User talk:Poeticbent/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Treblinka

Please explain. I mentioned relevant WP guidelines. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Your editsummary states that there is a breach of policy. That is not the case. I clearly mentioned the base of the Move (WP:DAB WP:COMMONNAME WP:TITLE) which is sound and well-based. You did not even mention what would be a cause of dispute, at all. Your proper action would be to contest the move on the talkpage (if there is a reason to contest). I request that you undo your edit (ei, restore my move). -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Treblinka is one in a series of articles. They were discussed in a multitude of pages. Look at talk pages of other death camps please. Clearly, this is not your field of expertise. In the future, please use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested: Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. You can place your move request at the article talk page once you're ready, and allow other Wikipedians to express their opinion in this matter. BTW, your own use of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE is inappropriate. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 23:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Your route to follow is here. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaken again. The proper shortcut is WP:RMUM. Your move has been reverted as inappropriate, therefore please start a new thread on the article talk page, if you insist. My user talk page is not the right place to discuss this. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 23:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Question on Treblinka

User:Poeticbent, nice to see that you are active on WP. One question, though. Don't you think that that edit about the last surviving Jewish captive at Treblinkla extermination camp should be moved up in the first section, just as I had previously written there, before it was deleted? As for the actual number of survivors, is it not true that there were only 67?Davidbena (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please make a note of the fact that Treblinka extermination camp is a Wikipedia:Good article (with a little green button at the top right corner). It took tremendous effort to bring this entry to truly encyclopaedic standards using only academically supported content. You can examine that process by looking at the article talk-page and its archives. I do not question your assertions. I only suggest you familiarize yourself with what WP:RS is all about. I ask that you do not use daily rags taking a stab at a subject of no commercial interest to them. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, my friend. I am well-aware that the current article, Treblinka extermination camp, was brought-up to "good article" status, largely due to your own outstanding efforts. With that, the addition that I suggested would not, I can assure you, bring-down the article to any poorer quality or standing. In Israel, there are many well-qualified historians who have written about the Holocaust, in general, and about Treblinka, in particular. Their works are of an exemplary nature, and are often used and quoted in academic journals, which not even Wikipedia has so far been privileged to gain such reliability and trust. So, my question to you is a very simple one: Do you know of any historical record that contradicts the statement made in the AP news report that only "sixty-seven" survivors came-out of Treblinka? If so, can you please present that for me to see? Thanks for your time and effort put in this article. Looking forward to your feedback.Davidbena (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hamburger Edition

Two wiki links in an entire article does not count as "well linked", your revert of my underlinked tag was non sense. Aeonx (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest you chill out and learn how to use supplementary pages such as Special:WhatLinksHere/Hamburger_Edition next time before commenting. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soviet partisans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front. 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, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Turonek

The reason I added the cn tag was to indicate that "Turonek" source applies to the latter portion of the para. When the two paras were combined, it made it look as if Turonek applied to the entire para. I suggest splitting up the paras as they were before, or keeping the cn tag. What do you think on that? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I just entered the search word "Witebsk" (spelling in Polish) regarding the Vitsyebsk gate in Google Book snippet, and ... you were correct in placing the cn tag there. The problem has been fixed. Should be OK with different page numbers. Thanks, K.e.coffman.(weblink). Poeticbent talk 19:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making the adjustment. Also, thank you for working on the 13th pz division; I had to be fair and comment out all that was uncited or tagged.

