my best efforts to mediate it. I think that both you and MarcusBritish share some of the blame for what went wrong, but I don't think I understand the situation well enough to know who was more at fault.

I'm rather discouraged by the whole fiasco, as I'm sure you are, too. It's the kind of thing that makes me not want to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, I think that nominating Treblinka at FAC either Friday or Saturday will make us feel much better. Treblinka is a much better article than War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II, thanks to all of the hard work you, Khazar2, Squemish Ossifrage, and I (among others) have put into the article. I don't think it's necessary to ask the FAC reviewers to look at the article before we renominate, and I don't think it's likely that they'll do so even if we do ask them.

In short, Treblinka is about as good as its ever going to get, and I think renominating it in the next day or two will raise our spirits. It's going to be a pretty easy renomination, as they won't be able to find too much for us to fix. :) Do let me know what you think, though. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is about working together toward a common goal, but sometimes the relationship is more trouble than it's worth. We both need to go back to working on our FA nomination, because the amount of work we put in it already is way beyond the GA system of personal interpretations of basic meaning of criteria. Poeticbent talk 06:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, let me know when you're ready to renominate it. I would like to do so today or tomorrow, but I can wait a week or two if you'd prefer that. In fact, you can renominate it yourself anytime you like, and then I'll just join in as a co-nominator. Let me know if you do that, though! :) AmericanLemming (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to wait a week or so to calm down… and for the still ongoing verbal abuse to die down in the meantime. When ready, I will write the proposal for you to co-sign and than submit it. Poeticbent talk 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Sometimes a short wikibreak can do you a lot of good. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem pretty occupied with War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II at present. If you'd like to keep working on that and get it to GA status before we renominate Treblinka, I'm fine with that. Just let me know what your plan is. If you do decide to put Treblinka off, I think I'll help you improve the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for touching basis. I was just thinking about you, AmericanLemming. The War crimes GAN boondoggle was so traumatic, I temporarily lost my resolve. I need a second pair of eyes there with the final GAN editing. Would you like to give it a go? I have no backup plan. Treblinka is in a much better shape, but once we re-nominate it for the featured article, some heavy lifting would become totally unavoidable, because people always find something to bitch about. So the War crimes would have to be abandoned for some time to come. I was thinking of playing it by ear for now. My head is somewhere else, but I'm also interested in what you'd like to do. Please tell, Poeticbent talk 00:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I can read through the article this weekend, do a thorough copy-edit, expand the lead, and leave some comments for you. I'll try to distinguish between things that are necessary for GA status and things that are necessary for FA status; I don't think you or I really want to bring another article to FA status anytime soon. Since we finished working on Treblinka two weeks ago I've been feeling restless; this will give me something of substance to do on Wikipedia. It's so much easier to improve an article when someone else is working on it with you, and collaborating is so much more fun than going it solo.:) AmericanLemming (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You're right about that; collaborating is a lot more fun. I'm looking forward to your new edits. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 05:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind

Commenting on the prose of Template:Did you know nominations/Katowice historic train station? It reads fine to me but some reviewers have concerns. Perhaps you could give this (not too long) article a quick read and see if you can fix anything? Plus you'll get a DYK review credit which I am sure you'll need sooner or later :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. Just to let you know, by design 'ping' feature does not work with 'Template:Did you know'. I have noticed you pinged me earlier as well as others in there, not knowning about that little glitch. Contacting needs to be performed manually from inside the template each and every time. Poeticbent talk 16:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pieniny

Witam. ,,Mesozoic valleys" znaczy, że doliny powstały w mezozoiku i niewiele od tego czasu zmieniły się. Tymczasem w cytowanym źródle jest, że od tego czasu Pieniny podlegały znacznym przekształceniom:

,,Z początkiem trzeciorzędu, w paleocenie sytuacja uległa odwróceniu. Sfałdowany pieniński pas skałkowy został ponownie zalany przez basen magurski i tworzył podwodny grzbiet w morzu fliszowym Karpat. W wyniku sedymentacji pokrył się utworami fliszowymi. Kolejna faza fałdowań miała miejsce na przełomie oligocenu i miocenu (ok. 24 mln lat temu). Utwory wapienne ponownie uległy wydźwignięciu i zgnieceniu między wypiętrzającymi się blokami Karpat Wewnętrznych i Zewnętrznych (Beskidów). W konsekwencji szerokość pasa skałkowego zmniejszyła się i obecnie wynosi od 0,2 do 20 km. (...) W trzeciorzędzie rzeki płynęły na poziomie odpowiadającym dzisiejszym partiom szczytowym Pienin. Płynący po powierzchni zrównania pra-Dunajec miał charakter spokojnej, wijącej się licznymi zakolami rzeki. Powolny ruch wznoszący Pieniny w czwartorzędzie rozpoczął proces wcinania się Dunajca w głąb utworów wapiennych i kształtowanie dzisiejszego przełomu."

