Talk:Wola Piotrowa

Known residents list

Let me admit being a bad Wikipedian: I'm fairly tolerant of non-encyclopedic information contained in articles about small geographic places. Information about such places is useful to the public and there are frequently very few sources for it which can satisfy all of Wikipedia's rules. The editor who first created this and a number of other articles about small cities in this region some years ago included a bunch of stuff, including these lists of names, which do not satisfy the fairly strict requirements of Wikipedia for inclusion and which may violate Wikipedia's extremely strong rules about copyright. (If there's not a reliable source for the list then it violates either the verifiability or no original research policy; if there is a reliable source for the list, then it was likely just copied verbatim from that source, which probably violates the fair use policy for one of a couple of possible reasons.) An editor removed the name list from this (and I wouldn't be surprised other) articles and a different editor put it back in. I'm not going to remove it, but I do want to let the editor who put it back in know that if a real challenge to its inclusion arises or if it is removed by the other editor again, that it probably will not be retained. I'm saying all this simply to say that the editor who restored that information should not take my non-removal of it to be a affirmation that it ought to remain. Oh, and also to the restoring editor: You cannot make editorial comments anywhere on an article page. They're prohibited by either or both WP:NOR or WP:NOTESSAY. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor who put that list in got indef banned for copy right violations and hoax-y edits [1], [2]. This is a sock of that editor.VolunteerMarek 17:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You can start an SPI if you like, but personally I don't think they're the same person. Silar had been around for a long time and Corinna Caudill started editing before Silar ever started getting into serious trouble. Caudill's editing reflects fairly typical errors of the type committed by an editor just jumping into editing without spending much time learning the rules and tends to focus on Ukrainian/Lemko issues while Silar's interests were far more Wiki-sophisticated and broader. On the other hand, as I pointed out above, I may not do anything to fix the issues I mentioned but neither will I defend them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This [3] is most definitely Silar, and it's very unlikely that the two users' interests would overlap in this very specific way.VolunteerMarek 21:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with including the names? I will review the rules this week, but please enlighten me as to why it's such a big deal to have to remove them when it's useful to people interested in that village? This village history is very hard to come by in English and a lot of work from a lot of people went into even making that possible. Sure, perhaps I don't know all of the rules of Wikipedia, but my associates (The Lemko Project) and I are attempting to provide a public service by providing this information in English. We are also trying to add sources so that people can read more literature that relates to the specific history of that village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinna Caudill (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I didn't realize that editorial comments couldn't be made on the page. My colleague (who is fluent in Polish) informed me that one of the sources which was translated into English differed from the Polish version of that book, so I attempted to include both citations so that Polish-language readers could understand how to obtain the original version. However, they can probably figure it out for themselves. It is important that people get good information because the information is very scarce on these villages, which is, by the way, why it's important to include richness in details.