BTW, I've been told (see Tagging) that it's better to add a single tag on top, rather than "tag bomb" with inline cn tags. So that's what I've been doing -- do you have a different take? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, K.e.coffman, I noticed earlier already that someone has left a message on your talk page to that extend, which was misconstrued in my view because it did not inform you where the real problem was with regard to your December edit. – Flags are good when there is an overall lack of references, but not when there are multiple references already present, and when the problems come from specific statements made by individuals trying to push an agenda. Flags do not inform where the real problems are; that's where the inline tags come in. They are the most useful tool in all potential disputes, and therefore are superior to flagging. However, flags and "cn" tags should not be used together. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 04:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Due to the volume of such material (see WWII content issues), it's often easier for me just to throw the global tag up there, and then come back and clean up later. But feel free to adjust if you come across a global tag that's not justified. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your scrutiny of content (WP:NPOV) and determination to get things right (WP:RS citing) for the betterment of Nazi Germany and World War II related articles I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Kierzek. I feel humbled, Poeticbent talk 06:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kresy 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:

• is like a [[bagel]] - empty inside, with anything of value located in the outside part".<ref>[Piotr Zychowicz, Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów dzięki swym ziemiom wschodnim była europejskim

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Economy

Is this possible that the other websites stole from Wikipedia? I had a similar situation here: Talk:Karl_Wolff#Matched_content. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany. If I made a mistake, it can be traced back at a later time. Better safe than sorry. See my comment at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Long time no see for more of the same. Thanks for stopping by K.e.coffman. Poeticbent talk 06:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

A quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frumka Płotnicka

Hello! Your submission of Frumka Płotnicka 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! Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK total

Hi, I notice you haven't updated your DYK total at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs for a while. And you're over 200! After you update the chart, I'll be happy to award you your 200 DYK medal. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Yoninah, will take care of that tomorrow first thing. Poeticbent talk 00:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Useful category

I've created Category:People assisting Jews during the Holocaust; you'll probably find it useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Maus revert

I'm not reverting to keep it out, but it really needs to be handled correctly; changing "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping" is obviously extremely controversial, not least because it contradicts the source cited, breaking text–source integrity. The rest of it may be true, but I'm not sure if the website would be accepted as reliable source in the way Wikipedia defines "reliable source", particularly if theres already an RS that says the same thing (McDonough). The way you inserted this text disrupts the text; perhaps the text could be worded better so as not to give the impression all kapos were Polish, but this was not the way to handle it—the point was that the kapos in the book were Polish. I imagine a slight rewrite of the sentence and footnote would serve the job better. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you writing back to me, Curly Turkey, because our coverage needs to go beyond the book itself to provide the assessment of its historical content for the sake of Wikipedia:Neutrality which is one of the pillars of our policy guidelines. I intentionally added one Jewish source (widely used by Wikipedia and considered reliable), and a book source, to prove that the author was wrong. I could easily find a lot more references including world-class historians stating the same facts about Kapos. I'm sure your intention was not to hide that. Please find a way to reintroduce the same information in an amicable way because I'm not an edit warrior and would most likely seek help from administration if you insist on (not only WP:OWNING that article) but also distorting historical facts to make a WP:POINT. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 13:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't just accuse me of distorting historical facts to make a point, did you? I was going to reword and reformat the material, but now I'm concerned with your desire to "prove an author wrong" and hunt up a large number of sources to refute a point that's tangential to the subject of the article. There are a lot of people watchlisting the article: I think it would be best to propose your changes there and see what other editors have to say, especially in light of your change of "little" to "much", which can hardly be called a "neutral" edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be so defensive about this, User:Curly Turkey. We both know that WP:ONLYREVERT is generally considered rude, and is reserved mainly for vandalism. Next time, please inform me about your desire to reword and reformat the material. I'm looking forward to it. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what's motivating this, Poeticbent, but you don't look interested in fixing the edit or having it discussed. I won't be fixing it, as your responses have raised my suspicions. Make your case at the talk page. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see Piotrus stops by your talkpage. He took part in the review of Maus. Perhaps he might have something to say about this edit and your responses above. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what this argument is all about. Perhaps Piotrus could help. – The article in question speaks about a graphic novel ... not about a book of history. The author of the novel can say whatever they want ... however, here in Wikipedia we cannot do that. So, I went back to that singular source on which most of the commentary for the section on racism is based; called History and Memory After Auschwitz by Dominick LaCapra who specializes in intellectual history and trauma studies, not on Holocaust per se like other historians such as Raul Hilberg who base their work on facts. Our article states as follows: The Germans are depicted with little difference between them, but there is great variety and little stereotyping among the Poles and Jews who dominate the story.{{sfn|LaCapra|1998|pp=161}} Please look at page 161 in LaCapra; there's absolutely nothing in his work about the quote-unquote "little stereotyping among the Poles..." at all.[1] But regardless, my edit was not about "stereotyping", but about historical accuracy regarding Kapos, which was blanket reverted for no good reason and against the basic notion of reliable third-party book citation (quote): The kapos who run the camps are Poles (which is not correct historically, as Jews themselves among others, have also served as Kapos according to Holocaust historians, often exclusively). Poeticbent talk 01:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I may have misinterpreted the source or gotten the wrong page (perhaps 166–167), but the source sure doesn't say anything like what you wrote. Take the rest to the talk page—your edits require scrutiny, and I have no expertise in these issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Maus/archive1