Z jednym zastrzeżeniem: flysh osadzał się w głębinach a nie na podwodnym grzbiecie. Pozdrawiam PawełS (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Murzyn

Hi, I see you've joined the debate at Murzyn. I'm puzzled however as to why you have readded Volunteer Marek's OR about the plural 'y' ending. Did you read the citation? If you had you would see his wording is not at all what the author says. Malick78 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't joined anything... However, I noticed you totally ignored my AN/I recommendation from yesterday and readded the irrelevant painting against the already building consensus. Why did you do that? – Today, I reverted your disruptive edit and added an extra citation to the lead, that's all I did. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 19:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You readded the word 'normal' which was inaccurate, hence VM removed it himself. It would seem that you obviously didn't read what you readded. Please be more careful. As for consensus... well, it rather seems more of the tag-team effort of friends rather than independent editors coming to the same conclusion. And lastly, 'consensus' exists not when users tag-team to avoid the 3R rule, but when they engage in discussion on the talk page with reasonable arguments: so far only I and VM have explained our position there. Your adding in a summary "the painting by by Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowicz belongs in the article Realism next to Marie-Guillemine Benoist in The Louvre, not in here [sic]" gives no explanation for your view. Why can't a picture be in two articles? Malick78 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I said, I reverted your edit and explained my decision clearly in the edit summary adding pertinent links for you to examine. The conclusion regarding your actions was mine. And also, please don't try to make that poorly written attack page look better by adding to it irrelevant works of world class artists who have nothing in common with your contentious little POV. Poeticbent talk 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 19th-century Catholic periodical literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorn (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) 09:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Włodzimierz Borodziej

One or two sentences short of DYK size... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Floriańska Street

I just started this article, I think you may be interested in helping to expand and DYK it. Also, I hope you'll join me in Wikipedia:WikiCup, there are still few more days to sign up. It would be nice to have another member of WPPOLAND there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Portrait of a Young Man

Can you find Kowalski's original statement about the painting? From what was published in gazeta.pl, it appears that he knew (or thought he knew) that the painting was being kept in a bank vault. Esszet (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked around. The actual podcast might be too old to be featured at http://audycje.tokfm.pl/ therefore the only direct quote from Kowalski's TOK FM radio interview is the one we already have. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Then I suppose we should say it's in a bank vault in an undisclosed country. Esszet (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This is wishful thinking. Please read again quote from MSZ: "Wiadomość podana w TOK FM i Gazeta.pl została nadinterpretowana, nie posiadamy bowiem informacji, gdzie dokładnie znajduje się obraz, jak może wynikać to z relacji TOK FM i Gazety.pl. Niemniej możemy zapewnić, że MSZ na bieżąco śledzi wszystkie docierające do nas sygnały o przypuszczalnych miejscach przechowywania obrazu." Rough translation from Polish: We don't know where exactly the painting is (period) which means, the MSZ can't say, if it is in a bank vault. We investigate every signal about possible place of its storage... (end of quote). All we can say here in Wikipedia is that the painting might be in a bank vault somewhere.[2] Thanks for asking, Poeticbent talk 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Read Kowalski's statement again: ‘Najważniejsze, że obraz nie zaginął w wojennej zawierusze. Nie został spalony czy zniszczony. On jest. Czeka bezpiecznie w jednym z bankowych sejfów, w rejonie świata, w którym prawo nam sprzyja’, which translates to (correct me if I'm wrong): ‘Most importantly, it wasn't lost in the chaos of the war. It wasn't damaged by fire or destroyed. It still exists. It's safely waiting in a bank vault in a region of the world where the law is on our side.’ If they do know that the painting is in a bank vault, they can do so without knowing its exact location. The ‘nadinterpretacja’ refers to the reports that it had been found. Esszet (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You cut out the introductory line, Esszet. "W tekście (Gazeta.pl, source of the hoax) znalazła się też wypowiedź pełnomocnika ministra spraw zagranicznych ds. restytucji dóbr kultury prof. Wojciecha Kowalskiego: "Nie wątpię ..." (etc.) The words from Gazeta.pl are quoted by MSZ for the record without confirming whether Wojciech Kowalski actually said anything to that extent or anything beyond. Read the beginning of next paragraph please: "W rozmowie z PAP prof. Kowalski zauważył, że jego wypowiedź w artykule TOK FM i Gazety.pl została niewłaściwie zinterpretowana. "To wszystko nadinterpretacja" - podkreślił."' Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so you think gazeta.pl and TOK FM twisted his words…alright. Esszet (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It is possible also that Kowalski didn't realize what he was actually saying. Poeticbent talk 15:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I do wonder why the communiqué didn't just say that the alleged statement had been made up at least in part… Esszet (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The MSZ was partly to blame for the confusion, that's why they have been walking on egg-shells ever since. Just look at how torturous their communiqué sounds. Poeticbent talk 15:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Esszet (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Wait…excuse me for being such a nuisance about this, but what makes you say that? Did Kowalski outright lie? Esszet (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I never said he lied. Please don't misinterpret my comments from above. In fact I have no idea what really happened. The only thing we can prove is that the newsflash was a hoax. That's all, Poeticbent talk 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Holocaust train may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • from Warsaw to Treblinka taking place between 22 July through to 12 September 1942.<ref name="YV">{{cite web |url=http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/microsoft%20word%20-%205724.pdf |title=Aktion
  • with the German Reichsbahn,"].<ref>[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3086465,00.html-> Nazi Death Train Exhibit Opens in Berlin]</ref> As national press journals pointed out, the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from New User

