Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Pmnedus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page A Polish Nobleman did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Kleuske (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I added several reliable sources, will go to the Teahouse to ask what is wrong Pmnedus (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago15 comments2 people in discussion
This article may be a good starting point. The image is hosted on Commons, but is prominently featured at the top of the article already. Also, Wikipedia requires sources for an attribution of said painting. Good luck. Kleuske (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
attribution source example please. An email of the Museum in Washington will do!? Pmnedus (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No. Sources need to be publicly accessible. E-mails won't do. Kleuske (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also I own the copyright of the painting, so who are you to change it.... Pmnedus (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
You own the copyrights to a 17th century painting? ROTFLMAO. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
yes, you own the painting of the Washington museum!? Pmnedus (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would be a good thing if you were to educate yourself on copyright, before you make a fool of yourself, publicly. Anyways. Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
and what means ROTFLMAO should I see that as a bad thing... Pmnedus (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at A Polish Nobleman instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wladyslaw IV Vasa in elk skin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Pmnedus!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello KylieTastic, yes you are right, i had the same idea to improve the polish Nobleman, i tried and everytime it was removed to the original.
The moderator even removed in the read further section of that article references, but removed it as “off topic”. As it is a different item, and cannot alter the information on the article, said the moderator, i was forced to create my own….. please your comments. And would two items in the same article not be confusing for the reader…!? Pmnedus (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am a bit confused. Should I continue and improve it at A Polish Nobleman instead.
Hello, Pmnedus. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 17:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).Reply
I thought I did a good job updating, now a moderator ,as before, removed al my updates!?
I think putting my items back, will not resolve this, because it will be removed within a matter of minutes, but I do not agree of not being constructive and
since my sources, by the looks of it, do not support my claims.!?
Hello, Pmnedus, I have answered your question at the Teahouse regarding this topic. Best regards — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 17:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to A Polish Nobleman, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I very much doubt Rembrandt or one of his students would have called the painting The treasurer of our archaeology. Also WP:OR and WP:V, since your sources, by the looks of it, do not support your claims.Kleuske (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
You’re absolutely right , Rembrandt or his pupils could never have given the painting a name like “The treasurer of our archaeology”. “The treasurer of our archaeology” is the title of a book which was published in in the year 1854. In that book on page 61 to 68 one can find an Polish inventory of belongings made in the year 1655. There you’ll find a list of paintings and one of them is called “Wladyslaw in Elk Skin”.
I apologize for making you think otherwise. Can you advise me how to proceed. Pmnedus (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
edit(s) you made to A Polish Nobleman, did not appear to be constructive.
I looked at Editing Wikipedia: A guide to improving content on the online encyclopedia.pdf
and it is for me unclear which part was not constructive, please advice. Thanks Pmnedus (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
3.{{cite book| title=”Skarbniczka naszej archeologji ..." by Ambroży Grabowski, pp. 61-68
the original entry for the part: The treasurer of our archaeology
I thought maybe I made a mistake, but the format is correct (cite book), so I don't understand the confusion, please advise on how to do it in another way!? Thanks Pmnedus (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Pmnedus, from what I could see (and from what Kleuske said), your edits were reverted as the sources did not support the text you added. Also, your edits do not seem to be consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and have introduced grammatical errors. For future reference, there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia; There are Administrators who deal with blocking trolls, spammers etc. but there are no groups called Moderators. Kleuske is not an administrator either. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me. Regards — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 13:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
But the sources did support the text. Explained this to Kleuske.
For the Style I will check and correct it, still not clear for me…
After that, can I than republish it!? And if ‘yes’ what is the procedure. Thanks Pmnedus (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
their are no original content, all is to be found on the web Pmnedus (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your recent editing history at A Polish Nobleman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Normally a new article is created and then people add their comments. I did that and had several comments and corrected it. Now on the Tea House they told me to update the existing page. Now I asked several times to Kleuske for advice. No responses.And I asked if comments please discus before reverting. How, when updating an existing article, other people can give an opinion if it is right? There is no original information only used information that is published. How to resolve this is for me very unclear. Pmnedus (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:A Polish Nobleman can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, you tolled me one time, please loggon while commenting. My comments where after I was removed as user, still discussing trying to make my points.
Kleuske said, my item will never be a “noticable painting” and takes information from a not reliable sourse. My item is on Canvas, and Kleuske is talking about created on pineboard. If it is the same item, than the source is unreliable, because if they caanot see on which medium it is creared on.Should I continue. No. Please stop sending me emails. Please. Pmnedus (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, so the speedy deletion is for the information which was added to the picture.... This for me can al be deleted, of course,sorry. I do not understand in how to proceed with ´taking away the information´ and not the picture. Please advise Pmnedus (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just stop it. Alternatively, show me the killer source that really attributes that name to the painting. I have gone through your "sources", twice and did not find any. Plenty of irrelevant, inaccessible or flat-out garbage references. A site for re-enactors of Polish Huzzars, for crying out loud. I am left with no choice but to qualify your activity here as POV-pushing. Kleuske (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
For me, my killer source is the extract from the will of Jan Paviola
(Johannes Benedictus Savioly, d. 1653) ‘counsilor’ of Krakow (Poland).
This extract is to be found in the book "The treasurer of our archaeology".
In that book (published 1854) on page 62 one can find an Polish inventory of belongings made in the year 1653/5. In that list are several pictures mentioned. Among them are several pictures of ‘King Ladislaus IV’(Wladislav IV). One of them is “a image of King Ladislaus IV in elk skin.
This combined with the historical information that he travelled in the 1637 from Poland via Holland/Belgium to Vienna and back again. (arriving in Holland before and on May 6th 1637, Huygens).
