User talk:Polska-PL

Hello, Polska-PL, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Volten001 ^☎ 10:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You've reverted my edits twice without proper reasoning, and I dont want to start an edit war, so I will repeat here that it doesn't matter that Centennial Hall is a World Heritage Site. This alone doesn't make it crucial to the article, and therefore, doesn't belong to the infobox about the city. Of course, this information is still important, so it is definitely something that should be included in the article's text, but not the infobox, as it only should cover key facts per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Looking at other city articles, it's common practice to mention World Heritage Sites in the infoboxes in such cases only if a large part of the city is inscribed (e.g., see Prague or Hebron). However, in this case, only one building is inscribed, and thus the designation belongs to the article Centennial Hall (Wrocław) but not Wrocław (other examples: Kyiv's infobox not including Saint Sophia Cathedral and Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, or Berlin's infobox not including Museum Island and Berlin Modernism Housing Estates). I hope this is clear, though ask any questions if you need any clarification. I see that you've only started editing recently, and while I encourage you to continue making meaningful edits, please familiarize yourself with the Five pillars of Wikipedia beforehand, especially WP:5P4. Thank you. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 18:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

EVERY UNESCO World Heritage Site should be listed in the infobox. There are individual monuments and many other sites, but it doesn't have to be the entire Old Town! Polska-PL (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any good reasons for that. As I already mentioned, the designation of a singular building in a city is surely not important enough to be considered a key fact about the whole city, and this is only backed up by existing articles. Furthermore, listing every WHS in a city would not be practical (see Beijing with 8 sites – that would make the infobox unnecessarily long and give undue weight to just a few minor facts). Do you have any specific argumens for the inclusion of all WHS in the infoboxes of populated places? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 07:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

That's what the infobox template is for. I don't see any problem with including even 100 places if a given city has that many. The infobox is there to include all the specific things. One of them is UNESCO sites. That's all on this topic. Polska-PL (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Then I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of an infobox. It's not there to show all the information, but only the key facts. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Infoboxes are there to summarize most important parts of the article. The UNESCO designation of the Centennial Hall is an important part of the article Centennial Hall (Wrocław), but that is not the case in the article Wrocław, which only glosses over the fact a few times. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 19:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You don't understand. If the infobox weren't for this purpose, there wouldn't be a template for placing it in the infobox. If such a template was created, it means it was specifically for this purpose. End of discussion. Polska-PL (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Many templates can be embedded into others. This does not mean that all of embeddable templates should be included in every infobox. Following the same logic, I would not expect to see Template:Infobox designation list in every single article with an infobox only because it exists, which is what your argument is. So no, I don't understand. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 20:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, have a look at Help:Infobox. This is a very relevant help page that consolidates my points. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 20:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you've made another unexplained revert. I assume you've read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and Help:Infobox, so I'm wondering whether you have any additional reasoning for your point. As an aside, it's always useful to leave an edit summary for reverts (see WP:REVEXP), or otherwise it's hard to understand the thought behind it and assume good faith. Thanks. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Polska-PL pinging in case you missed this. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 12:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Since there's still no response, I assume you're OK with me re-applying the changes then. I've already outlined all my reasoning above and still believe it is valid after looking at numerous similar articles and the MOS again. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Polska-PL you've reverted my edit again without proper explanation. You've claimed that my edit falls under WP:VANDAL even though it clearly does not, as it is not "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". On the contrary, I'm following the MOS and a generally established practice, and have made attempts to communicate with you previously which you have lately ignored. Wikipedia at its core requires competence to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus, which I do not see happening on your part. At this point, this behaviour is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, kindly have a read of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing before imposing edits and seek consensus or discussion on talk. Merangs (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything destructive in my edit, which is very important because most people have no idea how Western Europe differs from Eastern Europe. Therefore, I consider your reversing this edit destructive. Polska-PL (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverting an edit is not destructive, but imposing one forcefully can be, as per WP:Disruptive editing. I understand where you are coming from truly, but the article Central Europe delineates differences. Moreover, the 'Culture' section in the article about Poland outlines adherence to Western culture, which should be obvious to readers. Rest is just false perception. There's no need to include expansive clarifications in the lead section. Merangs (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Altenmann. An edit that you recently made to Gulag seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Altenmann >talk 05:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add information without references as you did in Agnieszka Kotlarska (model). See our rules WP:CITE, WP:RS. --Altenmann >talk 05:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making ignorant edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Gulag. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. --Altenmann >talk 02:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add information without references as you did in Agnieszka Kotlarska (model). See our rules WP:CITE, WP:RS. --Altenmann >talk 02:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Agnieszka Kotlarska (model), you may be blocked from editing. --Altenmann >talk 18:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you blind? Here's the source. The book's ISBN is a sufficient source on Wikipedia! Polska-PL (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Poland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Merangs (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not the others, but ONE who keeps reverting all my edits. Who said things have to be exactly as this ONE person wants them to be?

