Very nice article, I agree, but could you please convert your references from bare URLs (I've done the last one as an example – the NYT ref)? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. No, I'm afraid I don't, although there might indeed be one. I tend to do it as I go along, and I don't find it too laborious; it's mainly a question of copying and pasting. But if there are many references to the same article, you can just use the same referencing code, as I've done for the msnbc ref. You can do this for, for example, this ref, which is cited more than once. Hope that helps. On another matter, I'm not sure if it wouldn't be better if you had World War II in the article title, eg German World War II Prisoners of War in the United States or something; otherwise it looks like German POWs generally, i.e it could include WWI etc (see my change to your DYK hook). It's v easy to change article titles; use the Move tab at the top of the page. Ericoides (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. No, I like the idea that it should concern ALL prisoners of war, so I'd keep the title as it is (the longer one is a bit of a mouthful) but make it clear in the lede that the article concerns all prisoners. Perhaps add a section head for WWI and a brief line or two covering that ... shouldn't be hard to find at least one mention online. But you'd then have to change the DYK hook too ... I might do all this myself, depending on time/whether you have done so already. Ericoides (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and another editor are nearly in an edit-war and my overall opinion is that you are arguing over very small, almost irrelevant details. Please consider leaving this situation alone for awhile and working on other much-needed projects, but I have commented at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807).
DYK nomination of 2011 Jerusalem bus stop bombing
I did what you asked for here. The attack appears to have not been "provoked" by anything aside from the usual hatred and incitement of Palestinian terrorists. --GHcool (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have not answered the questions I asked over at the talk page of Western Betrayal, I am going to reiterate them here, because I find some of the comments quite strange. Who was this "third party" that asked you to make edits to the page? Why are you referring to your edits in the first person plural, "we"? Are you editing along with someone else?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to quote the pedantic standards you so happily and freely assign to everyone except yourself,
Your EXTREME waste of time efforts to me and other editors is terrible, such as
endless arguing over minutia...such as arguing for days over the picture size of a Polish general, arguing over the fully cited two word addition 'and Poland' to an article, (the evidence of trivial bickering is large and available at your contributions page)
AND the nonstop arguing and obfuscation to forward a pro-Polish POV at the expense of any other fully cited fact or POV. Your distorted sense of how best to get others to consider the Polish view of history is in fact badly damaging your goals.
AND the selecitvely applied schoolmarm standards you yourself makeup to lamely attack facts and POVs you don't like - which is, judging by your contributions, the entire point of your presence on Wikipedia ---
Hopefully we will never again meet in mutual discussion and I ask that you avoid deliberately confronting me as I will avoid confronting you. Kindly stop shadowing me and lets just not attack and argue each other if we can = I will happily stay away from your work as long as it doesn't attack one of my additions, new articles, etc... (the addition of new information being my main purpose on Wikipedia.)Leidseplein (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note whatever you like (to yourself, perhaps on your talk page) and I am now formally requesting you not to post on my talk page unless it is about additions or new articles I write on Wikipedia.Leidseplein (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption external link
The Manual of Style tells us: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Articles can include an external links section at the end to list links to websites outside Wikipedia that contain further information, as opposed to citing sources."
You've provided no rationale at all for using an external link at a mid-sentence reference to the camp (without any image). It also failed to link to the file with the quoted text!
As for the image caption, I don't see how you can come to a private agreement with the owner of the image file. Anyone can use that image anywhere on Wikipedia. And nothing about the method of constructing a link is detailed in the image's license.
If you want to do something idiosyncratic, you need to put a comment in the text that will not display unless someone tries to edit this file, like this: You'll have to view the source of this page to see that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK Soviet War Memorial (Vienna)
Hello! Your submission of Soviet War Memorial (Vienna) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
DYK for German Prisoners of War in the United States
On 14 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Florian's Cathedral, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 75-metre (246 ft) tall towers of St. Florian's Cathedral(pictured) in Warsaw's eastern district of Praga highlight its role as a form of protest against the Russian domination of Poland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 27 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Polyanthus (K47), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during convoy escort duty in the Battle of the North Atlantic in 1943, HMS Polyanthus was sunk by U-952 using new weapons technology? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 4 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bata shoe factory (East Tilbury), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that workers at the Bata shoe factory in East Tilbury lived in "Bata-ville", a company town replete with houses, schools, shops, sports facilities, a theater, a post office, and its own newspaper? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Please do not use any of my personal info, however you've come about it, including my name, first or last, in your comments on Wikipedia. While some of the information has indeed been public on Wikipedia, I changed my username for the very legitimate reason of off-Wiki harassment. So don't use any of that again, or you will be in violation of WP:OUTING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Though likely a Notable article, its hard to demonstrate that notability without sufficient, secondary sources, that are seperate from the topic of the article. Please add references to work like newspapers.
I very much disagree with your interactions towards this article as you are biased towards the visually impaired. Your self-announced "good intentions" and allegiance to your interpretation of Wikipedia's mission do not erase the bias of which you are either unaware or do not care to acknowledge. In any event I have added numerous sources to this article at your pointed request. Leidseplein (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Leidseplein. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Hello, Leidseplein. 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Hello, Leidseplein!
Having an article 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! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright Violation Warning
Hello Leidseplein, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:Ives - Henry murders have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Leidseplein, I've listed this at WP:CP; there are rewrite instructions on the blanking template (or ask here how to do that). I've also removed some copied content from San Pablo, Arizona and Colorado Center for the Blind; could there be other pages where you have copied content directly from your sources? If so, please mention them here so that they can be cleaned up. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, there is no copyright on works of a government entity in the US, they are automatically in the public domain. You are young and inexperienced, please consider your age and experience level before vandalising the work of others. Find a constructive way to contribute that does not involve statisfying your ego-hunger to exert the power you lack in everyday life. I wonder what else you have criminally vanalised on Wikipedia in your sad use of an enclyopedia to address your psychiatric needs ?? Leidseplein (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leidseplein, I strongly suggest you cut out these personal attacks. They are particularly egregious because they are based on a completely mistaken notion of public domain and copyright issues and a refusal to read or attempt to understand Wikipedia's policy on this. And to spare you the temptation of more personal attacks in the same vein... I am in my 70s, have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years and have created over 600 articles. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