DYK for Frumka Płotnicka

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

		The 200 DYK Nomination Medal
		Just two weeks short of celebrating a decade of contributions to the Wikipedia project I would like to recognise your contribution to the DYK project. 200 new or improved articles is a major achievement. Your contribution to military history is well noted and pulling out people like Frumka Płotnicka is an important donation to historical balance. Thanks from Wikipedia, the DYK project and me. Victuallers (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Victuallers. Wow 10 years already, Poeticbent talk 17:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nowy Sącz Ghetto, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chełmiec and Rożnów. 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) 12:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Nowy Sącz Ghetto

Hello! Your submission of Nowy Sącz Ghetto 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! — Kpalion^(talk) 09:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

poetic art
... you were recipient no. 114 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, Gerda Arendt. I have the pleasure & privilege of displaying your prize on my personal page at User:Poeticbent#Stars? All best, Poeticbent talk 13:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know and appreciate it. I have, in turn, the link to your poem on a page that is important to me, but which I could visit last to note that dear people returned (while nobody got lost so far in 2016). Nicer flames: working on a cantata for Pentecost (eternal fire, love, spirit), lovely images! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

ps: dear returning people included the one who designed this box and in whose memory I started reminding people of their anniversary, - I didn't stop doing that because of the return, - it's a pleasure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warsan Shire - Teaching My Mother (cover).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warsan Shire - Teaching My Mother (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) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Nowy Sącz Ghetto

On 8 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nowy Sącz Ghetto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during World War II, the six-member Steinlauf family from the Nowy Sącz Ghetto were rescued by the nine-member Król family, who were risking the death penalty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nowy Sącz Ghetto. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nowy Sącz Ghetto), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian etc. etc.

I see your point. Maybe I'll do the expansion myself. What's your opinion on the inclusion of a few illustrations from one artist out of the (hundreds?) who contributed. I think that's too narrow a focus, especially when there's a link to the entire encyclopedia. WQUlrich (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, WQUlrich. Please expand the article if you can with all our policy guidelines in mind of course including the WP:RS and WP:NPOV among others. The illustrations from an award-winning artist represent the best what the encyclopedia has to offer. Anything less prominent would amount to WP:STACKING. Poeticbent talk 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I would mostly be translating the German article (which is surprisingly short), observing WP:C, of course.WQUlrich (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:It!Myline.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:It!Myline.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Belarusian People's Republic page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Madej - German Army Order of Battle page 155.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Madej - German Army Order of Battle page 155.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Berlin (1926), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Rapallo. 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) 10:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts

Poeticbent: have a look and see what you think. K.e. and I have been working on it for copy edits. I liked your idea from a post on the talk page from Dec. 2015 as to how better to list the units. Do you still agree with that? Hope you have time to work on this article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond, Kierzek. Every day I hope to get down to it, but get distracted with other things. However, at first glance the improvements seem okay to me. Poeticbent talk 19:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand; what about the way the "units" are listed? Kierzek (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Much better. Kierzek, can you please look into the remaining [citation needed] tags? Either we have citations, or we don't. This has been hanging around for too long already. Poeticbent talk 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did not change further, the way the units are listed. I will look at the total estimate numbers and add RS cites where I can. Kierzek (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, my mind seems to be somewhere else right now. Poeticbent talk 22:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Słonim Ghetto

