User talk:Merangs

This is Merangs's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Warsaw

Hello. You reverted my edit to the etymology section in the article about Warsaw 29 August 2023. Could we please discuss it? What Wikipedia rules did my edit violate? I did provide a source and I think my edit was accurately worded and based on an academic research by a Polish linguist. It might be useful for readers. Your comment for the revert said the information was not constructive and had no source. Denghu (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. May I know the source you provided? I do not see it in the edit history. It is possible to make a bad assumption, especially when seeing a newly-added sentence with a phrase "one theory or another theory states" and no reference to support it. Merangs (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk vote

I have to say the Gdańsk vote perhaps is an outdated and questionable rule that may need to be revisited. I don't see similar "rules" for Belarus, Ukraine or any other country's city/location in other articles, where such a rule is being push around. At the most at the top of the article, you have other city names in parentheses and that's it. See Vilnius, Helsinki, Lviv, etc. It's just this POV-ish chauvinistic mentality exhibited by some around anything remotely connected to Germany. --E-960 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hi Merangs! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Sweden that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krai

Re this. In English, you are right, but the infobox does say "Krai of Russian Empire" and it was Kraj / край. Anyway, see the RM at Talk:Western Krai, and cry with me over the terrible state of Krais of the Russian Empire entry... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I feel like every article of a Polish state, entity or polity has three official names in the lead section. Merangs (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John I Albert, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Burgher and Casimir IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Polish Republic

What was wrong with my changes? Second Polish Republic didn't end on October 6, 1939 and didn't start on Nov 6, 1918. It's proper to inform that the offical name was different Marcelus (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: - I think this is a de facto versus a de jure matter, where the latter is much preferred by Wikipedia standards. The 11 of November should stay as the official date as it is widely recognised and a public holiday. Moreover, do you have a source for the 6 of November? I am only aware of the Lublin People's Government being formed then as a prelude to independence. Merangs (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John I Albert

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John I Albert you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

Can you please explain what is wrong with the so called "Wikipuffery" I did on the page? Romania is indeed considered an emerging middle power, has the fastest and cheapest fixed internet speeds in the world, and also, it's the happiest country in Eastern Europe, its rank increasing by every report each year.

Look at other pages such as Singapore, South Korea, and also Poland where there is much more "puffery" than Romania. Julian.exe (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness reports (unless highly notable for nations such as Finland), internet speed, and trivial data should not be in the lead section at all. I left the part about it being an emerging middle power; this is sourced and significant considering current events in Europe. Merangs (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why South Korea and Singapore have the part with "fastest internet connection speeds" Julian.exe (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John I Albert

The article John I Albert you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John I Albert for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SB and MBP

Why did you merge SB article (Służba Bezpieczeństwa) into the MBP article (Ministry of Public Security (Poland)) back in the 2020? This were two completely different organisations that didn't even overlap in time. MBP ceased to exist in 1954, SB was created in 1954. I'm literally furious right now. Marcelus (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They can remain under one article as Bezpieka. The article contains information about both UB and SB. I support a name change of the article, if not then a revert of the move. Moreover, they were not that completely 'different'. Also, kindly keep your feelings to yourself please. Merangs (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I won't keep my feeling to myself, because you mixed totally different organisation under the name of one of them. This is vandalism. I think I need to check your other edits. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly cite me the vandalism clause then and I will agree. The edit was done in Good Faith, like with my other contributions. I can see your history is much more controversial. Merangs (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already you explained your vandalism. You on the other hand accuses me without giving any examples. Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A POV claim. Regardless, if you do not agree with the edit feel free to revert or change the name of the article as I do not engage in edit wars or wiki conflicts. Unlike others. Merangs (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage also in spreading false information. I for example don't do that. Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to region, not voivodeship

I'm doing that. Kartacze have some (but not strong) connection to Podlachia. Sękacz has no connection to Podlachia whatsoever. Both Kartacze and Sękacz are traditional dishes of Suwalszczyzna (Suwałki region/Suvalkija). Using the term "podlachia" to refer to the entire Podlaskie voivodeship is not only untrue, but also harmful to the region. Podlachian section should either be renamed (to Podlaskie or to "Podlachia and Suwałki region") or the reference to Sękacz should be removed from it. LEJ PO ŁYMPIE (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna answer? LEJ PO ŁYMPIE (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I don't know what edit of mine this concerns. I think that before renaming articles you should consult with other users. Merangs (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John III Sobieski

Рlease explain why you removed the portrait? You wrote: "no such title, is this needed?" - The reason for the removal is not clear. Lanamy (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough pictures as it is. Moreover, your previous caption "King of Ukraine" is not very factual. Merangs (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civitas Schinesghe

