Talk:1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division

message: The quality of the source is by far more important than were it is hosted. If the source is written by an otherwise reliable scholar and the work happens to be posted at the dubious site, it would be better to find the work at a more reliable location but if none is available and the authenticity of the work's being what is claimed is not doubted, we would have to live with what you have. So, the real question is who is Krzysztof Janikula, the author of this reference, is he a reliable  scholar and if so, why would a reliable scholar choose to write for republika.pl. If he wrote it for something else, a scholarly journal or smth, we would need to link there, not to a free hosting site. --Irpen 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't take very long to see that Krzysztof Janikula is not in Google Scholar or Google Books, and has a very limited presence on plain Google. But - going to the second part of the clause - is the authenticity of the information questioned? I honestly don't know how accurate it is; I just don't want to see anything referenced to dubious sources, regardless of whether anyone has questioned its details or not. WP:Reliable sources states "If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Novickas 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you should nominate this article for AfD, if you feel it is a hoax.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the section heading above and the RfC below I am under impression that the question is rather different. As for discussing reliability of the author, I suggested WP:RSN above as a better forum.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added a new section heading if this was bothering you. Now, could you answer the question? --Irpen 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on  and  Janikula seems to be an amateur historian, with several publications online related to Polish and maritime history. His piece cited here cites two printed sources. Unless his claims are contradicted by more reliable, academic scholarship - or seem just plain controversial and dubious - I see no reason to remove his source from the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They are better sources then no sources, a problem common in many articles, such as S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia, Hertsaivskyi Raion, St Volodymyr's Cathedral, St Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy or Order of Friendship of Peoples just to name a few. May I suggest we concentrate on adding references to such articles first? And certainly I am all for replacing Janikula with more reliable scholar - by all means, if you can, please do so.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I will improve this article one day. If you want to delete it or remove content, please gain consensus first, preferably at WP:RSN.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Krzysztof Janikula's reliability

message: Republika.pl appears in about 60 articles on mainspace, including histories and biographies . It is listed as a purveyor of malware, as well as spam, in software protection sites.
Novickas 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As was explained to you above, only a single subdomain of it is listed as such. To call the ste a purveyor of malwareis as accurate as to claim that all of wikipedia articles are hoaxes (per Henryk Batuta hoax) precented.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: The image :Image:Bitwa niemenska.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bitwa niemenska.jpg

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.republika.pl/rzeczna2004/wojna%20roku%201920.htm
** In 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division on 2011-05-25 06:53:04, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division on 2011-06-10 04:00:00, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link