User talk:Merangs

Article of Vilnius

What's your reason for the mass removal of content from the article Vilnius? You didn't provide a clear-cut explanation for the removal in the summary. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony Peter: Excessive information not linked to the city or its direct history. Countless examples of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and of low relevance per Wikipedia:Relevance quote "Material that is irrelevant or out of scope to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the material undue weight". The article is much too long and uncomfortable to navigate. It should not be classified as a B-class page in the first place. Content was deleted per Irrelevant section of the Wikipedia:Content removal. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. You can proceed with your action. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold on. After hearing from the part of a user from Vilnius, who himself added most of the content in the article, it's been almost convinced that the mass removal doesn't make any sense. Any article has has the right to use their country language/dialect. As those contents were cited, there is no need of removal. I don't know whether you have any personal grudges on Lithuanian objects as the informer said, but if I find out it's true, I'll go on to take action against you. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 04:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Next time please link me to the discussion so I am aware that it is taking place and so I can have my say in it also. I have cited Wikipedia policies and was following Wiki guidelines stated above. Please refrain from scaring me with actions and this sentence "personal grudges on Lithuanian objects as the informer said" is unacceptable. I think this is unprofessional conduct, especially towards experienced users. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: I'm not scaring anyone. I should hear from both sides. Experience may be a huge difference between us, but moreover we are editors, and has the responsibility to inform the matter to much higher designated personalities in here if we are involved in any matter of dispute. No disrespect to you. I am trying to do what I can do better. Thank you.Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: - Ok, thank you for clarifying. I just felt a bit attacked. All I attempted to do improving/cutting a lengthy article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: Ha. No worries. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sigismund III Vasa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chamberlain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Isaac Bashevis Singer

What is the problem of describing him as "a Polish-born Jewish writer living in America" instead of as "Polish-American writer"? The former includes his nationality as well as the ethnicity which clearly informed his work.

I think this is not like arguing over Freud, Einstein and Marx where one can claim them as German/Austrian vs Jewish. In that case, their ethnicity was not a component of their achievement.

But in terms of Singer, his Jewish ethnicity was a key component both of his writing and of his audience. Why can't "a Polish-born Jewish writer living in America" be seen as a compromise? Otherwise, there is no mention of his being Jewish at all in the introduction.

UClaudius (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no such thing as Jewish in the sense of citizenship or nationality. Jewish is a religious identity and it can be expressed for religious leaders. This has been discussed heavily on Wikipedia in general. I think "a writer in Yiddish" is an appropriate expression. Considering he held both citizenships, Polish-American is also accepted. See Context Section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Baked pierogi

This image is from Polish wikipedia... VladOz (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's too much imagery already. Isn't it evident? Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

POV

Oliszydlowski, the statement you inserted is blatantly POV... "TVP media has been transformed into a propaganda-like outlet for the governing party", anytime someone throws around the word "propaganda" it raises questions marks about objectivity, and sounds more like political hype. Pls start to differentiate between sources, instead of just picking a few that suit your POV, from NGO's or opinions from magazines. --E-960 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Consider George Friedman, who a couple of years back he commented on the hysteria surrounding Poland and Hungary, saying: "A perfect case now is the supposed discovery that Poland and Hungary are fascist states. I have seen fascist states, and there is a long way to go before these are fascist states! ". --E-960 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: - I just reworded what was previously added by another user. My opinion is neutral in this topic. You can delete it or rephrase it if you'd like. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents, TVP has a history of being an advocacy mouthpiece of every government in control because it is state-owned.. that's the fact.. but if this should be covered in the man article about Poland is another issue. I don't think it should be. That info applies to the article about TVP, not Poland. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mustard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Louis B Mayer birthplace

Hi Oli,

I would like to let you know that your latest edit in the Louis B mayer article really messed up things.You write :

"According to Scott Eyman, Mayer was born in Minsk, in what was then Russia and today is Belarus. Bosley Crowther suggested that the birthplace has been misinterpreted and Mayer was in fact from the town of Mińsk Mazowiecki in eastern Poland, which at the time was subjugated by the Russian Empire. Other potential locations included Dymer near Kiev in Ukraine".