That sounds exactly like original research. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
please explain to me, why is this book mentioned, is not an reliable published source? Pmnedus (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is a WP:PRIMARY source, to wit the will of a private person, from which you draw conclusions. That is the very definition of WP:OR. Kleuske (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
A blog post on a Weebly website will most definitely NOT do, you are wasting everyone's time here. Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I agree we are wasting time, can I then only publish the picture..!? Pmnedus (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Pmnedus You might be permitted to publish the picture you refer to, but that's up to Wikimedia Commons, not us. That said, I am concerned that you've once again published what appears to be a long personal piece of research about that image on Commons. I have marked it for consideration for deletion as I don't believe it's acceptable to presenting OR there either. A much shorter description and explanation might have been acceptable, but not what you posted there.
For reference, I have just added the following to Talk:A Polish Nobleman which I hope might add to the comments already made here and at the Teahouse:
Just to clarify: We do not allow Wikipedia editors to come here and promote and present their own theories, ideas or research on any topic. This is what is meant by WP:OR. However, if a museum has undertaken research into its collections and made that research publicly available in print or online, we deem that organisation to have had editorial oversight of its content, and we [usually] regard that as a reliable source. [There are exceptions, however. Think 'Flat Earth Society'] When it comes to opinions of who painted which person and when, then opinions may differ. Another esteemed organisation might publish research which draws a different conclusion. Once again, we need to know that editorial oversight has been involved. Then, on Wikipedia, we might wish to clarify that two different interpretations exist.
However, if one of those museums' staff members were to take to their own personal blog and publish their own personal interpretations, we would not accept it. There would have been no editorial oversight. Even had it been one of the world's experts, we would not accept personal blogs and opinions. If that person then comes here as an editor and tries to publish their unproven and unpublished ideas, we call that WP:OR and would reject it. That curator would have to ensure that their work has already been published by a reliable source (its own institution, perhaps) before any editor here could consider their personal research as being appropriate to include here. But then, they would also have a clear Conflict of Interest in writing about that subject, and would be required to declare that conflict. I speak from personal experience as a retired museum curator, myself. Before I could place any knowledge onto Wikipedia that I had gained through my work, it had to already have been properly published in a journal, museum publication, book or institutional website which had editorial oversight of those contributions
I hope this helps further inform you as to our stance on contentious (or uncontentious) personal research, and how we do not accept it on Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I understand but I have to process all what you have said. The information attached to the file I already deleted before and now I saw it was back again..!? Deleting the data yes, I already agreed to study more the original research item. The picture is still needed in the future for the 'notable copies' option. Anyway, I took again away the data with the picture....what else is there to do!? Thanks Pmnedus (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not to put too fine a point on it, I don't think this copy is, or ever will be, notable. 19th century Rembrandt-copies are not exactly rare. I do, however, given this conversation, some WP:CIR concerns. Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... I was not aware that with the picture there was still information. I deleted all the information and now only the picture is their. I'm sorry for the confusion from my part --Pmnedus (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Does this also mean, that my work for the page that was reverted can be undone to my updates..and is their anything I must do? Pmnedus (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I only want the picture published on the "a polish nobleman", would should I do. I'm lost Pmnedus (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not going to happen, your painting is a copy it has no place in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No it is not a copy, it is another oil painting version. Pmnedus (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes. That's what a copy is. Kleuske (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No such thing as 'notable copies' David notMD (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Can you explain a bit more please...in various articles it is used. Thanks Pmnedus (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think there is sometimes a case for subject articles have a section - or even a whole page - on notable copies. See Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations, for example. I have no comment on this time as to the significance of what this user is trying to introduce into an article.
Going slowly would probably help this user, as would explaining as clearly as possible on an article talk page what changes they would like to introduce, and why. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have the right to delete everything from your Talk page and create a section named and containing "RETIRED" Can also put "RETIRED" on your User page. David notMD (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm afraid that your comments at The Teahouse are largely unintelligible, I guess that English is not your first language, regardless, if you continue your combative approach attacking other experienced editors it is only going to lead to a permanent block. Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Copyright infringement warning and 'Competence is Required'edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems you have decided to leave Wikipedia because of your inability to understand how we work here; I think that's a good idea because your POV-pushing has been getting rather disruptive. However, I wish to firmly warn you that you may be blocked from editing if you ever repeat your trick of tracking down another editor off-wiki and posting what they have written there on this site, as you did with me recently. I am not going to block you for that, because I would be seen as WP:INVOLVED.
I edit under my own name here and am not ashamed of anything I may personally write off-wiki under my own name, or any other, nor the language I use, but I do not link to them all from here. You had absolutely no right to copy and paste what I wrote elsewhere (as it is my copyright!) and post it here under a licence for it to be re-used by other people. We take both HARRASSMENT and copyright infringement extremely seriously here, including the work of Wikipedia editors creating content on other platforms. Whilst I endeavour to be respectful at all times on Wikipedia, my views, behaviour and language I use to express them off-wiki are no business of yours, nor anyone else's.
So, your shabby attempt to undermine my credibility did rather backfire because you are evidently still not competent enough to understand the difference between my reporting a past Wikipedia event and me publishing my own personal research on a blog and then using that as a source on Wikipedia; nor were you competent enough about the ways of Wikipedia to read my userpage and understand the Declaration of Interests that has been there for many years.
In the future, should you return and should you wish to challenge the inappropriate actions of another editor, including an administrator like myself, please use the facilities provided for you at WP:ANI. And I may well extend the same courtesy to your good self. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to A Polish Nobleman, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I very much doubt Rembrandt or one of his students would have called the painting The treasurer of our archaeology. Also WP:OR and WP:V, since your sources, by the looks of it, do not support your claims. Kleuske (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:A Polish Nobleman can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
