User talk:Władysław Komorek/Archives 2009

Speedy deletion nomination of Editing User talk:WlaKom/Archives 07-31-2009

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Editing User talk:WlaKom/Archives 07-31-2009, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tim Song (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of St. Anne's Society

A tag has been placed on St. Anne's Society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because there was nothing there that showed any sort of notability. Maybe he is notable, but you didn't say anything to that effect.

Convince me that he was notable, and I'll restore it. DS (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you "do not have too much information about him", then maybe you're not ready to write the article yet (no offense intended). I should not have to go consult the pastor in Webster; you should have done that beforehand. From what I can see, Father Chalupka was a quiet, good-hearted priest who came to the New World and founded a church for people of his own ethnicity... one of thousands of men who did that. I am not yet convinced. DS (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Dfly67 that referring to a pastor in Webster is not enough to establish the subject's notability. I'm not saying he isn't notable, just that you'll have to find some proper sources, e.g. books or articles, in order to demonstrate this (and meet the guideline). --Aqwis (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion

I have left an outside opinion about the Chałupka article here. Please feel free to follow up with me on my talk page or on that page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen.

My fiancée died last month. I do not want to have any more arguments on my talk page. You are welcome to continue the argument on CBM's talk page. DS (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Chałupka - demonstrating notability

I have been asked to assist with your disagreement with Dragonfly67, and can I politely request that we do not continue the discussion on his talkpage. Call it delegated to me. :-)

The issue is that the information that you have posted with the biography does not demonstrate notability, which is one of our requirements. We have not said that Francis is not notable, just that it is not demonstrated in your article with the sources provided.

I have done a quick search, and can see that FC is mentioned in

Francis Chalupka 	
  Source Citation: Who's Who in Polish America

Can I suggest that you try to source a copy of that book, and then we can look to redo the article with the information that designates notability. Information about notability is at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the responsibility is upon the editor to demonstrate that their article is worthy of inclusion, and by the use of sources. It may even be worth undertaking the article as a subpage to your account, and move it into the main namespace, when enough data has been collected. I am happy to restore the deleted page as your subpage so that you can build further data there.

How does that sound? -- billinghurst (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already starting to be very annoying. How many people I have yet to answer? Please talk to them first.

It was not me, to began a discussion on User talk:DS, that was request of someone else.

I wasn't criticising, I was asking.

Is it OK, delete the article without asking, and then avoid responsibility by writing about a death in the family?

This is not why I am here. I am not judging people, or blaming people. I am looking forward.

I feel very sorry for him, but if someone is in mourning and did not want to be responsible for their actions, should keep away from Wikipedia the period of mourning. IMHO, it is very rude to act like this.

Okay, you are entitled to your opinion, how about the article?

Based on a comparison with other articles, most of which are very few or no sources at all, but are accepted by the administrators of Wikipedia, I have the right to consider that this is discrimination based on religion.

This is about this article, and what we need to do to get it up to speed, to get up the notability. Would you like to discuss that? Please don't yell discrimination, it is not becoming, and said without basis.

--WlaKom (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can dance around all sorts of matters, they are not relevant, and I am looking forward to a solution for all. The solution is demonstrating notability. Truly. For that we need sources, and I have given you a source that looks useful.-- billinghurst (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All our discussion is meaningless. Discuss the article which does not exist. First, this article should be recover, and only then discuss its contents.--WlaKom (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want the discussion, that is okay, it is your choice. I have given some time, and options. I have plenty of other things to keep me busy. When you do want the discussion, restart the conversation here, as I have added your talk page to my watchlist. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This time I will highlight my request, because, looks like, it is not visible.

This article should be recover, and only then we can discuss its contents..

I can not discuss the article which does not exist.

--WlaKom (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will presume that you are asking, is "Would you please recover the article, and move it to a subpage of my account, so that I can work upon it." Happy to do so, it should be there in the next few minutes. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Chalupka

I created Franciszek Chalupka with a lot of resources. But another Administrator doesn't like it (both version, English and Polish) and renamed it to Franciszek Chałupka. I thought English doesn't recognize "ł" and he was known in USA as "Franciszek Chalupka". All sources are about "Chalupka". Therefore, what next. I don't really care about this article. I just "watching" games played by Wiki Administrator. Some people call it "rules" or "standard". Slowly stretch the opinion that it does not make sense to spend many hours writing articles for Wikipedia, because I always find "smart" administrator that it removes.--WlaKom (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both forms exist, so it doesn't really matter, and it is a never-ending argument for some. I prefer the attitude of getting the article in place, and findable by WP's and Google's search engines. There are some who get wound up in the politics, and good luck to them. There are good and bad bits about organised anarchy. :-)