The truth is that Mayer's birth place according to the various authors that wrote about him the past sixty years was : Bosley Crowther "a little town near Minsk" Samuel Marx "Demre", Gary Carey "Dmra", Irene mayer selznick "Kovno,(present-day) Lithuania", Charles Higham "Dymer", Scott Eyman "Dymer", Andrzej Krakowski "Minsk Mazowiecki". 79.167.226.243 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think my edit is a step to improve it in fact. If you have sources then by all means do add them and clarify. However, the place of birth in the infobox must stay empty due to the discrepancy. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis of Anjou.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems you have been "gamed"

See Talk:Isaac_Bashevis_Singer and [1]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In the article both parties expressed opinion so the article itself is fair. However, I did outline that the outcome is against Wiki rules and guidelines. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, IMHO the piece is very unfavorable towards you. I mean, it ends with the accusation of the other party that you are a troll. Last word, etc. I don't think it is balanced at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I think that it is unfair, both parties expressed opinion. I think the best action would be reversing any edits that you consider against Wikipedia policy. I am maintaining neutrality. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes that troll accusation is ridiculous. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sigismund III Vasa

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sigismund III Vasa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SergeWoodzing -- SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Silesia

Hi,

I was wondering (I am new here) could you please edit the site "Silesia" and add to the table with the Towns - population bigger than 20,000 the town Sosnowiec. Sosnowiec it is a large town in Silesia but I may be wrong it is not in the table.

Thank you, Michal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michal.Oxford (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Michal.

I had a look and it seems that whilst Sosnowiec is currently in the Silesian Voivodeship, it historically lies in Lesser Poland. Much like Częstochowa. Regards. Merangs (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you by any chance from Silesia

Hi Merangs i noticed you edit pages on Silesian areas (I also pop in Occasionally) like Silesia, Bielsko-Biala and Katowice, are you by any chance from there? I'am just curious not trying to do anything bad.You have a cool user page btw. Good day.

Your GA nomination of Sigismund III Vasa

The article Sigismund III Vasa you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sigismund III Vasa for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sigismund III Vasa

The article Sigismund III Vasa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sigismund III Vasa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Known"?

Hello! Your edit summary here seems to claim that "Gustavus II Adolphus" is a known name form. It is not. That's what I corrected to one of that king's known name forms. We can add constructive content to articles without whacking each other on the nose. I'm sure you know that. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: - Gustavus Adolphus alone is sufficient for lead purposes. It is the title of that respectable article. I do not see how changing Gustavus Adolphus into Gustav II Adolf is constructive in any shape or form. Both are indeed correct, but I purely based the assumption on the name of that article for clarity. Can you explain the superiority of one over the other? Also, thank you for altering the lead section a bit. It looks more neutral and clearer now. Merangs (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You have missed the issue. "Gustavus II Adolphus" (Gustavus II Adolphus) with the "II" in there, i.e. "Gustavus II Adolphus" (with the II) is the unknown name form. "Gustavus Adolphus" and "Gustav II Adolf" are both known name forms for the man. Both of them are used about as much in all kinds of academic literature. I made a change from one unknown, incorrect name form "Gustavus II Adolphus" (with II) to a known & correct name form for him. No need to discuss anything else here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Regards for pointing this out. Merangs (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think