Hello! Your submission of Słonim Ghetto 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! ©Geni (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is also a potential issue with the hook.©Geni (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Słonim Ghetto

On 23 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Słonim Ghetto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two Polish nuns harbouring Jewish fugitives who escaped from the Słonim Ghetto were beatified by Pope John Paul II, along with 108 Martyrs of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Słonim Ghetto. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Słonim Ghetto), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on Jaworzno Power Station

Hello there,

This is regarding your this edit. Links are always there on left hand side of an article, so what should we do? Should we get rid of maintenance templates just because you dont like "attention-seeking monster-flags"? That is no proper reason to remove expansion templates when article can be expanded. Regards. Hitro talk 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, HitroMilanese. Subjects expanded locally in their country of origin might not be all that notable in the English language Wikipedia. A shorter entry can serve its purpose well. We are not going to be defacing every single article with the same monster template only because they were expanded further in some foreign language (including Italian). Poeticbent talk 13:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting szukacz.pl link removal from Zegrze Reservoir

Ad Revert on Zegrze Reservoir; Re “please explain what you mean by deleting → where is the other map?”

As for other similar edits, the maps are available through GeoHack: from 35 different providers, with various types of maps, aerial and satellite photos, and also including the map that has been removed from the external links. There is really no need to advertise one, selected company, which primarily servers quarter-screen ads. For this reason I’m reverting your revert. If you believe that the map provided by szukacz.pl has any advantages over OSM, Google Maps or Bing Maps, please provide them before the next revert. --Wikimpan (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you might not have understood my question. I was asking about a working link to a map showing the shape and location of the lake the article talks about. The working link is a convenience that Wikipedia thrives on. You replaced it with nothing, and than called it something. This sort of logic is unacceptable, please produce a hotlink to a good map to illustrate your point. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 06:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikimpan, please respond to my query. Here's the proof that mapping service szukacz.pl is considered appropriate for our purposes, as listed in GeoTemplate by Wikimedia GeoHack: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:GeoTemplate#Poland

– If you prefer, we can use Targeo.pl as replacement. Here's the map of Zegrze Reservoir without the ads plaguing szukacz.pl :

https://mapa.targeo.pl/Jezioro%20Zegrzy%C5%84skie,25,21.1519399,52.4542553?data=eyJmdHMiOnsicSI6Ikplemlvcm8gWmVncnp5XHUwMTQ0c2tpZSIsImUiOiI1MjkwODE4In19

Poeticbent talk 14:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced it with nothing, because there is no need for any replacement: the links are already available. See the upper right corner of the page (assuming default rendering), and also in the infobox. Both of them provide the link to GeoHack, where one can select among 35 providers, and different map types.

It’s not about advertisements on the szukacz.pl website. Of course the fact that they hide half of the map under ads isn’t the good thing, and this is why I’ve mentioned the issue, but it’s not the point here. It’s about promoting a particular company using Wikipedia. It could be szukacz.pl, Targeo, Google, Microsoft or whichever one selects.

