Talk:Saxon Palace

message: Surely an austere Neoclassical structure on the picture cannot date back to the turn of the 18th century, let alone to the earlier periods? Can anybody check when the palace was constructed? --Ghirlandajo 20:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been on my to do list for ages now, but I still don't have enough free time or forget it when I do. BTW, take a look here to know how did it look like before the columns were added (it shows the other facade than the pic on the right; from the side of the Saxon Garden and not the square). Halibutt 23:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the reconstruction definitely spoiled a nice baroque palace. As an aside, I can;t stand rigourous Neoclassicism, be it Polish or Russian or French (it is the same everywhere, actually). That's one reason why I tend to dislike St Pete.--Ghirlandajo 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I suggest moving this article, "Pałac Saski," to "Saxon Palace."  It would save a needless redirect; and there is no other Wikipedia article with the title, "Saxon Palace."  logologist|Talk 06:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "[[Saxon Palace]]"?

message: Actually I don't understand why the Nazis also blew up this building as this palace was built by Germans. It even has a German name. Meursault2004 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not built by the Germans  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.25.29.230 (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi crime

message: Any clue as to why this name? To me, "Saxon" looks like a quite odd choice for an actually Polish built monument... MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 04:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is named after the Saxon dynasty of Polish kings—August II the Strong (king, 1697–1706; 1709–33) and his son, August III (king, 1734–63).  Nihil novi (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name origins

message: This article has been investigated as part of a multiple article copyright cleanup. Investigation confirms that it infringes on , with text from that source scattered throughout the document. This material was introduced in March, 2009, with this edit. Other material introduced in that edit may also be problematic.
I've blanked the article to allow interested contributors an opportunity to decide the best response. If no other plan of action is forthcoming, it may be best to restore the text to the last clean version and then to incorporate any new images, external links or other material that does not build off of this copyrighted text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make it much easier "to decide the best response" if you unblanked the article.  So far as I can tell from the diff, the best response might be to give credit for the (relatively small) items of information to the Fryderyk Chopin Information Centre source, edit it for English usage, and otherwise leave the article alone. Nihil novi (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's not the way copyright violations are handled. We cannot copy text from or closely paraphrase previously published sources, in accordance with WP:C. We can only use brief quotations of copyrighted text in accordance with WP:NFC. Credit does not efface infringement in US copyright law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

text: That account was created a year and a half before this specific violation. I wish it had been new; it would have made cleanup much simpler. :/ Oh, well, almost finished now. In any event, I have restored the article to its state prior to the introduction of infringement, but retained the image captions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saxon Palace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818124745/http://www.studiop2.pl/starawarszawa/saski/index.html to http://www.studiop2.pl/starawarszawa/saski/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion