User talk:IgnacyPL

Welcome!

Hello, IgnacyPL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kolonko

Hi IgnacyPL, I'm afraid I've had to revert your edit again at Max Kolonko. Open wikis like Fandom aren't reliable sources. We're looking for sources like peer-reviewed journals, mainstream news media and newspapers, and so on. You can read more about sourcing at WP:RS and see some examples of reliable (and unreliable) sources at WP:RSP. I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But what else do I have to prove? After all, their names are almost identical, and besides, on the Internet on many websites you will find information that the name Max Kolanko is an obvious reference to Max Kolonko. There is nothing to prove here, because it is logical! So please restore my edit, ok? IgnacyPL (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we're a summary of what independent, reliable sources like journals and news media consider important. We're not here to add trivia like our original research or what we (as editors) think is interesting. That's especially important for claims about living persons, where we need to stick to high-quality sourcing. Woodroar (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer me: What should I do to get you to agree to restore my edit? IgnacyPL (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could find independent, reliable sources that discuss the reference in some detail. I've looked and didn't find any but you might have more luck. Woodroar (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like this information about Max Kolonko to be accepted, please agree. It is very interesting that in The Penguins of Madagascar there is a reference to someone from Poland. IgnacyPL (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer. Please IgnacyPL (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We're not here to add trivia, especially about living persons. What makes something important enough to mention on Wikipedia is coverage in independent, reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Max Kolonko, you may be blocked from editing. Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 85.193.204.141 (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you spreading this false information about the Prime Minister of my country, Poland? I won't allow one of the most important people in Poland to be insulted like that, that's why I deleted this strange information that the Prime Minister of Poland is a zombie and the fact that he was in power for 2 weeks is not encyclopedic style, so it should also be removed, besides NO ONE IN POLAND HE USES SUCH TERMS IN RELATION TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF POLAND OR OTHER MINISTERS, so these are propaganda and false content insulting Poland and Polish politics, and I deleted them for the good of Poland, not because of vandalism. So I think you will agree with me that this false and propaganda information about the Prime Minister and other ministers should be deleted, right? IgnacyPL (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IgnacyPL. Anyone can comment at Wikipedia. It follows that many comments will be totally misguided. I explained at the link I just gave that your edit was not vandalism. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hi IgnacyPL! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]