About those new articles: Kingdom of Poland (1025–1031)m Duchy of Poland (1031–1076), Kingdom of Poland (1076–1079), Duchy of Poland (1079–1138), Duchy of Poland (1138–1227), Kingdom of Poland (1300–1320)? Something to discuss at WT:POLAND, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - The size and importance of those is ridiculous. It further hurts the credibility of Wikipedia. Unless it is a Duchy, there should be one detailed (and well sourced) article for the Kingdom of Poland from the year of its foundation to 1569. If you look in the infoboxes, at the bottom it says that the "Duchy of Poland" was preceded by the Duchy of Poland and succeeded by the Duchy of Poland. How credible and professional is that? However, the deletion process would be much too lengthy and tiresome with all the explanations. Perhaps they could be merged into a one Duchy and one Kingdom of Poland? Merangs (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll ping the creator User:Artemis Andromeda. I also concur that those are strange entities that probably don't need their own articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Since AA didn't reply and I also note they effectively deleted (by stealth redirect) the long standing and stable article here, I propose to revert that edit, and convert the recently created articles back into a redirect. Would you concur? PS. I'll ping User:Artemis Andromeda once more, and I'd be fine with a bigger RfC, maybe on WT:POLAND too (the arguments in their edit summary are reasonable, it's just that due process of seeking consensus was skipped).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Considering the user has not responded, I think you should go ahead with these suggestions. If anyone disagrees, your edit will be reverted and then we can start a WP:RfC. WT:POLAND seems to be ineffective. The sourced content from new articles should be transferred to one single page, so that AA's contribution is not lost. Merangs (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @Merangs: Good day. Sorry for late response. Ok, I want to admit that some of those articles are short, but, at the same time I disagree with going back to how it looked. Especially, that Poland until 1138 and Poland after that, were 2 different types of states, with Poland until then being united state, while one after that being a loosely connected confederation of states. Also, in contrast to what the previous article stated, Poland between 1227 and 1300 did not exist as one state in any form as there was no single ruler of Poland as status High Duke of Poland (Senior) was discontinued in 1227, with all duchies becoming independent. What I would propose, we could unite articles about states between 960 and 1138 into article titled "Early Piast Dynasty", "Early Piast Monarchy" or "Early Piast Poland", same as Polish Wikipedia does it (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchia_wczesnopiastowska). Then I would keep Duchy of Poland (1138–1227) and then Kingdom of Poland (1300–1320), as it was again different from the later state, as it was the recreation of the confederation of duchies, while the one after 1300 was a unified singular state. Then, I would keep United Kingdom of Poland and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda Somehow I missed your ping here. You make a good point, and it's not like I hear a lot of others disagreeing (although I still think it might be worth moving this discussion to WT:POLAND). Anyway, I still have some concerns over entries like Kingdom of Poland (1295–1296). Do we really need an entry for a state that lasted two years? And finally, is there any reliable reference that uses such periodization? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Really,

Repetitive really. Listen your deleting my edits. Now I added the audio as a defence so whoever erases it counts as vandalism. If you want to be helpful, atkeast put the Polish IPA and audio for Szczecin besides the German one. This is ridiculous. Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deutschland1871: - No, it won't count as vandalism if they do not agree and are willing to discuss per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Nobody deleted the audio. I will conform to your edit if you explain the importance of the Low German variation in the lead. I think German by itself is enough. Merangs (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, Low German speakers inhabit northern Germany despite their name and have settled there along with High German speakers and they have had a cultural impact on the region. The area Szczecin was inhabited by Germanic people's around 1AD. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

And also addthe Polish IPA and audio besides the German one aswell. There is a reason why my username is Deutschland1871. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: - What is the purpose of you adding a German name to Warsaw? Also, some Northern German city articles do not have a Low German variant in their respective lead sections. Merangs (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Their was an unused audio file, that's why I added it. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: - That is not how Wikipedia works. If the German variant is not significant for the region, and mind you Warsaw was not part of the German Empire after 1871, then it should not be added even if there is an audio file. Merangs (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I was just searching audio Files and I found it. No page seemed to have used it as far as I know so what is the purpose of an audio File existing when it is not used if not at the very least rarely. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

Understandable. The German Empire did had Warsaw vriefly in 1914 to 1919. Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deutschland1871: - This audio file is probably used in German Wikipedia. Merangs (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me check. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

Wait a sec, hold it. Its not on the German Wiki page for Warsaw. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: - I only assumed. Feel free to add it there as it should be there. On English Wikipedia not so much. Merangs (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I mean, I speak English but I might. Fair enough. Deutschland1871 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sigismund III Vasa

On 27 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sigismund III Vasa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sigismund III transferred Poland's capital from Kraków to Warsaw in 1596? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigismund III Vasa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sigismund III Vasa), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Intonation and Antiquity. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

CCI closed

Hi Merangs, just wanted to let you know I've closed the CCI. I really appreciate you taking it upon yourself to remove the rest of the issues from the last few remaining articles. Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: - So sorry for all the trouble it caused. I was not aware of the CCI Inv. until recent. Merangs (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all good, a lot of people make these kinds of mistakes - you're not the first, won't be the last. Thanks for being cool about it, happy editing! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis XV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duchy of Tuscany.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish złoty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulden.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Olecko

Dziękuję. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sca: - Nie ma za co. :) Merangs (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I know only a few words and phrases of Polish, from when I lived in Warsaw in the mid-'90s. Things were still quite grim then. – Sca (talk)

PS: My favorite Joseph Conrad tale is Typhoon. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Warsaw

