User talk:Gzegosh

Welcome!

Hello, Gzegosh, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Alexander Peter Mohl, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jumpytoo Talk 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alexander Peter Mohl

The article Alexander Peter Mohl has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jumpytoo Talk 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please help me with...Alexander Peter Mohl page created...I do believe it is all ok...have put a lot of work into...all is checked...has references and sources.. other sources are newspaper articles that can not be referenced directly anymore..but I have all the notes of the references..such as an article WIADOMOSCI – NEWS, London 1966 written by Kajetan Morawski..Anyway..please check page is ok..dont want to lose the work thank you

(Gzegosh (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

Gzegosh (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion tag was misplaced and has been removed. Remember though that without adequate sources all articles risk deletion. Regards So Why 09:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to bother with questions..on proposed Aleksander Piotr Mohl page, am trying to edit a sepcific reference, but

alone comes up and can not figure out how to open it up and access the hidden list of references

thank you --Gzegosh (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references are inline, in the article text. The reflist tag automatically collects them for display, but if you want to edit it is in the text body.Icewhiz (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to ask, but is there such a thing as Wikipedia editors, or experts for hire? Is that possible? It would be very helpful indeed --Gzegosh (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing exists, but is frowned upon as a conflict of interest. I don't know much about it, but there are essays about it, for instance: Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a file I wish to imbed to an article...File:Count Alexander Mohl in Polish Diplomatic uniform 1936.jpeg, But the image is way to large for the article..I see resizing options but cant figure out how to save it in modfied resolution. I have viewed the help image modification area..but it says insert |upright| but dosent work for me...any clues? thanks --Gzegosh (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time when you add an image to an article, use the code: [[File:FILENAME|thumb|SUBTITLETEXT]]. So in this case: [[File:Count Alexander Mohl in Polish Diplomatic uniform 1936.jpeg|thumb|Mohl in 1936]]. the option "thumb" resizes your image to a standard size. MOS:IMGSIZE has some more pointers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fantastic!!!:..thank you so much...I love learning new tricks like that...worked very nicely....

--Gzegosh (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

1. On page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Emeryk_August_Hutten-Czapski, there is a reference to his father Karol Hutten-Czapski, in the first sentence of the first paragraph,. Though the page exists...https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Karol_Hutten-Czapski, I understand it is "out there", but the reference within the drafte indicates the page dosent exist....not sure what is wrong

2. I can not figure out how to upload images that are my own, either taken by me, or owned by me. This option apparently dosent exist.

--Gzegosh (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I fixed the spelling of and link to Czapski. 2. I use the upload wizard at wikimedia commons for all of my uploads, see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. Also, owning an image is not the same as having the images copyright. Unless it is released, a copyright usually remains with the photographer (or employer of the photographer) and after the photographer's death it remains with the photographer's estate for a period. For more guidance, you can check out File:Decision Tree on Uploading Imagesv2.svg and Wikipedia:Image use policy for more detail. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always for helping me out...re images I am talking about images I took, me being the photographer. I created a museum page, and want to upload photos I took. I can not find anywhere were that option is considered Gzegosh (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try the upload wizard at wikimedia commons. Images at commons can be used the same way images at wikipedia, and commons is the preferred place for them most of the time. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gregory Dayton

The article Gregory Dayton has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

--Gzegosh (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gzegosh. To add a page to a category you need to add [[Category:Polish diplomats]] or [[Category:Diplomats of the Second Polish Republic]] to the article you want to categorize; for example see the bottom of Szymon Askenazy. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

forgive me..perhaps wasnt clear. Am trying to insert names into those two categories. But when I go to edit I can find the listing of the names in the categories, and therefore cant add to them, Thank you --Gzegosh (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

