User talk:Mateusz Konieczny

Welcome!

Hello, Mateusz Konieczny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ODbL-OpenStreetMap

Template:ODbL-OpenStreetMap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Millerovo air base attack

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Millerovo air base attack. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yakudza (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi mine

Please present a reliable source that proves that Tarle's work is unreliable or an official Wikipedia policy on the same matter. Or at least present an alternative more reliable source. Your arguments so far boil down to "because I say so". Catlemur (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that Tarle's work is reliable? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarle is a renowned Soviet academician, whilst you are a random guy on the internet. The burden of proof is on you, also read up about WP:TRUTH before deleting referenced material.--Catlemur (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Soviet academician" makes him inherently not reliable on Russian history, especially given when it was published, in 1944 when anything not matching officially preferred version would be brutally suppressed. Treating it as reliable source is similar to treating Trofim Lysenko (director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences) works as reliable source on evolution. I will try to track down a better source if I will have time to do this. (and to be clear, I know that works in fields like match/engineering were far less affected than history and economics and sociology) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only a person with an inherent bias against Russian/Soviet historiography would compare a disproved pseudo-scientist like Lysenko with a Soviet historian who is notable enough to have his own article on English Wikipedia. While Soviet historiography is definitely unreliable on certain topics (e.g. Zionism), I do not expect the qualities of an early naval mine to be subject to falsification. If Soviet historiography was as flawed as you claim it to be, there would have existed a blanket ban on Soviet history books as sources already.--Catlemur (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]