@Sca: - Sadly, I am not old enough to remember those "dark" times of transition. As for the novel, my favourite must be George Orwell's dystopian epic Nineteen Eighty-Four. Also, thank you for your edit on Olecko! I am currently engaged in writing an article about John I Albert, King of Poland, at User:Merangs/sandbox. If you ever find spare time, please feel free to suggest any changes or even contribute. I am hoping to upgrade the finished article to a GA status. Merangs (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

← Speaking of dark times, I took this pic. in January 1997. – Sca (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sigismund III Vasa info box

Depiction by Heintz, circa 1605

Hello, May I ask why did you revert my change of the info box it was in my opinion a much better image. It wasn’t cropped and from a more famous artist. And gives viewers a much better image of what the king wore every day. Have a nice day! Orson12345 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it would possible to change the posthumous portrait of Sigismund used in the article and replace with the portrait by Rubens Orson12345 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither the current nor the second choice were good enough; Rubens' depiction is not entirely accurate (most likely Sigismund didn't sit for the painting). However, I agree that the previous cropped image could be replaced. I personally favour the one attached here by Joseph Heintz the Elder, though I was unable to find any coloured-version of it anywhere. Also, posthumous portraits should not be used in the infobox. Merangs (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. For now do you think I should replace the posthumous portrait used in the article for the portrait by Rubens since it’s a contemporary portrait of Sigismund. Orson12345 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The one by Bacciarelli Orson12345 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the Rubens' version should be discarded. Perhaps there are other selections? Merangs (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok I’ll do some research and see what I can find. Orson12345 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Russia

Huh? Apparently I've "vandalised" for stating the official figures. Look at the article's edit history and point out where I've vandalised the article, you can't even do that. Also, check this source out, its from the UNDP: [2] - it clearly states "Russian Federation’s HDI value for 2019 is 0.824— which put the country in the very high human development category—positioning it at 52 out of 189 countries and territories." Exactly what I stated in the article's lead. There's no point in arguing for petty issues such as these. Mspriz (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mspriz: - No need for a "very high". Sounds like Wikipedia:Wikipuffery which is against Wikipedia policy. Best to represent it in stats or ranking against other nations. Considering that the version before your edits has been longstanding I suggest you seek an RFC on Russia talk page. Or perhaps remove the passage entirely. Well done on expanding the article though. Merangs (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Merangs: This article isn't the first article I have seen on Wikipedia, that has the usage of "very high" while mentioning the HDI of a country, its very common actually. The latter is used on Hungary, Argentina, Serbia, Chile etc. and the list could go on. There's a ton of them. This can also be used backwards, such as in the case of Nigeria—where its stated the country has "very low" human development.

@Mspriz: - It shouldn't and would normally be removed from the lead of countries. It's just too broad, exaggerated and not always accurate in its entirety. 64th position of Serbia is not "very high" at all. It's a matter of criteria set by the HDI, where any country with an index above 0.800 is described as such. I shall remove it there as well. Merangs (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

About time, as far as I can see, the HDI in Russia's lead was represented with "very high" as back as August 2021, originally there since a long time. And then it got changed, with the exact positioning. And then I changed it back, and now it got changed again. I am not trying to start an edit-war here for a such a small issue. And about the RFC option, the article's talk page is dead. Quite literally, people barely respond to anything in there, from requests to discussion. Talk pages aren't supposed to be like that, and are usually pretty vibrant.

Yes, but you have added it. It just sounds less professional and accurate, and looking at your contributions to the Russia page I presume you are attempting to improve the quality of the article. One can say "is ranked highly (52nd)" rather than blatantly "very high". Merangs (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Bydgoszcz