Do you know how to get rid of the ISO 3166 code in the Civitas Schinesghe infobox? E-960 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: - Done. All I did was remove "common_name" input as it is used for contemporary states/entities and I added the term "former" into the template name at the top. Merangs (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, many thanks! --E-960 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: - No problem! Merangs (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate City Names

I was curious as to your reasoning for only including alternate city names, specifically with regard to Thorn and Bromberg, in the footnotes alone. When viewing other similar city such a precedent appears to be absent and any alternate names are displayed in the first line alongside the most common name. Is there a precedent towards this formatting that dictates that this is the optimal method? Ben Unis (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, I did not add the footnotes nor do I fully endorse it but placing the same information outside of them is simply redundant. Merangs (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow

Gents, this is starting to look like a slow burn edit war. Please leave the article alone and take the discussion to the talk page. See WP:EDITWAR. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions

Hi, just wanted to say thank you for your more recent edits at kutia. This is much more constructive than deleting the entire section. I appreciate that you have reconsidered that and instead took time to edit it with valuable changes/additions. Cheers and have a good one!
--Pitsarotta (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Too large" image

Salutations. I've noticed you've deleted the picture of the granaries on the Brda river in Bydgoszcz with the comment that it's "too large". Care to explain further? As a person who uploaded the pic, I can change the resolution if that's what's you'd like. But deleting the most symbolic place of the city from the collage and calling it a day makes little sense. Greets, Ciastkoo (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi, can we make the collage smaller? The image of the River Brda and the granaries is really important but not sure about the quality and size. Merangs (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bialystok reverted

Why is the wording "not the best?"

The partitions of Poland was a genocide of the country by it's German and Russian neighbors. 91.217.105.54 (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. May I ask if you are aware what the term 'genocide' means in English? The partitions comprised stricte political maneuvering to destroy an entity or occupy it. The term genocide cannot be directly applied or is not the most suitable word to describe the partitions as a whole. Merangs (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szczecin

So it's in the footnotes. So what? Why hide it down there? It needs to be in the lead paragraph for modern-day readers who out of ignorance may assume, as previously said, that "Stettin" was simply the German version of Szczecin. In fact, as I'm sure you are well aware, Stettin was the name of the town before 1945. That's fairly recent history – within living memory. Furthermore, the Polish and former German names are pronounced very differently!

What's wrong with historical transparency right up front? Afraid to admit that the place was annexed from Germany (at Stalin's behest), even though it's west of the Oder?

Everyone knows that Germany was the unimaginably horrific aggressor in WWII, but that's not the point. The point is that after the war was over, civilians were forcibly removed from their hometown. Absolutely no one today is talking about present-day Germany trying to get the place back. What are you afraid of? History?

Do widzenia. – Sca (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: - Firstly, I understand where you are coming from but this information should be placed elsewhere. Secondly, the semi-aggressive tone you used above is not acceptable, especially the redundant questions. The history is obvious, it's there throughout the article. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the very first paragraph should comprise the most essential information useful for the present-day location (e.g. name(s), population, current location, province). Also, as stated by the clause, "the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view". Please direct me to a city article that could justify your edit. For example, do you see similar content in the first paragraph at Lviv stating that it was a part of Poland for centuries? Historical facts should go to subsequent sections. Merangs (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real issue. It's not made less so by other eastern Europe articles. But whatever. Część! -- Sca (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