forgive me..perhaps wasnt clear. Administrator response did not address my issue. Am trying to insert names into those two categoriesCategory:Polish diplomats or Category:Diplomats of the Second Polish Republic . But when I go to edit I can not find the listing of the names in the categories, and therefore cant add to them, Thank you --Gzegosh (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gzegosh; Sarahj2107 is correct. You need to edit the pages of the diplomats with [[Category:Polish diplomats]] or [[Category:Diplomats of the Second Polish Republic]], where they will automatically come up on the main category page. You cannot modify the main category page itself. Nördic Nightfury 13:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be stuck maybe not asking the question in the right way.......I am looking at categories to understand how subcategories work...how do I link something to a subcategory, havent been able to find a clear source on it. I was trying to link an article to sub Category:Diplomats of the Second Polish Republic and somewhow I ended up inserting User talk:Gzegosh under g....instead of Aleksander Mohl...which is whom I was trying to link to it txs Gzegosh (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gregory Dayton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gregory Dayton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Dayton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask why should it be up for deletion in English Wikipedia, when the same article has been accepted a long time ago in Spanish Wikipedia

--Gzegosh (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aleksander Piotr Mohl for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aleksander Piotr Mohl is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksander Piotr Mohl until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of advice - Aleksander Piotr Mohl

I see you are claiming above you have sources. Cite them. You don't have to have them online - you can cite them in a ref tag with source, date, author etc. - without a link. You will probably have to provide a quotation on request. As Mohl is not notable just by his position (a diplomatic officer, but not a high ranking one) - you will have to show he is notable per WP:SIGCOV. The best way to do that - is sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to second what User:Icewhiz wrote, I think it is great what you are doing, but it can be difficult to write good articles when online sources aren't readily available. Wikipedia has three core content policies, WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. The article on Mohl seems to me to pass the first two, but there is some difficulty with the third, in particular with the use of primary sources. Images, military records, and CVs can all be primary sources, and their use requires some care. I recommend reading and following the explanatory supplement, WP:Identifying and using primary sources. Also, as Icewhiz writes, it would be nice if your citations were more specific, a URL makes it hard to know what you are citing.

The best way to avoid having an article deleted is to avoid having it nominated for deletion or a deletion discussion. Once an article is put up for discussion, the guideline, WP:Notability, drives many of the votes. Some people like to call it the golden rule. This guideline can be slightly stricter than the core policies, as it asks that an subject be covered in depth (usually meaning that the subject be the main topic in a newspaper or magazine article or be discussed in 3+ consecutive paragraphs of a book) by multiple sources (two is usually but not always enough) independent of the subject (and often the sources should be relatively independent of each other). Give Mohl is being discussed, these are the types of sources that might convince people to recommend the article be kept. So if you have old published clippings about the subject or there is a book that discusses the subject, citing those (even in Polish) is better than citing primary sources. Do let me know here, at my talk page, or by email if you have any questions. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as frustrating as people can be, under no circumstances are insults tolerated, so be polite and assume good faith. Sorry to have to add this, I do think you are doing a good job and hope you keep working at it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is very helpful.....Its a learning experience, and comments like yours are very very helpful......but this is a lot of effort. Question: you mention newspaper articles, ...I have two such articles, from the late 40s..but they do not contain the date..they are newspaper cut outs...Is there a way to upload them as jpegs and then add them as references?? One is of a gala dinner offfered by the Peruvian Embassy in honor of Alexander, the other is a social photo of Alexander at the Stork club with Mrs Biddle, described as the worlds best dressed woman