Hello,
Reverting the whole edit of mine is an atrocity. The previous version of the article was full of errors, with the biggest one being the mention of Bydgoszcz located between Kuyavia and Pomerania, which is not true. Same with the updated information about the urban complex, several years ago Bydgoszcz has formed an organisation Stowarzyszenie Metropolia Bydgoszcz, similarily to Poznań, to focus on its efforts to strengthen its relationships with smaller cities around -- now it's all gone. The same goes for the information about the Politechnika Bydgoska, which the Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Przyrodniczy transformed into last year. I do agree that the introduction was somewhat long, but, if need be, it could have been shortened and not reverted completely. And seriously, giving precise information about it being a capital of each voivodeship in the Polish People's Republic for a few years (like Pomeranian in 1945-1947) is way more important than international NATO headquarters or the roots of the city growth in the 19th century? I don't understand how you referred to the collage as "outdated", because every picture is up to date except for the last one at the Brda river, simply because no nice picture has been taken lately. The old granaries -- undoubtedly the most important and most-known building in the city as well as its symbol -- in the previous collage, the one you restored and the one that was made nine years ago, are nowhere to be found. Neither do I find my collage too big; it features nine pictures and so do collages of Toruń or Warsaw, and the size is not bigger than collages of Dresden or Oslo. Besides, calling a Top 10 city in Poland, Top 100 in the EU, bigger than Malmö or Bilbao, "small" is a pure nonesense and I am utterly disappointed to read that from an experienced Wikipedian, let alone an urban development graduate. Please explain.
Kind regards, Ciastkoo (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ciastkoo: - I don't see any of this information necessary in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, regardless of whether Bydgoszcz is considered moderately large or small city. The current information and its length is sufficient. Secondly, I have read and studied some sources which consider Bydgoszcz both Kuyavia and Pomerania regions; I do not doubt your claim, but either way sources need to be added to verify that. For now, I removed the passage for neutrality. In terms of the collage, it was too large and the pictures not well selected (both collages are outdated in fact, with the previous one being more professional and harmonious). I will review your edit as I have assumed Good Faith and will reincorporate the vital information to the body of the article that you have added, excluding the collage and history part. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Baptism of Poland

I know that you some time ago you change the original reference from Christianity to Western Christianity, however this is not the correct use of such a term. Western Christianity is a not a religion and not even a denomination, like Catholics, Baptist or Lutherans, it's a term which geographically categorizes Christian denominations. So, you could say, "converted to Christianity" or "converted to Lutheranism" but no one converts to "Western Christianity", the term is not used in this instance. No one says "I'm a Western Christian". --E-960 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@E-960: - It is a matter of words. One could say "adopted Western Christianity". I do not see the point of removing 'Western' as Christianity is too broad and we wouldn't like to be interpreted as Byzantine. For clarity and comprehension, we could replace the term "Latin" with "Western Church". Merangs (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

We do already have this, we note that: "accepted Christianity as the rightful religion under the auspices of the Latin Church". This states it nicely, religion is Christianity and the authority is the Latin Church in Rome. --E-960 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Poland Demographics

Hi, I wanted to ask why did you undo my edit about Poland's Demographics (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poland&oldid=1075486657). According to your comment it was "Not an improvement, extremely repetitive". Can you clarify which portion is repetitive? I based my entry on similar demographic summaries on wikipages for other countries.

Also, how is this not an improvement over the previous version, which:

• Incorrectly lists Polish TFR at 1.44 using a website called "Macro Trends", while my version used (and cited) data directly from the Polish statistical office. It also incorrectly editorializes this TFR as "a considerable rise from previous years" while in fact, TFR fell in Poland in 2020, just like in most countries
• Compares modern fertility to that from almost 100 years ago. Why specifically year 1925? My version placed it in much more sensible context: noting when the TFR fell below replacement level, as well as when it was the lowest recorded (given it was relatively recently, 19 years ago)
• Claims that "Around 60% of Poles and Polish citizens reside in urban areas or major cities and 40% in more rural zones" -- this is simply misleading. Polish statistical office only reports urbanization rate, which is indeed around 60%, but which includes towns in more rural "zones" (should be areas, not zones; zone has a specific meaning in English) while not including places like Raszyn just outside of Warsaw, which are administratively villages even though they are located in urban areas.
• Brings no value to the reader through the section about most- and least-populous regions. I checked a few other wiki pages on countries for benchmark and none of them has it. Most of them list major metro areas, though, which I added because the current version only lists Warsaw metro area and then Katowice conurbation (why single out this conurbation?). It also mixes the statistical methodology (metro area) with urban studies methodology (conurbation). Additionally, in the version you restored, all the data cited is from 15-20 years ago, and is imprecise. In the citations I provided, all the data is from 2019-2021 period.
• Does not disclose the important information that in the 2011 census people were allowed to declare more than 1 nationality/ethnicity. Without it, the data provided in the article looks dubious because it sums up to 39.2 million - more than the census reported in total
• Cites the verifiably untrue figure of 1.7 million Ukrainian workers, and my edit exactly aimed to clear up that misunderstanding. The figure the journalist refers to are all "a declaration on entrusting work to a foreigner" which: A) can be filed multiple times for a single worker, and even by multiple employers but the worker can only enter once for up to 6 months, and B) does not mean the foreigner took up the job in Poland, and actually that is extremely common (80% don't, according to the Polish Comptroller: https://www.nik.gov.pl/aktualnosci/nik-o-zatrudnianiu-cudzoziemcow-na-podkarpaciu.html).
• Claims that Karta Polaka recipients are included in official population figures, and refers to a source which does not confirm it (hint: it depends in what capacity Karta Polaka recipients are in Poland; only students would be included in official population figures).

