Mieciu K

Czlowieku jak masz pojecia na dany temat to nie edytuj artykulu. --Militaryboy (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia opiera sie na zrodlach, a nie danych pisanych z glowy. Jezeli pokazesz mi, ze na stronie MON pisze ze juz w 2015 zakupimy samoloty 5gen. albo ze obecnie wprowadzane f-16 zastepuje su-22, ktore wcale nie idzie na emeryture jak napisales to wyslij mi wiadomosc. --Militaryboy (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

W koncu Polskie Sily Powietrzne maja budzet pokroju Niemiec i Francji... kiedy su-22 wyjda ze sluzby nie wiadomo czy od razy czyms je zastapimy. W sumie to z tymi su-22 chodzilo mi o to ze do wiersza Multirole Jet Fighter wpisales su-22. A co do MiG'ow to tez nie predko je cos zastapi. Wg. WTO beda one modernizowane przez SP i maja sluzyc conajmniej do 2012. Tabelka w obecnym stanie przedstawia daty znalezione w roznych zrodlach rzadowych i gazetach fachowych, tak ze nie warto nic zmieniac puki nie wyjda swiezsze informacjie.

--Militaryboy (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please stop. We are not here to reconstruct the English language. See WP:COMMONNAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; but I have read it long since. It is, of course, only part of our naming conventions, and when necessary should be taken literally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How many were you planning to do? One would be enough to show whether there is any support for this bending of existing policy and English usage; if there were, we could then consider extending the warp. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then we at least agree that two are enough; it was at the second I asked you to stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to make a request for a grant to buy a very rare book. Where exactly do I put in my request, on that page (I can't read Polish)? Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to send it to both emails? Thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I need your help with the Miroslav Klose article. The article clearly states "Klose himself said in a recent interview to Przegląd Sportowy that it would be best for him not to be called German or Polish, but European". When I changed "German" to "European" my edits were instantly reverted without any real explination. Many German posters insist on listing him simply as a "German footballer" despite Klose's own words claiming he does not want to be classified this way. I understand he plays in Germany but he was born in Poland, his mother was Polish and his father (German descent) was born in Poland, speaks Polish and played professional football in Poland. Also, Miroslav speaks Polish at home, has a Polish wife, and played professional football in Poland early in his career. I would like to honor Kloses' own decleration of his nationality. If listing him as "European" is a problem, then I would at least like to see it as "Polish-German" or "German-Polish" because lisitng him as only "German" does not properly reflect his full background. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Beckenbauer1974 (talk)

are you still interested in or do you have any time to discuss a couple of issues I have with the article ..(Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tank monument is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tank monument until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you clarify what encyclopedic value you believe your edits have? From your edit summary, it sounds like you added them as a "how-to," but that's not what Wikipedia is for - same reason we don't include, say, recipes or video game walkthroughs. Please explain how your addition contributes to an encyclopedic understanding of false accusation, rather than a "here's how to avoid..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

(additionally, you misunderstand "notable" - I am using it according to our notability guidelines, not in a vague general sense of "something I'd like the world to know.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Prevention of HIV/AIDS is an article because many reliable sources have written about how doctors and public health programs go about preventing that illness (check out the list of references: mostly papers in scientific and medical journals). It's a topic that exists outside of the realm of Wikipedia. To put it another way, we don't make the list of preventive measures: scholarly sources do, and then we report on it because the scholarly sources are talking about it. This isn't the case for your proposal: what you're suggesting is that we compile, of our own accord, a list of "tips" based on some anecdotes. Does that make sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying to you, and it's not the native-speaker issue - you're simply choosing policies at random and stating that your additions superficially conform to them, but you're not attempting to address the central point that "how to do X" or "how to avoid Y" is not the purpose that Wikipedia is meant for. Let's try again. How is your addition related to an enyclopedic understanding of the subject? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You do not know what "notable" means. Also not a language thing, you're just not familiar with our policies. I'm going to remove the material again and I recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and goals. The Teahouse is a section of the site that exists to help new editors overcome this sort of problem; check it out! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please go to Talk:False accusation of rape and discuss your edits and why you feel the edits belong. You stated in your last revert that you were gointo the talk page and explain. So far you have only accused another editor of edit warring and being a deletionist, but you have not discussed the edits them selves. You are in the middle of an edit war and if you continue you can be blocked. GB fan 23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry we crossed paths. GB fan 23:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply