User talk:PawJaw
License tagging for Image:Eljaw3.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Eljaw3.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply from hurmata regarding editing of the article on Jaworzno[edit]
Thank you for your willingness to discuss at length the editing of the article. Let me point out in advance that I am aware that several people have contributed to the article, and you are not necessarily the author of every passage or image that I have objected to. Obviously, the article is mostly your work because you are a native of the city. But I have not scrutinized the history of the article to distinguish your contributions from other people's.
I have either of two reasons for objecting to particular passages or images: "mysteriousness" for lack of a better description, and triviality.
For "mysteriousness" I might say "obscurity" instead, but that is an ambiguous term. The flaw I am referring to is this: a few statements refer to things unfamiliar -- and hence meaningless -- to non-Poles, or even to Poles without certain special knowledge. It is obvious that you undermine the very rationale of an encyclopedia by making references unfamiliar to the reader or using vocabulary unfamiliar to the reader and not bothering to define what you are saying ("you" is a generic reference and not necessarily *you*, PawJaw). Here are three examples.
A. The two levels of protection alluded to for the nature sites. The reader should be told what "strict protection" means under Polish environmental protection policies (either by linking to some Web page or by providing the answer right there in the article). This information *would be* interesting for its own sake, at least in my opinion. Anyway, giving the information is necessary if you, if one, is going to insist on mentioning that some location is "under strict environmental protection". B. Someone used the Polish word osiedle without translating it. OK, from the context, an intelligent person can tell it means "housing estate". But this being an encyclopedia, there are two possible proper approaches: (1) put the unfamiliar word in the heading, i.e., "Housing-estates (osiedle)"; or (2) do not use it at all. Every name in the list redundantly includes "osiedle" -- how stupid, since the passage is a list of osiedli! C. All these terms "Silesia", "Upper Silesian Industrial Zone", województwo, etc. were thrown in without proper translations and/or without proper descriptions. I added translations and descriptions. Previous contributors lacked common sense to realize that many of the individual labels would be meaningless to English speaking readers and that confusion is created by the very fact that there are many of these labels -- which collectively refer to different levels, historical, geographic, etc. And what does it matter that Jaworzno is in Upper Silesia specifically? There is a special confusion that you contributors have created by mentioning both the older Industrial Zone and incipient giant municipality. The industrial zone spans two województwos, while the new municipality necessarily belongs to just one. Will the industrial zone be discontinued? And why were the industrial zone and the giant municipality created? You see, this article would be of bad quality if it were written in *Polish* -- it would fail to provide background sufficient to inform Polish speaking readers!
The bigger category of my objections is triviality. This is hard to discuss between us because with regard to certain parts of the article, while it would be obvious that the part is trivial, yet it was NOT obvious to the contributors who inserted these parts. Obviously, you are one (if not all) of these contributors. But, yes, a list of housing estates is not fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article about your city -- or any other city. A photo of some little building whose architecture is entirely ordinary ("this is a library in Jaworzno", "this is the city hall") is junk information -- let alone five or six such photos!
In summary, certain passages and images have been inserted under poor judgement and/or carelessness. Hurmata (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It would help for me to choose one previous example and be more specific about it. Previous versions of the article referred to "voivodeships" and "regions". The non-Pole does not know the nomenclature (naming system) of governmental administration in Poland. What is the largest level of subdivion in the country? In the U.S., it is a state; elsewhere, it is a province. Of course, in English the word "region" is very general, and usually it has no narrower official definition. So, is the województwo the largest subdivision in Poland, or is it a lower level subdivision? By equating it to "province", I am suggesting it is the largest. (I looked this up in the Wikipedia article on administrative divisions of Poland. As far as I can tell, the government of Poland does not operate with permanent, official groupings of województwos. Of course, I could be mistaken, but up till now, as I'm emphasizing, nobody genuinely knowledgeable has helped out in this regard.) Similarly, when you refer to some "region" X of your country, you should inform whether region X is historical or geographical. The previous contributors did not bother to give this information. This suggests that they weren't really interested in telling the world about Jaworzno, but rather that the article is vanity piece. Hurmata (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)