--Gzegosh (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers article may still be subject to copyright, and as such may be illegal for us to host. You can ask more about that at Wikipedia:Copyright questions. If they are in English, you may be able to find them online through a source like HighBeam Research. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources is very important. For example, Karol Hutten-Czapski, in addition to having a clear claim of importance (mayor of a city), also notes he was the subject of the Polski Slownik Biograficzny entry. Someone who has a biography in another encyclopedia-like work is clearly notable for Wikipedia. The reason Mohl is being discussed is because the sourcing of that article was very poor. In the future, you may want to develop your articles in the WP:SANDBOX or WP:DRAFT space before moving them to the mainspace. Feel free to ask me to review your drafts and I will tell you if the sourcing is sufficient. Also, please take some time and try to learn how to format references properly (WP:CITE) and how to use WP:CATEGORIES. Good luck (and yes, your contributions are welcome, but as with anything new one learns, some of them may be subject to, well, criticism and further learning - please don't take it personally), --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To all of you: Incredible the work you do...I dont understand how you can possibly find the time and effort, as there must be tons of contributions to review...and though I am a collector and researcher of Polish militaria, and used to research things..what you achieve is truly amazing...I thank you all for the help you have given me. I thought this would be easier, I thought I could move quickly on working on contributions, and here I am truly bogged down. I am doing my best to respond to all of your requirements. At one point the article had several comments, which I tried to address, then it was approved, and then another editor raised questions..and for a second time proposed it for deletion...and here we are. Re sources of medals..there is the Estonian one referenced in the Estonian govts site. I can show photo with medal identifications in addition. Will try scanning other articles to include....but obviously my main mistake was not to start with a draft....I didnt know that it worked that way...matter of fact just dove in contributing without enough in depth knowledge...sorry....are drafts also reviewed? How does that work?..thank you all once again .. I also repeat what I have said before...Poland is weak in internet sourcing..becasue of the language,,because the Poles are inward looking, and because much documentation was destroyed during the war...My aim in doing all this is in a small measure to contribute to changing this and adding references, I am also publishing books in English from Polish, as for example

File:Https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10502265

. Again Many thanks to all of you...I wish I could have you all on a team with me helping me do additional research on the other Poles I am doing...

--Gzegosh (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft articles are articles with the word "Draft" at their beginning, for example Draft:Sandbox. Such articles are said to be in "draftspace", in comparison with "mainspace" which is where articles go. Drafts are not, I think, indexed by search engines, and the material is not as closely vetted. Another option for starting articles is to start them in "Userspace", such as the page User:Gzegosh/sandbox. Drafts can be reviewed, yes. This is done through the Articles for creation (AfC) process, which is an optional way to create articles. AfC recommends new users use the Article wizard, which includes a brief tutorial as a part of its process. It is also possible to bypass the AfC process with Drafts and have drafts moved directly to mainspace. For your first few articles, I recommend having someone look over them before they are moved to mainspace, either through the AfC process or at least by asking a user you trust at their talkpage (I would be willing to do this for you).

There are, indeed, very many new articles created every day to review. AfC gets over 200 articles submitted per day, most get rejected, and most of the rejections are because the subject of the article is not covered in multiple reliable sources, and thus the article fails one of our core content policies. There are over 20 articles submitted per hour not using the AfC process. There is an attempt to review all of these. There are not very many reviewers, and in both cases, the review process is overwhelmed, and many articles are not reviewed until weeks after they are submitted. Because of this backlog, reviewers often do not spend very much time on an article before making a decision. When your article was reviewed, it was by this process (called New page patrol), and the reviewer was dubious that your article met the content criteria for a suitable article.

