| Revision as of 00:43, 8 January 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,657 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Poeticbent/Archive 10) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:42, 8 January 2015 edit undoE-960 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,992 edits →RALPH LAUREN IS NOT MADE IN POLAND: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| : I hope it is happy and productive. Regards from ] (]) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | : I hope it is happy and productive. Regards from ] (]) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == RALPH LAUREN IS NOT MADE IN POLAND == | |||
| WHAT PART OF THAT IMAGE CAPTION DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND: | |||
| *''"English: Monika "Jac" Jagaciak walking for Ralph Lauren."'' | |||
| RALPH LAUREN IS NOT A POLISH BRAND AND IS NOT MADE IN POLAND. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. WHY DO YOU KEEP RE-ADDING THAT IMAGE???? --] (]) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:42, 8 January 2015
Ongoing discussions Did you know... credits for my own new articles, with 69 DYK leaders and 27 top WP:DYKSTATS
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
National Independence Day in Poland
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)
Article
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)
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)
- Good point. Poeticbent talk 03:06, 9 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)
- 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)
Blue Police
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Seasonal Greets!
|
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. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Joe Cocker article
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
 | On 26 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stanisławów Ghetto, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bloody Sunday massacre of Jews took place two months before the Stanisławów Ghetto was formally set up in December 1941? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stanisławów Ghetto. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
Harrias 12:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Poeticbent!
Poeticbent,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A good 2015 to you and yours!
- I hope it is happy and productive. Regards from Irondome (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
RALPH LAUREN IS NOT MADE IN POLAND
WHAT PART OF THAT IMAGE CAPTION DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND:
- "English: Monika "Jac" Jagaciak walking for Ralph Lauren."
RALPH LAUREN IS NOT A POLISH BRAND AND IS NOT MADE IN POLAND. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. WHY DO YOU KEEP RE-ADDING THAT IMAGE???? --E-960 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)