Content deleted Content added
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) →Polish version: Reply Tag: Reply |
GizzyCatBella (talk | contribs) →Polish version: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::::Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
::::Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
:::::You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::@[[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] you created an article '''grossly unbalanced'''. (verification in edit history). Just negatives '''only'''. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:09, 19 February 2023
To use
- 10.18318/td.2016.en.1.4
TrangaBellam (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Polish version
It has no information that suggests this en-wiki article to be NPOV. My analysis of the paragraphs:
- An unsourced paragraph on the aims of the journal, probably quoted from their website.
- An unsourced paragraph about the various people who are affiliated to them, probably quoted from their website.
- A paragraph that vouches for the reliability of the journal by citing a communique from a Polish Ministry. Then, there are details about accessing back-issues.
- A one-line paragraph about an award by (arguably) the party-magazine of PiS.
- A one-line paragraph about their EiC(s), probably quoted from their website.
- A list of books published by the journal.
TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- That said, you can add the people who are affiliated to them and their previous EiCs. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam - You removed this tag without following Template:POV#When to remove. Your personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. I’m kindly asking you to restore it. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion.
I have bold-faced the clause. You have probably missed that Piotrus did not open any t/p discussion; this entire section is drafted by me. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)- Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Just negatives only. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)