User talk:Poeticbent

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

Ukrainian Auxiliary Police

There may well be data available, especially if reliability is not a premium, but what you're citing so far is terrible: axishistory is a website run by an amateur historian, which at best collects primary data. What is the point of listing the individual, minor components (of 140 people) that made up the Schutzmannschaft-Brigade Siegling? If you have to cite axishistory or papers from Academia, it's probably not worth citing. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. I see your point about WP:RS guideline, but please look at the author. Per Anders Rudling is an associate professor of the Department of History at Lund University (Sweden). Therefore his paper uploaded at Academia.edu for the ease of access is just a carrier. The same paper can be found at the Romanian Academy Historical Yearbook Vol. VIII, 2011 by Offprint, Bucharest; also reprinted there. Having the battalions listed by dates and numbers enabled me to find books by other authors. We have to start somewhere, and the numbers by themselves in my view cannot be perceived as controversial. Many other articles concerning World War II history have various raw data quoted from Axis History. Personally, I see no "redflag" in it unless controversial claims are made along the way which is not the case. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Poeticbent, thanks for the response. See, I had a look at that Axis history website yesterday, which is cited all over Wikipedia, and I have no faith in it as a reliable source: no peer review, no Ph.Ds, no editorial board. I get your point about Rudling--but he's not automatically reliable because he has a Wikipedia article (which he wouldn't have gotten if it weren't for that one incident, and his "Selected publications" need to be cut from the article), and the fact that his paper is on Academia means something. I know it does, because I just got a paper rejected by a journal--I can put it up on Academia, though, as if nothing ever happened. For the purposes of RS, Academia is simply not acceptable. Petrouchkevitch is a master's thesis--and we typically don't even accept Ph.D. dissertations as reliable sources. Now, you cite Schiessl, and that source is fine--but note that Schiessl does not go into the level of detail that our article does, for one reason or another. RS, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't just mean "cite something reliable"--if information is available in reliable sources it also indicates whether something is worth noting in the first place. The internet is full of factoids, and our policies are meant as a sieve, a tool to separate the wheat from the chaff, which in the case of the Ukraine is of course an apt metaphor which you are free to use anytime. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. Just like you, I have no faith in Axis website for anything of greater importance. We use it routinely though (often without citing the actual source) for things like NSDAP and the SS card numbers and military ranks of German officers. Many of those entries at Axis however do have sources listed along the way thus making it somewhat more acceptable. I'm inclined to see things on case by case basis with anything. Please tell me, where are the references to Petrouchkevitch and Ukraine by Stephen Rudnicki? Names sound familiar, but where did you get them from, for illustration? A snippet view in Google Books tells me nothing,[1] but I'd like to be aware of any possible issues for the future. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Petrouchkevitch is cited in the article, note 32. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. I did a little more digging, because the issue of Wendel's reliability was already brought up earlier.[2] I see now that the article is not being singled out, the source is. Please remember, not all our articles are meant to live up to the highest standards of academic inquiry. You're setting the benchmark very high across the board. Meanwhile, Wendel has been acknowledged by other historians for his contributions to the subject, notably by Terence O'Reilly in his Hitler's Irishmen (ISBN 1856355896) and C. M. Vasey in his Nazi Ideology (ISBN 1461685303).[3] [4] Wendel runs The Third Reich Factbook noted for his massive collection of data by Signal webpage devoted to Nazi German Signal (magazine) among others. As far as I'm concerned his featured articles at Axis can be quoted if needed, unless our own Wikipedia:RSN members decide otherwise. Please reconsider, Poeticbent talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ravensbrück concentration camp

I had a question about your most recent edit. I partially reverted it but I am new to WP and I wanted to ask more about it especially as I may be in the wrong. You removed information for being original research, however from what I could tell the information was not original research but rather was lacking a citation. I was able to easily find a citation to support half of what was removed. (I didn't look for a citation for the other half. It looked harder to research and I just have a minute today.) I am wondering when it is appropriate to remove information for being original research and when it is appropriate to use a CN tag instead. Are there guidelines on this? I would have used a CN tag in this instance and I want to make sure I am understanding the WP guidelines. Tripleahg (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Poeticbent. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	In appreciation and respect for your consistent ability to remain civil even in the most egregious situations. Your level-headedness and predisposition towards thinking through both the content and discussion of content issues is invaluable to the project. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Barbarossa

Thank you so much for adding the table to the order of battle section. I myself thought it filled up a huge amount of space, but was not aware of any such tables, so I'm very glad you added it. Thanks a bunch, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome, Poeticbent talk 15:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Imputations of COI

Sure enough I come across many BLPs where COI seems clear but I've never stated my thoughts. You need to gave solid evidence. You are quite mistaken as far as I am concerned. Just disagreeing with you over two words doesn't give me COI. Carry on and I might think of reporting you.Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)