Greetings, I am writing regarding the Irena Sendler page. I would like to break out an aspect of the page into its own page. The page and several other wiki pages make reference to the Lowell Milken Center, but it still does not have its own. I wanted to get in touch with some skilled editors to ask if they would be interested in helping me create and edit this page. I'm unsure about the project because I have a close connection to the subject matter and don't want to have the page deleted. So far, all my wiki edits on other pages have stood because I only contribute sourced facts, but I wanted to be cautious even so. Thanks so much. Feel free to write here or on my talk page. Sarahkeen (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Poeticbent. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ratusz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic (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) 09:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Poeticbent. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jack Hirsch edit

Thanks for reviewing the DYK. I saw your edit to Jack Hirsch. An unintended consequence is that it removed the rough timeline of when his family business changed. "By 1984" provided that previously. While it is also the article publish date, I think using "by" conveys that it definitely applied in 1984, but it also could have occurred before then, but definitely no later than 1984.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All we know is that the article was published in 1984. That's it. We don't know when his family business got into porn unless you find a second source that mentions it. Please try, Poeticbent talk 01:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ratusz

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Titushky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkut (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) 09:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Piotrków Trybunalski Ghetto

Aren't you going to DYK this? Nice job, as always! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I guesss I just don't have a good feeling about it, like a lingering doubt that something out there might still be missing. Poeticbent talk 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
DYKs don't have to be complete, and I think the world would benefit from learning more about what you'v written already. My recommendation is to DYK it. It would be a shame not to feature your effort. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I hear you. Poeticbent talk 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nisko Plan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • (dark green) with the city of [[Lublin]]; new [[District of Galicia]] indicated in bottom-right]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Szlama Ber Winer

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grodno Voivodeship

The article Grodno Voivodeship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This redirect does not really explain much about the concept; it's a notable entity and should be red linked until a dedicated article is created

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Piotrków Trybunalski Ghetto

The DYK project (nominate) 10:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible DYK?

I think this may fit your interests, a new article that you could consider expanding and polishing for a DYK, perhaps? Rywka Lipszyc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with red links?

I've added a section to Administrative_division_of_the_Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Reforms_of_the_1793_Grodno_Sejm, which would be a better redirect target. But it would be pointless to redirect the entries from that article to itself. The only question is do we want to have dedicated entries like pl wiki, all discuss all different voivodeships in one article, as we often do here. Either way, I dislike redirects of notable topics to general articles; per WP:RED it decreases the chances of them being created, as they give rise to a fall sense of "oh this is blue so we have an article about that" rather than "oh it is red perhaps I should stub it". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Piotrus. I saw your edit to Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. I don't mind the red links at all. However, a red link to Grodno Voivodeship would imply that the subject has no reference to anything in particular in English Wikipedia which isn't true because we already have the Grodno Sejm article from that exact period in Polish history. Grodno Voivodeship did not exist before Grodno Sejm, nor after. The current redirect is the best point of reference. You can always fill it in with data and make it into a separate article if you want. Poeticbent talk 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kraków Society of Friends of Fine Arts

Seems DYK eligible. Just a reminder in case you just forgot to nom it. And thanks for helping with red links at Matejko (I want to GA him this year, probably finishing around summer; I have PSB scans, and a book about him, through I left it in Poland, hence - summer). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that when Matejko's painting was on the front page. Re: DYK, will do it today. Thanks for the reminder. Poeticbent talk 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rywka Lipszyc

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

So how to I prove my wiki-identity and innocence? Khazar (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poeticbent/Archive_7&oldid=1140521068"