With practice, we get very fast at creating, editing, and reviewing articles. I spent about 45 minutes researching and adding material to the article on Aleksander Mohl. User:Icewhiz has spent considerably more time. When I review at AfC, I spend about 30 minutes cleaning up an article that I accept and much less time in articles I do not accept, and I generally review less than ten articles per week. Some take more time and others less, and most reviewers review more, but it is easy to burn out. When reviewing articles at new page patrol, I think reviewers give each article a few minutes, but I'm not sure - and again it is easy to burn out. When writing a new article, it usually takes me 4 to 10 hours and I generally use only online sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth remembering that Wikipedia follows the usual long tail law, and there are very few volunteers (few tens of thousands worldwide) dedicating hours to this. It means there are backlogs, there things that slip through the cracks, and that there are very few people writing about specific topics. If you are interested in Polish topic, consider joining WP:POLAND. As a member (founder...) I will note that we have only 3-4 reasonably active editors interested in Polish topics. Over the years, some people join, some people leave. Your contributions are very much welcome, but to maintain quality standards sometimes work of one volunteer gets reviewed and criticized by others. Please don't get discouraged. It may take few months or years, but one can learn all the rules and tricks, and if you want to educate the public about almost anything, and certainly about history well, Wikipedia is THE place to be. Books, blogs, academic articles... those get read by very few. 99% of public, for better or worse, stops at Wikipedia. Thanks for becoming one of the 0.0001% who actually helps to contribute to it. PS. You can learn more about reviews for quality by observing or participating at processes at WP:GAN and WP:FAC. Check them out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are plenty of Wikipedia pages out there with little importance or few references". Many of those are from old days, policies are becoming a bit tighter in that regard and the backlog of such articles is slowly being reduced. But given that there are many more people interesting in spamming various content than those dedicating to enforcing standards and/or creating quality articles, well, the significant number of such articles is a problem that is likely going to persist. Thank you for your efforts to improve Polish-related topics, here and elsewhere. After joining WP:POLAND, I'd encourage you to watchlist that page as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts so you can easily check what Poland-related discussions are currently ongoing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support improving Wikipedia's coverage of Polish topics (having been doing this here for 10 years, as y you can see from my userpage). I will however caution you to read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability, and on a more technical note, Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Understanding those is key to not having one work deleted from Wikipedia. If there are sources, you can create articles about members of Czapski family, as well as a page about the family itself. But having sources is crucial.

"A mid level US dimplomat in the State Dept will have his page but will be uninteresting to Poles, and will not have a page in Polish Wikipedia" - eventually it may be translated. If he is notable, he should, in theory, have articles in languages. The only reason English Wikipedia's coverage of Polish topics is worse then in Polish Wikipedia is because, well, 99% of editors interested in Poland are Polish and edit pl wiki. Only few dozen, at most, edit English site compared to thousands on the pl wiki. Ditto for any other language. Wiki rules-wise there is nothing preventing English Wikipedia from having very detailed coverage of Polish topics. It is just a matter of writing stuff. Aleksander Piotr Mohl is currently at AfD which will be almost certainly closed as keep (frankly the main reason I have not withdrawn the nomination is because I think you'll find seeing this through interesting and a useful learning experience). Karol Hutten-Czapski is in mainspace and is safe from deletion as it clearly is about a notable subject (anyone good enough for PSB is good enough for us). For Draft:Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski, it will be published when a reviewer whose opinion you asked for (by using the draft namespace) is satisfied. I see Robert just commented there, so I assume you'll talk things through with him.

Fate of pages is decided by the community (you too can comment and vote at Wikipedia:AFD and such discussions, or help review pages at Wikipedia:Draft spaces).

I am not sure I understand what you ask for when you mention "how to get into edit categories or actual references". You can read about categories at WP:CATEGORY and about references, by following the Cite link above. If you mean how-to practically edit them, that depends on whether you use Wikipedia:Visual Editor or not. Assuming you use the VE, well, the VE page I linked above have the rather visible link saying "Read VisualEditor's User Guide" and the guide has sections on categories, references, and many other topics.

Few final suggestions:

1) each sentence should have a reference, unless it is using the same reference as a preceding sentence. Consequenty, there should never be and end-of para unreferenced sentence.

2) you seem to be often using bare urls for citations. Those look bad, are affected by link rot, and discouraged by Wiki Manual of Style. If you are using the visual editor, the citation button is quite friendly and allows for automatic formatting of citations. I used User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill tool on your draft, I think you can see how it improved the references. ReFill however requires installing a script and installing scripts can be a bit scary for those unfamiliar with coding, while visual editor generator is just a buttom you can easily use during your editing. (I am assuming you are editing using the Wikipedia:Visual Editor, which is much friendlier for new editors than old-style code editing).

In addition to wikiproject Poland, you may also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy.

