Talk:Ignacy Mościcki

message: Why was this blanked rather than reverted to safe version? It is a rather major figure in Polish history, and I think we should try to restore it to readable state as soon as possible. This revision should be safe (before any major expansion by User:Oliszydlowski). This also seems fine (I am not seeing anything on Google outside Wikipedia and its forks). So this is safe, too. I don't have time to review subsequent major edits, unfortunately. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to reverting, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. I did so in articles where the sources carried clear copyright reservation. I have no reason to doubt that this source is copyrighted as well. The blanking was in case he could affirm permission, as I think we're likely to lose most of the content from this contributor. But it can be restored if permission is verified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Moonriddengirl: Thank you. Did you have any reason not to keep the "expanded introduction" diff (and following category edit)? As I noted above, those seemed copyright-fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, when we find blatant copy-pasting in an article from a subject at WP:CCI, we revert to the last prior to major edits by the user or otherwise remove all content from that person. As WP:CV notes, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." We try not to blank all content added by such contributors, which is why we do CCI, but where copy-pasting has been proven, it's a different matter.  We know that this user has copy-pasted content from multiple sources. I'm afraid we can't presume any of the content he placed in this article was clear. I have so far found nothing from this contributor that was not copied from somewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigation of potential copyright issue 

message: The Polish version of this article is much better than the English one. I would strongly suggest copying it in English as this is a very important historical character and the English version seems to be very poor. I would also suggest to include the scientific papers he published.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS-216.1993 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish version 

message: Hmmm, re , I am not sure if they are "trash". I do think adding the ribbons is more of a Polish Wikipedia thing, but... IMHO they do look pretty. Ping User:Oliszydlowski. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ~ - Well they just extend and enlarge the infobox to an abnormal size, and there isn't enough information in this particular article for it to be uncluttered. There could be a list of those in the body or at the end of the page, but not in the infobox (my opinion). You don't see those in the infoboxes of other leaders. What do you think? Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right as probably this was discussed by others before. But I still think it's pretty, but I don't intend on restoring it. Preserving that somewhere in the body would be nice, if possible. I just don't have energy to find relevant MoS discussion, had to deal with a bunch of stuff... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty or trash?