Since I don’t want to make an edit war, yet I still disagree with your revert, may we ask other editors about the opinion? --Wikimpan (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care all that much for this whole thing, User:Wikimpan with 227 edits under your belt. – You can remove the link to Targeo.pl map if you want. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You blindly reverted my improvements in order to make a point. Resulting from this, I actually improved on this entry even further.[2] Poeticbent talk 14:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that since you’ve gone to ad hominem argumentation, and started to falsely accuse me of things I’ve never done (logs are the proof), this is where this discussion ends. I was trying to solve the issue using the talk page, your choices seem to be attacks, reverts and not providing any rationale for the actions. --Wikimpan (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't lie to me. Here's a proof of your blind revert in which you removed quality image added by me (!), and replaced it with the File:Zalew Zegrzyński 01.JPG while removing the link to mapa.szukacz.pl. It was a mindless revert, and "logs are the proof" as you say. Poeticbent talk 18:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warring on Granica-zrywanie godła.jpg

Hello Poeticbent, just wanted to ask if you are familiar with procedures over edit warring on Wiki Commons, it seems that user User:Tom5551, keeps reverting this image [3] to his version. I personally don't think this new versions is of better quality at all as claimed by Tom5551, and at this point this behavior is becoming disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, E-960. I'd like to suggest that you stop edit warring with Tom5551 (74 edits in Commons since 2011-01-25) and instead, upload your preferred version under a new name, for example File:Granica - zrywanie godła.jpg (similar but different). The problem is that the version fought over by Tom5551 has 339 KB in size, while the version fought over by you has 36 KB in size. They are not the same. Poeticbent talk 23:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Um, ok... a bit of an unkind response. The image may have more KBs, but it does not mean that it's a clearer picture, in fact Tom5551's versions is so dark that detail starts to disappear, 339 KB or not. In any case, at this point if user Tom5551 was serious about the item, then starting a discussion might have been a better answer then just reverting the image ad nauseum. In any case thank you for the input. --E-960 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biuletyn Informacyjny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AK. 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) 09:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Żydokomuna page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johanna Granville - The First Domino.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johanna Granville - The First Domino.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) 02:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of article

The article Johanna Granville was nominated for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7, and I have deleted it. I am informing you as a courtesy, to give you an opportunity to raise your concerns if you disagree with my decision. I actually think that the article was borderline for speedy deletion, but I was swayed by the fact that an editor who claims to be Johanna Granville (and I see no reason to doubt the claim) asked for it to be deleted, as she does not want the kind of publicity which a Wikipedia article gives. To be absolutely clear, I would not have deleted the article just because she asked for deletion, but in a case which, as I said, I saw as borderline, I allowed that to add a slight weight to the "delete" side of the balance. I think it is questionable whether she meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and also that in line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons we should exercise a presumption in favour of privacy, and respect the wishes of someone who is a low-profile individual. If you disagree with my decision, please let me know, and I will restore the article and take it to a deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• After posting the above message I saw your post to my talk page about this. If, after reading my message above, you still want me to reverse the deletion, let me know, and I will do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply, JamesBWatson. I'm shocked that an academic would personally request to be deleted from Wikipedia; typically the opposite is true because authors of new books usually strive to have it mentioned in our portal. I do not disagree with your decision providing that you were actually asked through proper channels about Granville's desire to be gone. User account "Johanna Granville" is not registered. This is really weird. I don't know what to say. Poeticbent talk 19:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References from deleted entry

1. Johanna Granville with Foreword by Raymond L. Garthoff. "The First Domino. International Decision Making during the Hungarian Crisis of 1956". Texas A&M University Consortium Press.[4]
2. Academia.edu. "Johanna Granville". Tufts University, International Security Studies.[5]
3. Global Europe Program, Kennan Institute. "Johanna Granville". The Wilson Center, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.[6]
4. Yoana Savova. "Dr. Johanna Granville". American University in Bulgaria, AUBG.[7]