You mentioned you work with Sikorski Institute. A related institute, Jozef Pilsudski Institute, has a lot of experience working with Wikipedia. They may be of assistance to you, and perhaps they could teach SI how to work with us. Perhaps you could connect the related parties. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Józef Piłsudski Institute of America.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I leave replies on your talk page (so you get notifications). You leave them at mine. It's a bit like sending email to one another inboxes. We could talk in one place like in the forum, this is common on article's talk pages, but for discussions between two editors many people prefer to reply at other's talk page. This way they are guaranteed to get notified about the reply. Otherwise you need to WP:ECHO people, and this is easy to forget (btw, if you ever wonder why someone didn't reply to your message - it is likely either because you or they have forgotten to ping one another and the other party doesn't realize they have a reply waiting for them to reply to).

I agree editing references is not intuitive enough. You have to click not the long entry at the bottom but the number in parenthesis [1] in the text.

While I cannot speak for individuals, as the community we usually do things pro bono (sometimes working for an institution it's a bit like internship, see Wikipedia:Wikipedians in residence. But about asking experienced Wikipedians for in person meetings, this is relatively easy - if you leave in a place where other Wikipedians live. Any big city in US, for example, should work. See Wikipedia:Meetups for a list of where people meet, and you may also check a city (country) Wikiproject. Many US cities will have semi-regular meetups, which get announced at the meetup page and/or their own talk pages, like Wikipedia:WikiProject New York. (talk of). Most places outside US on English Wikipedia do with just a country-wide discussion page like WikiProject Poland (Polish Wikipedians have several meetups each year, but they are rarely announced on English Wikipedia). Which is another way of saying that the 'Scheduled future meetups' section at Wikipedia:Meetup page lists only a third, maybe, of events - others are listed somewhere else. If you don't see a meetup near you, ask on the talk page of the meetup page and someone may find something that's a bit hidden (i.e. badly listed). When I lived in US I used to organize meetups in the Pittsburgh area... If you can attend one of those events I am sure you could find someone willing to help you in person. Some events are specifically designed to teach people about Wikipedia. PS. (You may want to consider adding a short description of yourself to your userpage, and you can use WP:BABEL to add yourself to categories like "Wikipedians in [location]", this may also allow you to get invitations to events hosted in that location automatically). PPS. Babel is for language, location is at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location. Other stuff is at Wikipedia:Userboxes :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding where to talk to each other...I just press on the green button that says reply here at the end of your posting...,,,I guess it makes sense to reply in the same place you posted the comment...As for meeting etc..well unfortunately I live far away from the real world in Argentina. It a bit like living on Mars. I was hoping to be able to work with someone at a distance. As there are quite a few pages I would like to do, working with someone more agile than me, would make it go faster. Like I said I am older and have less time, and would like to go faster. I am not very computer profficient and as I said my learning curve on Wikipedia seems slow. I would love to sit down one day in person with an editor and get a couple of hours of pointers...like I got recently from Smurphy re sizing photos with the use of thumbs. But its a slow process and would like to run before i know how to walk. Another thing is that I have many other activities and for example, after a week of working on these various pages, literally night and day, I am exhausted. I do enjoy it... I wish I could help with Poland but not sure what I can contribute, everyone knows so much more than I do. I thought that by creating WIkipedia pages on subjects I know..I would put more meat on the Polish subject in Wikipedia. Since I know something about the Czapskis...I began with them, It also helps me further my own knowledge. I learned a lot about them by publishing the English edition of Maria Czapskas books..that was the first book published. I am working on various others. With the Sikorski looking at a collaborative effort to produce various military subjects...like for example Gen Maczecks memoires. Thank you for being there and helping me out..much appreciated. I need to investigate more the different pages you recommended

--Gzegosh (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr, could I ask you for some help? Could you look at Draft:Emeryk August Hutten-Czapski, I am having some problem I cant solve with the formatting of the bibliography..for some reason I have point 1 and 2 above the list that I cant seem to get rid of. Any comments on the article? There is one thing..part of the awards are listed in a source, and part are not. I know the person who has his awards, and took photos of his awards..and these are the ones I identified.

