Talk:Świebodzin

Reliable source (starting discussion per 3RR and BRD)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: You have now reverted the same edit (by different users, me included) and protected the article for including one sentence and a source. A source you say is "not a reliable source". I don't like to revert people (over and over again), instead I like to ask another persons opinion, and that what I think you should have done instead of reverted my edit).

That source is run by Adam Mickiewicz Institute which is a government-sponsored organization funded by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage of Poland, which means that it is an official governmental site. There is my "proof" (and opinion) that it is a reliable source.

I could (right now) revert you again, and not fear of being blocked for 3RR, but instead I'm starting a nice conversation here at the talk page, which BRD has guided me to do. Please give me your opinion, and why you don't think that this is a reliable source. Is it just because an IP (you think, without an SPI) is a banned editor? (and as always Happy editing!) (t) Josve05a (c) 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to ping Binksternet as well! (t) Josve05a (c) 19:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no BRD or 3RR involved in reversions of the edits of banned editors, who can be reverted on sight as many times as is necessary. Now that you have taken responsibility for the text it is a different matter, and can stand. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The source may be hosted by the Mickewicz Institute, but the page still appears to be little more than a personal blog of someone, the author's actual connection to the Institute appears unclear, and the same is true of the degree of editorial oversight exerted by the Institute. So this may be analogous to blog sections in newspaper websites, which we also normally don't treat as equally reliable sources with the canonical journalistic pages of the same sites.

In addition to this, there is the POV issue of whether it is appropriate to pick out this claim, with its highly negative undertone, as the only representation of any public response to the statue covered in the article. If we had a properly balanced and properly written reception section covering all significant reactions and evaluations of the statue, then maybe this jocular response might have a place in it. Reducing the entire reception issue to this creates a POV imbalance that is quite inappropriate. Josve05a, you claim to have "taken responsibility" for the edit on the basis of having checked the source, but do you have sufficient personal knowledge of the cutural scene in Poland and the events around this statue to judge whether the edit you inserted is a fair and representative selection representing the entirety of the public's response to it?

Finally, if you were aware of the background of Russavia's banning, you would realize how extremely poor taste it is to act as a proxy for his editing on topics making fun of Polish cultural issues, of all things, and even more so through a source that (quite unnecessarily) mixes the present issue with that infamous meme of "Polandball" again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

My response is in three (small) parts.

1. You, Future Perfect at Sunrise, claims that "the author's actual connection to the Institute appears unclear". This is complete bulls**t. I am going to AGF and hope that FPaS just didn't have time to actually check the about-page. Where it says that that he is the "English section editor", which meant that there acctually is an editorial oversight. (Funded by the Polish gov.)
2. I have asked in #Wikipedia-pl ^connect and multiple users say that that website "looks very reasonable [as a source]" and "ooks like a universit[y]-run website [...] it is not a university-run website, but still, a good one it seems". (I will also refer to the reverted comment by an IP (which was reverted as aSP, without an SPI...) which mention more "proof" that it is a reliable source and that this site is used on multiple articles on enwp and on over 200 on plwp. (I also asked in IRC about the Rio de Świebodzineiro and the answers seemed to point at this source (and the added text) is true.)
3. I will revert the article per WP:BRD, and if you have further problems with that, I urge you to take this to WP:RSN.

(And by the way I don't like that you ABF and accuse me to have "extremely poor taste [to be a] proxy for his editing". I edit how I want, and I ain't a proxy editor.)

Happy editing! (t) Josve05a (c) 18:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You left out one important part of my objections, to which you didn't respond. Anything forthcoming about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Świebodzin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://culture.pl/en/article/polandball-a-case-study
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309092122/http://feefhs.org/maps/gere/ge-brand.html to http://feefhs.org/maps/gere/ge-brand.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)