User talk:Nihil novi

When you write a message here, I will respond to it here. Likewise, when I write a message on your Talk page, I will watch that page for your response. That will maintain continuity of discussion.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have responded at the discussion.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Jazz à Vienne you will find an appropriate COI declaration. You should probably add such a declaration to your autobiography. I do understand the frustration about en.wp's insufficient coverage of clearly notable topics (like festivals with hundreds of thousands of visitors annually), but I imagine if the subject truly is notable, someone will come... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of empires

With regards to your recent undoing of my edit of List of empires, was my original edit not sourced enough or was there another reason it was reverted? Sushidude21! (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that you adduced seemed to undermine, rather than support, the disputability of that country's inclusion in the list. Nihil novi (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

Could you revert a questionable edit in the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia article. This article is locked and open only to established editors and that is why I'm asking. It appears that user Marcelus, changed the death toll numbers removing the high estimate from the Institute of National Remembrance of 120,000.

The original text stated: "The UPA's actions resulted in up to 100,000 Polish deaths. Estimates of the death toll range from 60,000 to 120,000." new text reads "The UPA's actions resulted in up to 100,000 Polish deaths." Also, the info box numbers were changed at some point as well. Finally, it might be worth noting in the introduction paragraph that this event is recognized as genocide in Poland. 84.40.152.160 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection

I came to this article on the report of a close paraphrasing copyright violation. I mistakenly removed the content and tagged the page. Then, reading further into the source, I realized much of the article was closely paraphrased. Something didn't feel right. I looked up Polish copyright law and the source material paraphrased entered the public domain twenty-four years ago. So. Am I correct in assuming that nothing needs to be done but for me to remove the close paraphrasing tag and explain why to the editor who set it? Why not enter the text of the public domain sources into WikiSource so future editors don't repeat the tagging error? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, can you assure me, @Nihil novi, that the Tatarkiewicz material actually is in the public domain? I read further into Polish copyright law. The law in effect when the 1979 journal was published was revised in 1952. That extended his copyright to twenty years after his death. However fourteen years later, in 1994, that law was revised to extend copyright to seventy years after his death.

Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

The "Perfection" article's history shows that the "close-paraphrasing" notice was placed on the "Physics and chemistry" section at 19:05, 27 May 2025, by user:ToeSchmoker.

He had begun his involvement, deleting swaths of the article without discussion.

On 10 June 2025 (please see the article's talk page) he nominated the article for deletion. The decision was to keep the article (which has siblings on 25 non-English Wikipedias).

The "close-paraphrasing" tag should be deleted.

When I click on the "1954 law" and "1994 law" links, I get only "Bad title".

Nihil novi (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi, when Mr. Tatarkiewicz died in 1980, Polish copyright law prevalent at that time extended protection of his works to the year 2000. However in 1994, when his works were still under protection, Poland revised the law and extended protection to seventy years after the death of the author. In the United States, the protection is either seventy or ninety years. So this is not a subject for discussion. Carrying content closely paraphrased like this leaves English Wikipedia legally vulnerable to Mr. Tatarkiewicz's heirs or estate. Having 25 non-English Wikipedia versions does not protect English Wikipedia from this. I'm removing the content for this reason.

I carefully read this article and I strongly suspect you have the talent to write this article very well in your own words. You clearly understand Poland's rich intellectual history. Why not pay true tribute to Mr. Tatarkiewicz's erudition and scholarship? Why not internalize his concepts, put his book aside and write the article as if you were explaining the ideas to your best friend? Show that you truly understand what he's saying and and don't just mimic what he wrote. From what I understand of Poland's intelligentsia, they deserve that. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker:

Tatarkiewicz, whom I had the privilege of assisting as a translator over several years, was Poland's greatest historian of western philosophy. My various studies were not in that field. If, however, you leave the article up, I will do my poor best to alter the present text sufficiently to avert any concerns about potential copyright infringement.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi, I think the conversation we're having should be part of the history of this article, so I'm going to cut and paste it to the Talk page there, where we can continue the discussion. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I fixed the bad title problem above, the links should work now. That said, since Tatarkiewicz died in 1980, I don't think his stuff will be in PD until 2050 or so, which is why Wikisource has no texts of his. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nihil_novi. The entire article closely paraphrases the source. You used the same structure as the source. You didn't bother to change the order of the paragraphs at all. You also sometimes used the exact same words as the source. When you didn't use the exact same words, you paraphrased very closely, only changing a couple of words here or there. Your explanation behind why the article isn't closely paraphrased doesn't really make sense; the number of paragraphs in the article compared to the source nor the fact that the article survived an AFD have anything to do with the article being a close paraphrase. To put it simply, the article is a copyright violation and must be completely rewritten in order to stay on Wikipedia. The4lines |||| (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the order of information is the same as in Tatarkiewicz's book is irrelevant.

As to your other comments, please familiarize yourself with his book, as serialized in English, before making inaccurate assertions. Nihil novi (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the order per say was the main issue. The order by itself may not matter, but mixed in with the other elements I describe above, it shows that the article follows the exact structure as the original source, which does matter. Either the words were copied exactly, or they were reworded slightly, which isn’t enough. If you want to believe the article isn’t closely paraphrased or a copyright violation, fine. I’m just telling you the truth. The4lines |||| (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]