thank you --Gzegosh (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Working on the draft....but have  a question...the title of the article is Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski, but it should be Franciszek Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski. Cant see if its possible to change the heading

thank you --Gzegosh (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Emeryk Hutten-Czapski Museum has been accepted

The Emeryk Hutten-Czapski Museum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

joe decker ^talk 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jan Chryzostom Czapski (June 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

The third paragraph basically repeats the first. If this is all we know about the subject per WP:NOPAGE the information is best presented on a list or in the context of another article(s) like one on the position the subject held.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jan Chryzostom Czapski and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Gzegosh, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jan Chryzostom Czapski (June 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Additional references are required that help illustrate why Wikipedia should have an article about this person.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jan Chryzostom Czapski and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that if a subject is covered in another encyclopedia, this alone is sufficient for notability. I mean he was chamberlain of one city and governor of two cities. I would have thought that would make him notable. The mayor of Jacksonville Florida is considered notable https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lenny_Curry, he is not a governor.

Gzegosh (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emeryk August Hutten-Czapski (July 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrStrauss was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

More sources needed esp in early life

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Emeryk August Hutten-Czapski and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jan Chryzostom Czapski has been accepted

Jan Chryzostom Czapski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emeryk August Hutten-Czapski has been accepted

Emeryk August Hutten-Czapski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski has been accepted

Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheDragonFire (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gzegosh. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski has been accepted

Francis Stanislaw Hutten-Czapski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bogdan Hutten-Czapski has been accepted

Bogdan Hutten-Czapski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Czpaski Family has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Czpaski Family. Thanks! Sam Sailor 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gzegosh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Czpaski Family has been accepted

Czpaski Family, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Count Alexander Mohl Second Lieutenant 13th Regiment of Wilno Uhlans.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Count Alexander Mohl Second Lieutenant 13th Regiment of Wilno Uhlans.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above also applies to File:Count Alexander Mohl in Polish Diplomatic uniform 1936.jpeg -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have succesfully lost an editor of Wikipedia pages. I have had enough of such nitpicking. The sitter is dead as the photographer as well as the lighting fellow as well as everyone in the lab that produced the photos, the people that made the paper it was printed on. Everyone related to those photos are buried a long time ago. The photos were taken in Warsaw in 1932...the sitter died in 1956...and those left behind in the war lost their heads..and all of Warsaw was leveled by the Germans towards the end of the war. The people are dead the files, the archives are all burnt and lost. Number 2. The only existing copies of these photos are in my possession as my mother inherited them from my grandfather when he died in 1956....so the photos were taken some 87 years ago...the problem today is that no one thinks out of the box, and all are like robots following the systems...the robots will take over....have good weekGzegosh (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright ownership over a photo is a type of property ownership and like other assets it can be part of an estate and transferred from one person to another as part of an inheritance; so, if you inherited these photos from your mother after she inherited them from your grandfather and he was the copyright holder, then it is possible that they might be able to be moved to Wikimedia Commons and relicensed as c:Template:PD-heirs or c:Template:Cc-zero-heirs. Copyright ownership can last quite a long time depending on who took the photo, where and when it was taken and when the photographer died as can be seen in c:Commons:Hirtle chart, and 87 years is not necessarily a long time when it comes to copyright; however, if you're mother inherited copyright ownership over them, then she may be able to release them under a free licence if she wants. Similarly, if you inherited them from your mother, then you may also be able to release them under a free license if you want. I will ask about this at c:Commons:Villiage pump/Copyright#Copyright ownership transferred as part of an inheritance over on Wikipedia Commons to see if there's a way for the licensing of these files to be changed so that they can be moved there from Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be set up to handle this particular type of licensing, but Wikimedia Commons might be able to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to keep this files under a different license and then move them to Wikipedia Commons. You can help sort this out if you can clarify some things about the photos in the discussion at c:Commons:Villiage pump/Copyright#Copyright ownership transferred as part of an inheritance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]