Overall, thanks for implementing some of my edits in the most recent version but I think overall that section still is not great. In summary, it provides wrong or misleading data, the data is outdated, hard to understand why some things are highlighted (e.g. least/most-populous regions, most-populous conurbation) while some are not (e.g. major metro areas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szyymek (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Szyymek:. Thank you for your contributions and clarifications. The content you added was well done. The point is that we aim to trim the article and not add more and more content. I agree the current section isn't perfect, but certain information that you've added can be described as trivial or too broad. The point is to create summaries in an encyclopaedic tone. I found the life expectancy repetitive (already in Health section), and also the minorities, which were (aren't anymore) in the Languages section. It is true that all stats pre-2018 e.g. 1925 should indeed be removed. Do you think you can rewrite it and fit in three relatively short paragraphs? We should also eliminate listing all the minority groups by numbers and percentages as these estimates are not fully credible. We could alternatively keep the sentence about how many migrants received work permits. Merangs (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Popular election.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ask for a contact

Hi Oli. Mind if we exchange e-mail contacts? I would like to ask you for some advice. NeonFor (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@NeonFor: - Hi hi. When you click on my username link and go to my homepage you will see a "Tools" bar to the left and just click "Email this user". It will go directly to my email :). Merangs (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

GA for Poland

The history section of the article is way too huge. It needs a massive trim, and more use of summary style. The history section takes up most of the article's size, and is a big obstacle to the GA nomination. Thesickreservoir (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: - I'll attempt to trim the history part today. Thank you so much for your contribution. Merangs (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The healthcare section needs to be reformed. Its possibly the worst sourced section in the article. It uses a blog as a source. Thesickreservoir (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The part about the hospitals can be cut entirely. I will deal with the whole article shortly; I am currently focused on the history section. Merangs (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is in a much better shape than before. The culture section is well-written, but very large. To reduce its size, the art section could be merged with the architecture section, and the media section with the cinema section. However, after merged, they would need to be trimmed. As done in many GA and FA class articles. The literature section could also get another trim.

But you are right, the economy section needs a re-write. I tried to trim off the second para of the heading, as it was mostly very old data. The Transport and energy section is mostly backed by old sources - and the Tourism section needs a reliable sentence listing the country's most popular tourist areas. The second para of the section is entirely unsourced. Thesickreservoir (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to it today. Thank you for your comments. Merangs (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Image

Merangs, I don't really have an issue with the image in the Religion section, however I think we are starting to over do it with the double image thumbs in the article, I just don't want that to become a thing in the Poland article, where everyone starts to insert extra images using this method. --E-960 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, alright. Also, is there a quality image of John Paul II that can be horizontal and would correspond to the image above it i.e. the Polish-Kashubian bilingual sign in the Languages section? I checked other articles such as Japan and most images there follow a pattern. Merangs (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarusian name in articles about the Krewo and Lublin unions.

In order to overcome the inconvenience, I suggest you express your views on this topic in order to combine the status quo. First I will express my thoughts. As I wrote earlier, the village of Kreva is now in Belarus. This union is the beginning of the rapprochement of the GDL and the Kingdom of Poland, which later led to the union in Lublin, which had a great influence on the history of Belarus.

The Lublin Union is one of the main events not only in Polish but also in Belarusian history. I believe that the names of the unions should be written in Belarusian as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd suggest you begin discussing edits and not engaging in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Whilst, what we now consider Belarus and Ukraine were then part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, I do not see how adding loose translations of such acts is beneficial in any way. Poland–Lithuania was a multi-ethnic state, and you can argue that such a union was important to its minorities. This would entail adding other translations such as Ukrainian, Ruthenian, German, Yiddish etc. I believe Polish and Lithuanian are sufficient as it was the union between the two, and don't see how it impacted Belarus as an entity (i.e. did it make Belarus independent and so on). Merangs (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice.