Your change to the lede lengthened it. Please explain your reasoning which compels you to remove the mention of the Polish-Soviet war from the lede. Also please explain why you think you have ownership over the lede. Meellk (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meellk: - Firstly, your edit summaries (i.e. to please User Merangs etc.) are unacceptable, and so is the Wikipedia:Edit warring. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section is a summary. The term "various conflicts of the interbellum" summarises the number of ideological/territorial disputes for Poland following its independence, including the Polish-Soviet War. By reverting my edit, you are limiting the importance of other conflicts for this period. Are any other conflicts mentioned in the lead section, except for the most recent (World War II and Cold War)? Your interpretation of me "removing" the Polish-Soviet War is false, because I have provided a link to all of those regional wars for the Second Polish Republic. Regarding your last query or issue, I take ownership of a well-written summary that was long-standing and changed little. I have done so for the last decade. I am open to constructive changes and if anything needs to change then the talk page is the place for discussion. Personally, I believe that mentioning this war directly will place an emphasis on the term "Soviet" in the article's lead and would overpower it over other key mentions of Poland's 1000 year history. Moreover, I have noticed that your edit is "seasonal", notably it was made shortly after the 15 of August which relates directly to the Battle of Warsaw (1920). Of course, my most recent edit regarding the various conflicts can be removed but then we would have to return to the original before your edit as well (see Help:Reverting). The current size of this section is appropriate, with seven to eight lines (depending on your screen format) in the two main paragraphs. See other country articles for comparison. It is not a GA page either. Merangs (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To copy my reply to your message from 1:33 PM (UTC) on my Talk page: I simply copied the shorter paragraph from an earlier revision. Seemed long-standing enough for me. What are your objections? And what is your objection to highlighting the Polish-Soviet war. The partitions are highlighted, the Solidarity movement is highlighted. Why not the Polish-Soviet war? Without Poland's victory in it, there would've been no Poland today. Seems important enough to mention. Other conflicts were orders of magnitude less important. >>> Continuing, the third paragraph with the exception of the first sentence is all about the 20th century. I don't see how the word "Soviet" being uttered 2 times instead of 1 in this 20th century-related paragraph is undue weight. The Soviets weren't an issue to Poland just once in the 20th century. Hope you understand my points. Meellk (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know and appreciate the importance of the Polish-Soviet War, but it is all in the link along with other wars that were correlated. The terms "German" and "Communist" are also only mentioned once, and accordingly. Other conflicts were equally as important in the last 1000 years, yet they are not mentioned. The Polish-Soviet War topic is also outlined in one sentence (not my contribution) in the section "Second Polish Republic" of the Poland article. The Battle of Warsaw is linked separately near the subheading. The lead section should outline events that directly ended or began Polish sovereignty/statehood/changed from of government, not ones that threatened it. This can be explored further in the body of the article. Personally, I think that one sentence under the Second Polish Republic subheading about the Polish-Soviet War is not enough. Three would be nice. Merangs (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the age-old question of presentism. Of course, the 20th century is much more important to us than everything that happened in the preceding 9 out of 11 centuries of Polish and European history. This is the case for most other country pages too such as Germany (quite obviously). This is only natural, though. Consider also that the Armed Forces Day falling on August 15th, an event even more entrenched institutionally than the National Independence Day falling on November 11th, commemorates the Polish-Soviet war, and the Miracle on the Vistula precisely. This commemoration, with the accompanying great military parade, has been taking place for over 100 years now, since 1921. Meanwhile, the National Independence Day of November 11th was "only" formalized in the 1930s. I think you're downplaying the significance of the Polish-Soviet war and I only wish you just ranked its significance higher, not due to subjective factors, but objective factors. The entrenched institutional recognition of this event by the Polish State and Nation is an objective factor that I think should be reckoned with. Meellk (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way am I attempting to downgrade or diminish the significance of that conflict, however, it is important how one presents history in the lead section. That's my only point. The Polish-Soviet War along with other correlated events in that period can really be summarised with that link which gives access to more information! Merangs (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link actually leads to all conflicts Poland was ever embroiled in. I really am asking you ever so kindly once again to reconsider your position and allow that previous sentence to stay. It is also shorter. Meellk (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't; after accessing the link, browser automatically redirects you to the section 1918-1939. It looks on point as of now (as a whole) and should not change any further. Merangs (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grand Hotel, Łódź has been accepted

Grand Hotel, Łódź, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Royiswariii Talk! 04:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Merangs. Thank you for your work on Grand Hotel, Łódź. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day ahead for you and your family.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: – thank you for your kind words! Merangs (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bastion Sakwowy has been accepted

Bastion Sakwowy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Wikishovel (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - Poland is parliamentary, right?

Pretty sure Poland is a parliamentary republic, not a semi-presidential one. Could you please look into this? 79.191.68.13 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foksal Street has been accepted

Foksal Street, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^Edits! Talk! 12:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Działyński painting in the Hague Museum

Hello Merangs,

You're the original contributor of the Paweł Działyński page, according to its history. I'm looking for information on this: "The Haags Historisch Museum (Historical Museum of The Hague) in The Netherlands exhibits an anonymous painting, depicting Działyński as head of a Polish envoy delegation to the Dutch Republic in July 1597." The early versions of the Dzialynski page have been deleted because of copyright problems, so I can't be sure you added that info about the painting.

Do you happen to have information about this, or know where I might look for a citation? I wrote to the museum and they're not sure which painting it would be. Thanks much!

Unclevinny (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Unclevinny: - Hi, thanks so much for writing about this. I remember creating the page, but I wouldn't have added the information about the painting, especially without a source. Perhaps it was one of the IP edits and can be considered as vandalism? Działyński was also known by his Latin name - Paulus Dzialinski - as that was Poland's official language back then so it would be even more difficult to identify him. Furthermore, there were other Polish statesmen known by that name. Merangs (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a shame, it seems like a dead end here. There's an outside chance some citation is buried in the deleted posts, do you know if a moderator would be able to access that info? (If they even had an interest!) Unclevinny (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]