Jump to content

User talk:Poeticbent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Email this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AutoGyro (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 20 June 2014 (→‎Photo of Market Square in Warsaw: *Wrocław not Warsaw, :P). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Ongoing discussions   Did you know... credits for my own new articles, with 69 DYK leaders and 27 top WP:DYKSTATS 

tb

Hello, Poeticbent. You have new messages at Volunteer Marek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sonderdienst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wacław Kopisto

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treblinka deportations graph

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

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

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

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

Something like this?

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

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

Polish article

Greetings, Poeticbent. I have come across an article that you may wish to translate from Polish: pl:Zbrodnia w Józefowie (1942). The Browning source used in the article is available in English as "Ordinary Men". - Hoops gza (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Hoops gza. Below is the short list of other articles from the same Polish Wikipedia category, bearing similar name. I am going to look into it and if we don't have the article I will probably select the location with the most victims. The relevant article about the subject of "Ordinary Men" in English is still missing: i.e. the Reserve Police Battalion 101, the perpetrators of dozens of these massacres. Poeticbent talk 15:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zbrodnia w Bochni
  • Zbrodnia w Distomo
  • Zbrodnia w Józefowie (1942)
  • Zbrodnia w lasach kartuskich
  • Zbrodnia w Łomazach (1942)
  • Zbrodnia w Markowej (1944)
  • Zbrodnia w Palmirach
  • Zbrodnia w Piaśnicy
  • Zbrodnia w Podgajach
  • Zbrodnia w Ponarach
  • Zbrodnia w Skarszewach
  • Zbrodnia w Święcianach
  • Zbrodnia w Wawrze
  • Zbrodnia w Zakroczymiu 1939
  • Zbrodnia w Złoczewie 1939
  • Zbrodnie niemieckie w powstaniu warszawskim
  • Zbrodnie niemieckie w rejonie placu Teatralnego w Warszawie (1944)
  • Zbrodnie w Bukowinie
  • Zbrodnie w Gaju

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
You can copyedits. Axxdena911 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Mińsk Mazowiecki Ghetto

Hello! Your submission of Mińsk Mazowiecki 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! Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Matejko

I think the article may be ready for a GA non. Would you like to expand the lead, and do a general read through / c/e? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mińsk Mazowiecki Ghetto

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Volodymyr Viatrovych 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:
  • Rozdumy_nad_knyzhkoiu_Volodymyra_V_iatrovycha]</ref> [[Per Anders Rudling]]<ref name=rudling>[[author-link=[[Per Anders Rudling|Per A. Rudling]], ''The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust: A Study in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Per Anders Rudling 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:
  • *“Iushchenkiv fashyst: kul’t Bandery v Ukraini ta Kanadi” [“Yushchenko’s Fascist: the Bandera Cult in Ukraine and Canada” and “Perekonlyvi dokazy” [“

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Per Anders Rudling, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MA and UPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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

DYK for Pińsk Ghetto

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

Polish Righteous Among the Nations

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

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

to:

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

stating:

please do not interpret data in a contradictory manner

The original language was just:

Jews were saved by the entire communities...

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

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

BA undue weight tag

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

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

Nazi crimes against the Polish nation

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

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

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

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

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

Blue Army article

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

DYK for Sonderdienst

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

Podpis pod zdjęciem

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

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

Harvard errors in Treblinka extermination camp

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

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

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

The four "errors" are as follows:

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

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

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

Pinedo

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

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

Sock puppet

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

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

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

June 2014

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

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

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

Polonia Palace Hotel

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

Talkback

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

Trami

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

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

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

Photo of Market Square in Wrocław

Hello,

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

Best,

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poeticbent&oldid=613702703"