User talk:Poeticbent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 Ongoing discussions     Did you know... credits for my own new articles, with 69 DYK leaders and 27 top WP:DYKSTATS     

National Independence Day in Poland[edit]

Hi Poeticbent. You've changed the Poland's National Independence Day page recently, removing some of my edits and added some yours. You proposed creating new pages instead, too.

Meanwhile, please pay attention to the citation when you're editing. You changed some of the sentences and left cited sources the same, which don't correspond now. This applies to the last paragraph but also to the number of the participants of the Razem dla Niepodległej march. None of the links say about the number 50.000, that number is an estimation of a different march.

Also, you removed links to the official website of the Marsz Niepodległości (which is officially registered) and also TV Trwam (with over 2h long video coverage of the event from the organizers POV), stating those was militant/partisan. Because The Army of the Patriots was theme title of the 2014 edition, I believe it not only looks like a child-play of yours, but rather you don't let the offended site (which doesn't associate with the riots) to defense at all.

Anyway, I agree with your opinion that either of the marches should have their own sites, so the NI day article doesn't carry any political agenda.

I look forward to a good cooperation. Thanks, and correct me if I'm wrong, rybdar --Rybdar (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The Independence Day article describes the circumstances leading to the independence of Poland, not the 21st century street fights with police by the lunatic fringe. Separate article is necessary. However, no wp:primary sources can be used in the creation of such article, i.e.: the webpages run by organizers of those street fights. Poeticbent talk 16:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for editing some of the things mentioned. You're right about keeping the main topic through the article, I extended the thing too much. But - you're still deliberately forcing your POV, when you claim the organizers are responsible or even they de facto planned the street fights. You also seem to misinform the reader that the march hadn't been registered. This is making criminals of the people Poeticbent, the associations wasn't disbanded nor even accused of such things. Also please note that primary source may be used, because nothing was interpreted there and secondary sources existed - that's fine with the policy. --Rybdar (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to continue with this timely exchange, first, you've got to ease up on your verbiage, quite seriously. – The only thing that can draw my interest here right now is the article itself, not the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation. Poeticbent talk 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Agnieszka Biedrzycka - Kalendarium Lwowa (2012).jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Agnieszka Biedrzycka - Kalendarium Lwowa (2012).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 15:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Literature and poetry[edit]

I would like to ask you to consider reverting the edit that deleted the famous polish authors and poets from the Literature section! It doesn't matter if it overflows, or is not aesthetic, it is still a VITAL part of the article. The table has to be included and not replaced with just Adam Mickiewicz. If you believe that the table was too large, you can definitely reduce the number of people in it ;).


Oliszydlwski (TALK) 11:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Please reply to my post at the article talk page, thanks. Poeticbent talk 04:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Agnieszka Biedrzycka - Kalendarium Lwowa (2012).jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Agnieszka Biedrzycka - Kalendarium Lwowa (2012).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Trebia[edit]

