→Unconstructive and imperative attitude: new section |
Poeticbent (talk | contribs) Undid revision 768572515 → the usual asshollery by a self-righteous newbie who has yet to read our policy guidelines |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:EGalvez (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Engagement_Insights/MassMessages/Lists/2016/49-VAEEN&oldid=16297916 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:EGalvez (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Engagement_Insights/MassMessages/Lists/2016/49-VAEEN&oldid=16297916 --> |
||
== Unconstructive and imperative attitude == |
|||
Hello, I am finding your approach and comments very unconstructive. In my opinion if something is not working correctly on your device you should improve it, and not simply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Museum,_Warsaw&diff=768505898&oldid=768488183 delete others' people work] or, apparently, if something doesn't "fit your taste" (like above) and behave like self acclaimed ultimate proofreader of Poland's related articles with comments such as this - ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Museum,_Warsaw&diff=768505898&oldid=768488183 out of control blasting]''. Thank you for respecting other people's efforts. [[User:Artinpl|Artinpl]] ([[User talk:Artinpl|talk]]) 16:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:54, 4 March 2017
|
|||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Maus revert
User talk:Poeticbent/Archive 13#Maus revert
WW2 casualties
I have the original documents in my files to support the Polish WW2 casualties. What you see there is a brief summary of the original Polish sources. I can provide jpgs. Anyway in accounting we underline totals. It gives clarity to a financial statement. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- You did a great job with this article, Woogie10w. I'm impressed! But I would advise against underlining totals. Never saw this in any professional book of history. Poeticbent talk 22:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Woogie10w: In World War II casualties of Poland#Kazimierz Piesowicz about half of all numbers are enclosed in round brackets. I have no idea what it means. Poeticbent talk 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Round brackets indicate the numbers are subtracted, I crunched numbers for 35 years, thats the way management wanted to see things. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe that I followed generally the accepted rules for formatting negative numbers. See When do you put parentheses ( ) around a number?[1] --Woogie10w (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I am so glad to get your feedback re: Polish casualties. My goal has been to outline the details in Polish sources for casualties. Unfortunately most English language academic sources cite a single solitary figure of casualties without providing an explanation of the details or even its source. I can provide jpgs. of the sources in the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Woogie10w: Thanks for the link. Now I understand, what the round brackets mean. Please include in the legend an explanation, sort of like this: LEGEND: An amount in parentheses indicates a negative amount (a negative balance). Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Woogie10w: Speaking of English language academic sources, here's what I found. World War II: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 volumes] by Spencer C. Tucker (2016). Please take a look. Page 368 in Google Books. There are four numbers there given for Poland. Poeticbent talk 00:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I need to review the Polish WW2 casualties to make sure that the links are fresh and copyedit to clean up any errors. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Re the Soviet figures I tried to be brief and avoid posting my own analysis, just the data published from the Soviet 1946 report in the Polian book. However the Soviet archives have five sets of data summarizing the figures of the Extraordinary State Commission data that does not agree. Off Wiki my analysis concluded that the Moscow number crunchers in 1946 made up numbers in order to agree to a figure given to them for the beginning and ending population (1941/1945). The numbers are rough estimates more than likely based on ration card data.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
i Link
Whoops! I acted a little brash when I made those edits it appears. My apologies. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will avoid the same mistake in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- No sweat. Always glad to help, Poeticbent talk 20:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)