Besides, I can prove he has little knowledge of Poland and is restoring incorrect data. Polska-PL (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good faith is recognised but Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS and you do not appear to have consensus for the changes you want to make. It is pointless to keep trying to bulldoze them in because they will keep being reverted. You need to work with other editors to find a form of words that is acceptable to most participants. For the long explanation, please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we've already reached an agreement. Polska-PL (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No we did not, and you are still imposing edits without a Wikipedia:Consensus. Just because you think something does not mean it has to be implemented. You are disruptive. Merangs (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I have granted your account an IP block exemption. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Polish is spoken by more people is not valid justification for your edits, this does not follow enwiki conventions. The name is determined by its appearance in reliable independent English-language sources. If you want to change the name of the page, please start WP:RSPM and present your arguments in the discussion instead of starting an edit war. Until the RM takes place, your edits are premature. FromCzech (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a single "reliable independent English-language source" for the Czech name. So I'm restoring the Polish name. Polska-PL (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Two are on the page. As I said, if you have sources that supports your name, take it to RM. FromCzech (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There are three footnotes, only one page in English, and it mentions the name Trójmorski Wierch. The second footnote is from a Polish book, and the third is from a Czech page. Polska-PL (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There is 1 which mentions both but Klepáč as the primary name, and 2 where Klepáč is used. You did't provide any sources. And I you have any, you have to start the RM instead of changing the name by force. Until it starts, there's no point in me doing any further research. FromCzech (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a main name. There's a Polish name and a Czech name. The Polish name certainly appears more often because there are more Polish books and other sources than Czech ones. Polska-PL (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop disruptive editing and adding unsourced material. You have been warned before how to behave. FromCzech (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, you've seemingly kept replacing and reverting an image of a national park on this page two times consecutively, Special:Diff/1340698084 and in Special:Diff/1336016907. Please do not remove content from a page while replacing it with a functionally identical image, especially since Europe is already mentioned and your edit effectively scrubbed the only mention of Africa as an image from the article. LithyLithium (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I will add the most popular park in Africa and the most popular in Central Europe. Polska-PL (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at National park shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Belbury (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

There aren't too many photos. They fit without any problems. If anything, it's best to remove lesser-known and less-visited parks in Europe. The Polish Tatra National Park is the most frequently visited in Europe, so its photo is a must. I won't add a footnote to the photo! Here's the source: https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/tatry-rekordowe-526-mln-turystow-w-2025-r-ruszaja-prace-nad-nowym-planem-ochrony Polska-PL (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that you have communicated with other editors in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments and edit summaries. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Marie Curie for a period of 48 hours for persistent edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• You need to find a better way to establish consensus than constant edit warring. There is no reason that an editor who has been here for such a short duration should have so many edit warring warnings on their talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Poland. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Polska-PL reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy🍁 19:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

What's the problem? The article has been in this form for months, and it hasn't bothered anyone. Some guy from Beirut, clueless about Poland, started removing information. There are NO footnotes in the main text! So they should remove EVERYTHING. But that's not done because the information is in Wikipedia articles, and you don't add a footnote to every sentence. Polska-PL (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that you have to engage the "guy from Beirut" in the article talk page. Also, your claim "There are NO footnotes in the main text" is rather weird. The main text is literally peppered with footnotes. --Altenmann >talk 21:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I wrote to the guy from Beirut in the discussion thread. Unfortunately, he continued to delete information. The text should therefore be restored to its pre-vandalism state. Where is it footnotes with text? What are you talking about? There are no footnotes. Moreover, if something doesn't have footnotes, a "footnote required" template is added, not removed. More importantly, all this information includes links to Wikipedia articles. Polska-PL (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

if something doesn't have footnotes, a "footnote required" template is added, not removed

Interesting interpretation of WP:BURDEN, but wrong. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not think you understand the policies of Wikipedia. Every statement on Wikipedia needs to have a source per WP:V, unless it is a WP:SKYISBLUE statement. You are also referring to the lead section, where sources are not required per MOS:LEADCITE, as long as they are cited in the body since the lead summarizes it. Either way, edit warring is never justified, regardless of whether one is right or wrong. It is time that you try to understand this, especially if you want your editing privileges to remain. You have one week to reflect. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Mixing policy, guideline and essay links as if they had the same weight is a pet peeve of mine. WP:V is policy, the MOS is a set of official guidelines; essays can be safely ignored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad. I think WP:CK could be a better example, but it is not foolproof either. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

So everything written there was fine, so I still don't understand why some guy from Beirut comes to an article about Poland, deletes the information, and publishes his version after the vandalism. Nothing happens to him, but I get blocked. It lacks logic and no standards whatsoever. Polska-PL (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You know what? You'll stay blocked until you demonstrate an understanding of the problem. And even if there seems to be a location in someone's username, please stop speculating about others' identities. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

(and for the sake of completeness, "nothing happens to him" is incorrect; they are currently blocked as well. But focus on your own behavior in this discussion, please.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)