For your information: pl:Franciszek Chałupka article was presented at September 13, 2009 in the pl:Portal:Katolicyzm in the box "Article of the week".--WlaKom (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, both on the presentation, and the improved article. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ł

It does. See Wikipedia:Diacritics. And Łódź. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a ... I quit. REMOVE IT. I don't want to continue discussion about "Franciszek Chalupka" anymore on my page.--WlaKom (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Article looks better now; good work. DS (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying of categories

Please stop inappropriately emptying categories manually, such as Category:Polish refugees and Category:Polish emigrants. If you wish to change the name of a category or merge it with another one, please use WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:Polish refugees

Please take the discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, the criteria given does not apply for a 'speedy' deletion Skier Dude (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this needs to be deleted, then you must list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Your concerns are exactly the type that are addressed there. Skier Dude (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you put a note on a talk page [1] and didn't make a listing for discussion on the category. The instructions on how to do this is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#How to use this page - n.b. that it's a 3 step process, a bit lengthy, but the instructions are pretty clear. Skier Dude (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to fill in your rationale at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 27#Category:Polish refugees Skier Dude (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's just a process of waiting for feedback - that's why it's given a week's run for comment. Skier Dude (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating pages on non notable parishes

You are creating a number of pages on at first sight non notable parishes, e.g. St. Joseph Parish, Norwich. While there is consensus that villages, towns, ... are inherently notable, there is no such agreement for subdivisions made by other organizations than the state (e.g. parishes). I will propose the articles already created for deletion becaues they fail our notability guidelines. I would appreciate it if you cease creating such articles until there is agreement that they meet our guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating pages for deletion is not vandalism, it is standard operating procedure. As for proving that something is notable or not: the WP:BURDEN of providing evidence for the notability of subjects lies with the editor wanting to keep the information. I can not prove that X is not notable, you have to prove that X is notable, according to our Wikipedia guidelines (in case, Wikipedia:Notability). That the parishes exist is not disputed: but the question is if any of them (with the possible exception of St. Joseph Parish, Webster, which is not tagged for deletion) is notable, has been the subject of significant attention in reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to put outside motives on actions. Discuss edits, not the editor. I have created or expanded articles on roman catholic cardinals, abbeys, beatified priests, ... My editing is not based on prejudices, but on our guidelines and general principles. Fram (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific? And perhaps state your concerns by participating in the discussion about whether or not the article is suitable for inclusion. (cross-posted from my talk page) --Paularblaster (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD messages

Do not remove AFD notices from articles, this is considered vandalism. An AFD notice is not the same as a prod and cannot be removed until the process has concluded. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Em.. no you did not - this is you removing the AFD notice. You can remove a prod notice, you cannot remove an AFD notice until it finishes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Please don't WP:CANVASS for support in deletion debates, like you did here. It is not allowed on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posts related do notability of parishes

Please do not place any past related to notability of parishes founded by Polish immigrants. All such posts should be placed on current discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich--WlaKom (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User Fram

All Fram did was place a {{Prod}} (Proposed deletion template) on the articles. This is a standard thing where an editor believes that the article does not meet Wikipedia standards, such as WP:GNG. If the Prod stays on the article for a week uncontested then the article will be deleted. If the prod is removed, the article may be kept or it may be nominated at WP:AFD. If an AfD is filed the community has an opportunity to express an opinion on the suitablility of the article for Wikipedia. Placing a Prod notice on an article that the nominator genuinely believes is non-notable is not vandalism, whereas placing one on an article that clearly meets WP:N may be considered vandalism.

With the tagged articles, you have two choices. Either accept that maybe Fram was correct, and allow the process to take place; or challenge them by removing the Prod notice and leaving an appropriate edit summary. if you do this, you should also be prepared for AfD nominations to follow as part of normal Wikipedia processes. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Władysław Komorek. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
Message added 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~ mazca ^talk 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Polish parishes in USA from Wikipedia

Discussion on removal Polish parishes in the U.S., from Wikipedia, initiated by User:Fram is on: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 15#St. Joseph Parish, Norwich

--WlaKom (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]