File talk:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg

  I've removed the category "Propaganda of Poland" from this image as it was inappropriate. This was some minor poster published in a little read work by a private author. "Propaganda of Poland" carries with it the implication that it was somehow state-sanctioned or something, or at least, distributed on a national scale. But this is really just a cherry-picked image from a minor source. For comparison, look at [1]. It's not categorized in anything called "Propaganda of the USA" - since that, as here, would be ridiculous.

I know Commons doesn't really have a NPOV, or anti-POV-pushing, policy but the image descriptions should reflect the actual image, not somebody's imagination and political agenda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Polish inscriptions applies. --Matthead (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly a propaganda item, and hence its inclusion in "Propaganda of Poland" is just and warranted, for that is how things are categorised here on Commons. Also, I have reverted your removal of the description of the image, as what you have removed is a description giving viewers some idea of what the image is about. russavia (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be a propaganda item (and no one's disputing that - as you are well aware, so please address the issue) but it appears it was privately produced, hence it is not "of Poland". Should we put "Propaganda of Germany" in this image? "Flags of Russia" in this one?

And no, what I have removed is NOT a "a description giving viewers some idea of what the image is about" but one person's made up opinion of what "the image is about". There's nothing within the work itself or in any reliable source to suggest the previous description was accurate - it's just made up. So yeah, I'm going to revert you back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You claim it was published in 1939 in some book. So pray tell, what exactly did the book have to say about the image? As Matthead has come up with the description, we can only assume that he has seen the book and is taking info from there. And threatening to revert editors (i.e. edit warring) is not on. I am more than happy to place a notice on the VP in relation to this, but I am not going to get involved in enwiki politics on Commons, and I am not going to allow other editors to bring such behaviour across here. russavia (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to this. It is clear from the figures relating to Poznan, that the image is clearly talking about the Polonisation of those cities by 1931 by way of reducing their German populations to the figures stated. I believe the discussion on what the numbers represent is closed. As to the category, it is clearly a propaganda piece, and whether government supported or not, this is how categorisation on commons works. russavia (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's pretty clear that Matthead has not seen the book e - I have, though I don't have it with me atm - and is not taking info from there but is rather just making stuff up. No, we need not "only assume" anything. I don't know what VP is, can you clarify?

And in terms of I am not going to get involved in enwiki politics on Commons, and I am not going to allow other editors to bring such behaviour across here please stop misrepresenting the situation. YOU are the person who is bringing "enwiki politics" to Commons, apparently because you are itching for some trouble, and the topic bans you are under on en-wiki [2] prevent you from engaging in this kind of behavior there - so you started trouble here instead. Let's review:

• Molobo, who you are banned from interacting with on en-wiki, nominated this image for deletion: [3]. At this point you have not edited this image or given any sign of being aware of it previously. Yet...
• You then pop out of nowhere, at a time that an amendment was filed concerning your behavior on en-wiki, and decline the speedy [4].
• You then start tag-teaming with a user who is banned from all Poland-related topics on en-wiki for disruptive behavior and POV pushing, on the image description and the talk page here.

This is clearly outside your usual interests and activities on Commons (and even en-wiki) yet you decided to jump in here and kick up some dust. And then you start accusing others of "bringing en-wiki politics to Commons"? Seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have no idea why you're pointing me to the Kamusella source as I'm not disputing that the poster purports to represent changes in the % of German population. Please make comments which are relevant. Anyway, even Kamusella (who's not exactly an unbiased source) states that Bydgoszcz dropped to 8.2 % not 0% as depicted in the poster - but why are we even arguing about this? It's beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, can you please at least justify your continued edit warring on this article's description [5]? As explained above the category "Propaganda of Poland" is clearly not appropriate here and is just your version of transferring en-Wiki disputes into commons, where, unlike en-Wiki, you are not banned interacting with the editors that you are trying to edit-war with. And you're doing this out of some kind of personal vendetta which does no good for either project. Please stop. Go find another battleground on some other non-Wiki website or something if you're looking for some cheap thrills. This is getting ridiculous. If this image belongs in the category "Propaganda of Poland" then Ku Klux Klan posters belong in a category "Propaganda of US", Neo-nazi flags belong in the category "Propaganda of Germany" and Anti-semitic Russian organizations emblems belong in the category of "Propaganda of Russia". I realize that you think you're being cute by having found this new way of POV pushing, here and on en-wiki, by inserting "nasty-categories" into articles and images you don't like but to put it simply, this kind of shit is annoying and disruptive. Seriously, why are you wasting your time on this when obviously you have all this other important work to do?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)