Back to our topic.The Ruthenian language (Old Belarusian and old Ukrainian) was the state language of the GDL and ancestors of Belarusians were the main part of the GDL population after the Lublin Union and the territory of modern Belarus occupied almost 80% of the GDL territory after 1569. Here is the map

.

I think that it is impossible to say that all the heritage of the GDL belongs to only modern Lithuanians, firstly because there were no nations in the Middle Ages and secondly because most of the GDL culture was created by the ancestors of modern Belarusians. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how this still corresponds to Belarus as an entity. I think it'd be more appropriate to place Ruthenian. Can you seek an RfC? Merangs (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Belarusians as a nation (as well as modern Lithuanians) were formed within the GDL which at that time was part of the Commonwealth.

In the Middle Ages, the term "Lithuanians" did not refer only to the inhabitants of Samogitia and Aukštaitija. This term applied to all residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and after the union they were the ancestors of modern Belarusians and modern Lithuanians. Therefore, I think that there should also be a Belarusian name. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bit POV. Belarusian wasn't formed as a language that early and Ruthenian is more inclusive. Please seek RfC. Merangs (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the modern Lithuanian language was not formed so early too. In general, the alphabet for it appeared only in the 17th century. But you think that the name in modern Lithuanian should be written in this article. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In all honesty I think Litwinist - AntiLukashist makes some valid points. Old Belarusian was the main language of the GDL, and later one of the official languages of PLC. There is no reason to exclude it Marcelus (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that it was the official language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from what I've read. Ruthenian was official until the end of the 17th century. Merangs (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What you call Ruthenian is also called Old Belarusian, to qoute Bogdan Walczak: Thus, when the grand ducal chancellery was finally formed (at the court of Olgierd), Ruthenian was adopted as its language (functionally in the chancellery variant, and due to its territorial origins, it is best described as Old Belarusian) (link). There is no reason to remove Belarusian names from the biographies of important figures of GDL history.Marcelus (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Báthory, Belarusian name.

Hi, and again we are talking about a similar topic. Stefan Batory was neither a Pole nor a Belarusian nor a Lithuanian but he was the King of the Commonwealth, King of Poland and the Prince of the GDL, as I wrote to you earlier the legacy of the GDL does not belong exclusively to modern Lithuanians, it also belongs to Belarusians; Moreover, Stefan Batory used Hrodna in Belarus as his residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk • contribs) 12:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

His residence in what is now Belarus does not justify placing a Belarusian translation of his name in English Wikipedia. There is no mention of the term "Belarus" in Bathory's titles. I do understand the cultural and historical background that supports your claim, but then we would be including not only Belarusian but other languages as well and that would make the lead section untidy (overflow). The PLC stretched over many borders, not only those of contemporary Belarus. Merangs (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You use only modern place names, but if use historical and medieval place names, it becomes clear that the lands of modern Belarus were called Lithuania or GDL in Latin (Magnus Ducatus Lituaniae) and the lands of modern Lithuania (Lietuva) were called Samogitia.

As on the map I sent earlier.

According to this in the title of Bathory (By the grace of God and the will of the people, the King of Poland, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Rus (Ukraine) or Ruthenia in Latin, Prussia, Mazovia, Samogitia, Podlasie, Inflants, Smolensk, Seversky, Chernihiv and others, and others) there is no word "Belarus" because instead there is "the Grand Duke of Lithuania" and there is the word "Samogitia" which means modern Lithuania (Lietuva). Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if You want to see an "RfC", then firstly,please, explain how to create and spread it. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see Template:Rfc and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Merangs (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Łódź, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abolition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Poles are Slavs too

Well of course no Slavic ethnic group is "entirely" of Slavic descent. But then by that token we should change all the other Slavic ethnic groups (i.e. Russians, Czechs, Ukrainians, etc.) to say that they are "predominantly of West Slavic/East Slavic/South Slavic descent" too. Every country, Slavic ones included, has minorities, but overall the population consists mostly of Slavs. Do you see where I'm coming from? I just think the reversion of my edit was a bit unnecessary when all the Wikipedia pages for other Slavic ethnic groups say that they are "an East/West/South Slavic ethnic group". How are the Poles any different? FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)