Source would indicate that in fact, Granville is notable in her own field (quote): She was one of the first American scholars to work in the communist party archives in Moscow soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and is the author of The First Domino: International Decision Making during the Hungarian Crisis of 1956 published by Texas A & M University Press in 2004. In addition, Dr. Granville has published over forty refereed articles and working papers on anti-communist dissent, as well as on current political crises, which have appeared in prominent journals such as Diplomatic History, Journal of Contemporary History, Cold War History, Europe-Asia, East European Politics and Societies, Carl Beck Papers, Cold War International History Project (CWIHP) Bulletin, and the Hungarian-language Történelmi Szemle, the flagship journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Why would anyone prefer to have an entry in Academia.edu but not in here, beats me. Poeticbent talk 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You are, of course, perfectly right in saying that it is far more common to see academics seeking publicity on Wikipedia than the opposite, but it is more common for them to ask for articles to be removed than you might guess. As for why anyone would prefer to have an entry in Academia.edu but not in Wikipedia, there are many academics who have a rather contemptuous attitude to Wikipedia, as an amateur enterprise, without proper academic status, and some of them are for that reason reluctant to see themselves here. At present it is not possible for me to be 100% certain that the request really came from her, so I have sent an email to the American University in Bulgaria, explaining the situation, and asking them to forward my message to her, so that she can contact me to either confirm or deny that the request really came from her, if she wishes to. If I get an answer to that from her, that should settle it; if not, I will consider whether to restore the article. The American University in Bulgaria may not be an obvious place to try to contact her, as her visiting professorship there was a couple of years ago, but it was the one organisation with connections to her where I could easily find an email link, and it is reasonable to expect academic institutions to forward mail to academics who have left. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I love your approach, JamesBWatson, and have used some of the same channels myself. Let's wait and see what happens. Poeticbent talk 21:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• In a few hours short of a week, I have received no response at all to my invitation to the editor claiming to be Johanna Granville to provide confirmation, so I have restored the article, and posted to her talk page telling her she can take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if she wishes to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kielce Ghetto

On 31 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kielce Ghetto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 14-year-old Leon Śliwiński saved the life of 12-year-old David Friedman in the Kielce Ghetto (ghetto liquidation pictured) during the Holocaust in occupied Poland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kielce Ghetto. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kielce Ghetto), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Daniel Romanovsky. I don't expect the article to be restored, mainly because the deletion crew seems to be so personally invested in the process. I don't think there is any sinister conspiracy type stuff involved. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

4th PD

Hi, could you have a look at this edit? I'm not sure if the material is cited to reliable sources, and should be restored or not. This is citing to Polish sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, K.e.coffman. All I can say is that the source exist; it has no preview in Google.[8] I assume, the book published in 1991, with 462 pages (ISBN 831107836X), is most likely reliable, but I have no idea what it actually says. Poeticbent talk 05:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the good words today--Woogie10w (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Poeticbent talk 03:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I think there was an edit conflict on the Volhynian massacre talk page, where your comments were overridden by my addition. If so, just please re-add. --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict is when you cannot 'save' your edit. However, there was no edit conflict there. You just deleted my post in the process of making dabs to your own posting. I suggest, be courteous, and reinstate my comment which you deleted by carelessness. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, apologies for the confusion. --E-960 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reź Wołyńska discussion

In reference to the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia talk page discussion; one issue worth noting on 'Poland' related topics in general, is that there is a lack of clarity on what an article should focus on, and many articles end up with an 'umbrella effect' where many side issues are covered, in such a way, as if they were the primary focus of a particular article.

In the case of the 'Reź Wołyńska' I think that the article should (and needs to) have a section regarding Armenians, Jews, Ukrainians and Czechs who were killed during the course of the ethnic cleansing campaign against Poles (Ukraininas hiding Poles, Jews being killed while hiding with Polish families, Armenians being murdered because they were considered Polish, and so on…). But, to re-name the entire article — this creates confusion, and we need to consider the numbers/figures in question. If for example 80,000 Poles were killed and 2,000 Jews who were being hidden by Poles, and another 2,000 Ukrainians were killed for hiding Poles, do all those numbers bare equal weight as to warrent a complete change in how the event is understood?

