User talk:Maglocunus

Welcome!

Hello, Maglocunus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Regards, Accurizer (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guty[edit]

Czesc. Mozesz prosze podac imie chrzesne A Kubacza? Dopelnilbym do artykulu o Gutach. Dzieki. - Darwinek (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions[edit]

Hello and welcome Maglocunus! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Błaszczyk[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Grzegorz Błaszczyk. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Radek Fukala[edit]

The article Radek Fukala has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. I tried to turn up reliable sources to establish notability but was unable to.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exonyms[edit]

Why do you insert Polish exonyms of geographical names of sites in the Czech republic?--Qasinka (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your trolling[edit]

Języki regionów zawsze budzą kontrowersje, na temat większości takich języków są rozbieżne zdania czy to język czy dialekt. To dotyczy nie tylko śląskiego ale również wielu innych wypisanych w tym artykule. Jestem absolutnie pewien że nawet ty uważasz że np. język szkocki lub luxemburdzki są to dialekty, a jednak nie wpisujesz tam szablonów proszących o źródła. Dlaczego? To oczywiste dla każdego kto cię zna. Mało tego, w tym artykule żaden z języków nie ma podanych źródeł!!! Dlaczego mielibyśmy robić wyjątek dla jednego? Jest to zwykłe czepialstwo w stosunku do śląskiego, dlaczego to akurat śląski ma mieć jakieś dodatkowe rygory? A mianowicie tak nie będzie, będę revertował takie zachowanie z automatu. Znasz mnie i wiesz że nienawidzę takiego czepialstwa i będę bronił (w nieskończoność) śląskich artykułów przed takim zachowaniem. Tutaj, w tym artykule jeśli co to należałoby wstawić ogólny szablon {Refimprove} dla całego artykułu bo żaden z języków tam podanych nie ma źródeł. To chyba logiczne, choć może nie być logiczne dla zaślepionych...... Takie czepialskie edycje będą revertowane z automatu. Powodzenia. LUCPOL (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czy jeśli ktoś w autobusie ukradnie ci portfel i powiesz mu "ej, złodzieju oddaj mój portfel" to przeprosisz go jeszcze za to? To jest pytanie retoryczne. Nie odpowiadaj tylko to przemyśl, bo każesz mi przepraszać że nazwałem "po imieniu" osobe która trolluje. Wracając do rzeczy: obecnie jest wojna edycyjna w dwóch artykułach. W Regional language sprawa jest oczywista, źle zastosowałeś szablon. W tym artykule żaden z języków nie ma podanych źródeł, dlaczego mielibyśmy robić wyjątek dla jednego? Tutaj, w tym artykule jeśli już to należałoby wstawić ogólny szablon {Refimprove} dla całego artykułu bo żaden z języków tam podanych nie ma źródeł. To chyba logiczne. Co do drugiego to wiadomo o co biega i tu szybkiego końca wojny (póki tu jesteś) to nie widzę. LUCPOL (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bez obrazy, ale właśnie udowodniłeś swoje intencje czyli trolling. Wyjaśniłem ci już kilkakrotnie o co dokładnie chodzi w revercie arta "Regional language", że jeśli już to należy użyć szablonu {źródła} dla całego artykułu bo żaden z tam wypisanych języków nie ma podanych źródeł a są tam języki bardzo kontrowersyjne. Pokazałeś też że masz gdzieś NPOV, bo wpisujesz szablony tylko dla jednego, akurat tego który ci nie jest na rękę zamiast sprawiedliwie oznaczać wszystkie kontrowersyjne. Wątpię, że jesteś upośledzony psychicznie i nie rozumiesz co ktoś do ciebie pisze, zatem zostaje druga opcja - trolling. Dziękuję, bo jeśli chodzi o mnie to nie muszę już dbać o reputację, ale ty musisz bo jesteś administratorem pl.Wikipedii. Owszem, powiesz że tutejsze (en) edycje mają się nijak do pl.Wikipedii ale mylisz się. Nie mogą nic ci zrobić formalnie na pl.Wikipedii ale tracisz na wiarygodności, zaufaniu i reputacji (napiszą, że to ten co prowadził wojny edycyjne i trollował na Angielskiej Wikipedii). Zatem dziękuję za ślepe wojny edycyjne w dwóch artykułach oraz za trolling :) Ja i tak będę revertował bo nie dam żadnemu polskiemu nacjonaliście prowadzić polskiej propagandy w śląskich artykułach, a ty jednocześnie tracisz na wiarygodności. Pytanie się nasuwa - czy to ci opłaca, bo tylko tracisz a i tak nic tu nie zrobisz. LUCPOL (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia troubles[edit]

Thanks for notifying me of the apparent socking by LUCPOL. I'm a bit short of time, could you please file a report at WP:SPI to ask for a WP:Checkuser? If checkuser confirms this was him, he'll get topic-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, the checkuser results are a bit confusing – right now, it seems not entirely clear the IPs currently reverting are LUCPOL. Just in case this wasn't clear yet, please be aware that you too need to seriously cut down on the revert-warring. It's okay to revert banned socks, but only when their identity is clearly established. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

born/b.[edit]

Hi there, I've spotted a couple of your good contributions. I think if you could put "born" rather than "b." it would make them even better! I've changed a couple, it's always good to avoid abbreviations like that. Great stuff :) SGGH ^ping! 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. SGGH ^ping! 11:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Józef Chlebowczyk[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Józef Chlebowczyk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was just my simple mistake. It's fixed now. - Darwinek (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maglocunus. You have new messages at ErikHaugen's talk page.
Message added 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

New articles[edit]

Hello. User:DarekJ from PL Wikipedia came to the EN Wikipedia under username "JosefKozdon". Maybe you can be interested to see his new articles: Józef Kożdoń and Silesian People's Party. Also his very own personal article Dariusz Jerczyński is interesting to read, full of controversial bits like "Polish concentration camps". - Darwinek (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aleksandra Kisio[edit]

The article Aleksandra Kisio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced article about Poilsh actress.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]