Hi Poeticbent. I edited the Battle of Trebia category pictures because the category contained maps from the 218 BC battle and pictures from the 1799 battle. I believed I was being helpful by moving the pictures to a new category. I also removed the Napoleonic Wars category because that conflict generally covers 1805-1815. I see that you quickly reverted all my edits. This issue is not that important to me so I will let you deal with the situation. BTW: Thanks for adding the 3rd day picture to the Battle of Trebbia (1799) article. I put it in an appropriate place in the text. Djmaschek (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Hi, User:Djmaschek. I left you a note at my talk page in Commons which you probably didn't read yet.[1] Everything has been taken care of. The new Commons:Category:Battle of Trebbia (1799) has been created, and the request for renaming placed at Commons:Category:Battle of Trebia to signify the difference. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Would you be so kind as to create an equivalent Category:Nazi concentration camp commandants on the Polish Wikipedia? I just don't know Polish so I don't know how it would be titled. Once it is created, I could populate it. - Hoops gza (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hoops gza. There's a Category:Nazi concentration camp personnel in Polish Wikipedia under pl:Kategoria:Członkowie załóg obozów hitlerowskich with two dozen subcats for each Nazi camp separately. There's also an article (not a category) with a huge table list of commandants with dates of service under pl:KZ-Kommandant, which we don't have ... even though the German Wikipedia does have it also under de:KZ-Kommandant. I wonder, can we link these existing articles with our own category in lieu of an actual list? Poeticbent talk 23:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please correct me if I misunderstand, I believe you're asking me if it's possible to link the Polish and German articles with the English category through Wikidata? Technically, yes, it is possible. But I don't think we're supposed to do that. We're supposed to link categories with equivalent categories, and articles with equivalent articles. There is already a German category (de:Kategorie:NS-Lagerkommandant), as well as the aforementioned English one, and a Spanish one and Persian one. In reality, there is also a French one, which I have been having trouble linking through the Wikidata, but I should get that to work eventually. Now that I see what the title is on the Polish wiki (KZ Kommandant), I will be able to pursue this on my own. Truth be told I could have figured this out on my own, but I was not adamant enough in looking for it. This is a category that does not require re-categorization, only the addition of the category. Therefore, I do not need help categorizing the articles on the Polish wiki. Thanks for your help. - Hoops gza (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you're also asking me why we don't have an actual list on the English wiki? I don't know. It would be easy to make. Perhaps I will look into that. - Hoops gza (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got the French category linked properly now. Now I will create the Polish one. - Hoops gza (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Polish category would be titled "KZ-Kommandant" and not spell out the meaning of it, like the other categories do? - Hoops gza (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm sorry if I was rude. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg No sweat. Poeticbent talk 03:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm sorry to bother you again, but I forgot that I am not an auto-confirmed user on the Polish Wikipedia. Therefore, each of my edits has to be accepted by a reviewer. So, your help in adding the articles to this category would be greatly appreciated since we would skip that process, a process which potentially could result in losing articles that belong in the category. - Hoops gza (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, Hoops gza. I am going to populate that category for you. Please wait till tomorrow cause I'm in the middle of something. Poeticbent talk 05:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I have just added a bunch of articles to the Polish category, which need to be accepted. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, Hoops gza. I went there and accepted the overwhelming majority of your edits, with the notable exception of men who were not the actual commandants but guard leaders etc. I did not check the citations though, but only the body of each article. So, if the bodytext didn't include the phrase 'commandant of concentration camp' I left your edits unchecked. You can look at your edit history to see who they were. Also, I did not examin edits by other users, so for example I left Amon Göth unconfirmed simply because earlier changes to copytext from before you still await approval. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks as always. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Independence Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page P.m.. 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) 09:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Great article on the ghetto -- but I noticed that you both created the article and rated it yourself for the various wikiprojects. I had thought we were not supposed to rate the article we ourselves created -- is that not correct? --Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thanks for the good word. As far as ratings (especially below the B level), we have guidelines to follow which are straight forward, and include infoboxes, references, images, sections etc. This is like building a car; either it is a buggy, a sedan or a truck... I see no conflict in the actual vehicle manufacturer stating what it is. Poeticbent talk 14:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It was a fine job, and I found it interesting. As to the ratings ... I often think that about ratings also -- as well as AfDs, for that matter -- only to learn that (for whatever reason) others think differently. Perhaps its more akin to the vehicle driver stating whether or not he is inebriated, per the straightforward local inebriation standards. The conflict comes not from how straightforward the rule is, but from one rating one's own work. Plus -- I think it is often beneficial to let someone from a wikiproject come and rate it ... they have interest in the project, and at times improve my articles. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Poeticbent talk 03:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW ... case in point that just came up ... I would have given an article I just worked on a "B", but another editor saw it differently ... here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Epeefleche. You're correct about the actual level of development there, but the WP:BCLASS is a different ballgame. – The WP:B criteria are numbered from one to six, and require individual analysis according to the assessment scheme. The C class, in actuality, is the highest level of development before any labour-intensive B class review takes place. Only the C class ... and anything below that, is quick and easy. In fact, all low-level ratings beginning with the so-called stubs above 1000 characters of prose, are deeply POVed and constitute fly-by tagging in my view. Most real encyclopedias have virtual millions of such entries as perfectly normal. Poeticbent talk 17:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts. By the latest developments on that page, I guess it's a lesser concern than behavioral ones impacting the page and its DYK nomination. Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blue Police[edit]

There is a list of people (in raport Stroopa) who died fighting against the Jews in Warsaw ghetto. I have seen a number of BP men there. Xx234 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Xx234. Can you give me a link to something I can read please? What number? There were lunatic fringes on either side of the war. Ultimately, we would need a reliable third-party source to take it into consideration in our encyclopedia. Poeticbent talk 13:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
1. Xx234 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Xx234 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just finished going over the first 100 pages of the Raport Jürgena Stroopa (42.6 MB) from IPN, which took me an hour-and-a-half. I will continue with it, but my overall impression is that you need to be more precise. Even Stroop himself makes a clear distinction between the so-called fighting force (siły biorące udział w akcji) and supplementary local police force (siły blokujące). Obviously, he is a hostile witness and his "Report" is a first-party Nazi source nevertheless, he confirms that Polska Policja was a civil guard, not a fighting force. On 27.4.1943 some of the constables were arrested along with the "Polish bandits" because they did not report what they knew about their hiding place. Meanwhile, the German historian of Polish background Bogdan Musial also confirms the same already known fact in his brief article you quote (though without any supplementary material) that Polscy policjanci zapewniali gettom jedynie ochronę zewnętrzną. This is a dead horse. Our own article about the Blue Police already says that, including mention of their profligacy. Poeticbent talk 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If the policemen died attacking or blocking doesn't change much. BTW - I knew only the original report and found the IPN edition only yesterday.
Musiał returned to Poland so he isn't exactly "German".Xx234 (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the subject so I have witten you instead to edit the article.Xx234 (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your trust in my abilities, but how would you like me to edit the article? "Siły blokujące" was an expression used by Stoop ... That's not good enough. The police was at the ghetto perimeter, we already know that from multitude of scientific sources. Please read our article again to see what exactly could be changed to include notable facts from BP history in that period. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 08:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Caroline Sturdy Colls article[edit]

Thank you for your edits on the Caroline Sturdy Colls article.

While I will disagree with you that the Observer is an "anonymous attack blog" (I would point out that it is often used as a reference on other articles on Wikipedia), I am more than happy to delete any references to it.

I have therefore rejigged the article to only quote from the Smithonian, Ynet News, and the Opoczno factory website. I would hope that you have no objection to those sources?

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Poeticbent, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Joe Cocker article[edit]

Although I know it was well intended, as an experienced editor you ought to already know that external links should not be added in this way in the body of articles. I was going to revert your edit but someone else beat me to it. Best wishes, Afterwriting (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Afterwriting, I understand the knee-jerk reaction to press the button and I'm not going to fight it, but in actuality, that little bit of of info is quite essential for the real understanding of his future career, because Cocker later stopped lip-syncing altogether. Poeticbent talk 04:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't the information itself that was a problem (at least not for me). It was the way it was included. External links are not normally included with text in articles ~ in references or in the external links section is usually okay. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stanisławów Ghetto[edit]

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