Finally, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article has an entire section titled "UPA and Jews", this topic in itself is extremely complicated, and the Jews that were killed while hiding in Polish homes are just one piece of that particular topic. This is why, in general I have reservations about formulating entire articles based on Snyder's view of WWII events. He tends to blur the line between things in everything WWII related, not just Poland stuff. Snyder is just one of many historians that wrote about WWII, yet in regards to Eastern Europe and WWII he's over emphasized on Wikipedia. In the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia he is referenced by name 56 times in the article (not counting reference links to his books). Yet, there are so many other historians who continue to view/interpret the events in question in a more traditional way, yet they are entirely sidelined in favor of Snyder's view.

Please do not misunderstand my comments as argumentative, not my intent at all; as I do think that the fact that Poles hid Jews under these difficult circumstances and Polish Jews were victims of UPA is note worthy, but clarity also needs to be considered, and not focusing on Snyder's views as the sole authority on the matter. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, User:E-960, if you happen to have Google Books preview available to you, please read the relevant chapter in Grzegorz Rossolinski (2014). Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. Columbia University Press. pp. 272–273. Wikipedia Infobox is supposed to summarize the article content. This is not just about Snyder's point of view. Other historians say the same thing. Jews were targeted at par with the Poles. The smaller number of casualties can only be attributed to the Holocaust and the wholesale annihilation of predominantly Polish Jews in the gas chambers of Operation Reinhard. But, that does not change the fact that that is what the WP:RS confirm, you are just WP:CHERRYPICKING. Quote from Rossolinski: In addition to conducting the ethnic cleansing of the Polish population, the UPA, together with the OUN-B and especially the SB of the OUN-B, murdered Jews. The majority of the Jews killed in 1943 and 1944 by the Ukrainian nationalists had escaped from the ghettos in order to avoid the transports to Bełżec or being shot in front of mass graves. They hid in bunkers, or camps in the woods, or in peasant houses. Some of these Jews were killed as the UPA murdered Poles and destroyed their houses.[195] The survivors of these attacks frequently described the perpetrators as “Banderites” and considered them to be Ukrainian nationalists. (page 272) I prefer that we continue this discussion at Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia where others can see it, therefore I will be re-posting my comment there. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wielun

There were infantry and cavalry units in the area. (RDervishson (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC))

• Take it to talkpage of Bombing of Wieluń, do not post your personal beliefs in here, please. Meanwhile, be informed that your removal of reliable third-party sources coupled with block evasion exclusively for the purpose of edit warring is considered WP:disruptive editing for which you (along with your puppets) can be blocked. Poeticbent talk 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a belief, German reconnaissance showed there was an infantry division and a cavalry brigade in the area on the previous day. Wielun was undoubtedly a legitimate military target. (RDervishson (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC))

Just FYI, RDervishson was yet another sock of site-banned HarveyCarter. Favonian (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

This is the diff I assume you mean. Sorry. Old habits die hard. I am reverting back. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Please don't mention it, it's not a big deal. I value your input actually, but I'm also trying to follow the WP:MOS as much as possible. Some of the changes you originally made were quite reasonable, for example, the request for ISBN and so on. You didn't have to revert back to the old version from before my last edit. – If you don't mind, I will fix it now. Please don't revert my next improvements which also include the issues you addressed. Yours, Poeticbent talk 03:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nazi birthing centres for foreign workers

Forced workers were P (Polish) or OST (mostly Ukrainian but also Polish).Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Please elaborate. I'm not sure what you would like me to work on, and where exactly. The OST badge denoted people employed by Ostindustrie from many ethnic groups. Ethnic Ukrainians sent to Germany for slave labour were also citizens of prewar Poland, not only the prewar Soviet Union. Here are some maps of deportations that show the territories where the roundups were conducted:

1. "Okupacja niemiecka ziem polskich w latach 1941-1944" z książki C. Brzoza "Wielka historia Polski", Tom 9, str. 325.
2. "Archiwum Represjonowanych", Warszawa: Polscy Przymusowi Robotnicy w III Rzeszy Deportacje na roboty przymusowe, mapa.
3. „Denkmal” - kraje pochodzenia oraz liczba robotników przymusowych (Ilustracja). Poeticbent talk 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)