User talk:Biala Gwiazda

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Biala Gwiazda! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Info
Danzig was not first Polish, it was Baltic.(see Prusi)-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Euro 2008 bronze medals
Please read article 3.08 in this document. The article states that "40 bronze medals are presented to the defeated semi-finalists". This document does actually relate to Euro 2012, but I guarantee you that the regulation was exactly the same for Euro 2008. – PeeJay 10:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you forgotten this already? Stop changing UEFA Euro 2008. – PeeJay 17:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Excessive statistics
- just reverting without any discussion isn't very helpful. I explained why I removed the table in my edit summary - could you please do the courtesy of explaining why we need such an excessively long list of statistics in this article, contrary to WP:IINFO? Knepflerle (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The list was there for a very long time and you're taking it off now? Seems with no regard that you would do that today. But as to why we need it is simply for the statistics. Every other national football team article has one and it seems fit. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Every other national football team article has one and it seems fit." - false. Germany national football team, Czech Republic national football team, France national football team, Netherlands national football team, Russia national football team.... shall I continue?
 * "But as to why we need it is simply for the statistics. - no, this is an encyclopaedia, not an almanac for statistics - see WP:NOT.
 * Most importantly, the information has no sources - and according to WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Knepflerle (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All the information came from UEFA.com. thats a reliable source. It doesnt matter to me.

Speedy deletion nomination of UEFA Women's Euro 2013


A tag has been placed on UEFA Women's Euro 2013 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  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. B.Wind (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Euro 2012 logo
Both logos are used to identify the tournament, but the one I uploaded is better as it shows the logo more clearly and the width:height ratio is better. – PeeJay 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, look here, here and here to see that the logo I uploaded is the one that is used primarily by UEFA. – PeeJay 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The banner is used in all the other Euro pages. Besides, the previous logo has been up for months and now all of a sudden you come and change it? Leave it as it was.
 * Why? This logo is better. Anyway, what do you mean "the banner is used in all the other Euro pages"? The only one I can see a banner style logo on is UEFA Euro 2008. All of the ones before that use the style I changed UEFA Euro 2012 to. – PeeJay 23:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this one better? The other one looked way more professional and more eye appaling.
 * How can either logo look more professional than the other? Both were produced by UEFA (or their media department), so there should be no reason why one would look more "professional". The one I uploaded looks better because the graphic portion can be seen more clearly, and that is the important bit. – PeeJay 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are acting like a child. Have a proper discussion, don't just revert mindlessly. – PeeJay 22:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop being a hipocrite. You come out of nowhere and just change the logo out of the blue? What is your problem? The previous logo has been on that page since the day it was released and it fits much better. Just because you have some "awards" does not mean that whatever you edit is 100% accurate or necessary. I appreciate your editing but please, just leave the logo alone.
 * I have shown you proof that the logo I uploaded is the primary logo style used by UEFA, so you can be sure that this is not a matter of my own opinion. Ask at WP:FOOTY if you feel this needs a third opinion, but I would advise you to be a bigger man and realise you are wrong. – PeeJay 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did i ever say that it was fake? No. I probably am a bigger man as im 6'3. And i dont need a third opinion so you can go ask yourself. Why are you creating such problems when the other logo was perefctly fine? Its getting really annoying getting those "new messages" on my screen.
 * I don't remember ever suggesting that the previous version was fake; I merely suggested that the version I uploaded is the one that is more commonly used by UEFA and other organisations. And no, it wasn't perfectly fine. The new version is clearer in the area where it counts: the graphic portion. Why are you taking this so personally? – PeeJay 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're really starting to piss me off. Back off from Euro 2012. Its obvious that you dont even know the correct capacities of the stadiums. I tried just ignoring you but its really impossible because you are acting like a dick. You are the only one that is creating trouble here. Go find another article to edit and fuck around with. Your "help" if i can even call it that, is not needed here.
 * You really must learn to keep a civil tongue in your head. My edits were made in good faith, based on a UEFA source. I expect an apology before the end of the day or I will report you for massive incivility. – PeeJay 11:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, i'll admit it, i did go to far, my apologies. The UEFA source you are using is outdated and the information on uefa.com is constantly updated so that is the most reliable source
 * Apology accepted. Now all you have to do is provide a good reason why your version of the logo should be used. – PeeJay 20:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You know i dont really care anymore. Since you added the same logo style to Euro 2008 i figured that the one for Euro 2012 can stay. Problem resolved.
 * I just noticed the white in the background of the logo and that it is a png file. Can you remove the white part so it can fit into the background and convert it into an svg file like it is for Euro 2008?

Zaolzie
Why did you delete Polish occupation of Zaolzie from Polish preWW2 history? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant to topic and has no place being in there. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant. It was one of direct outcomes of Polish-German nonaggression treaty and it demonstrates, why Poland didn't join the entente. Moreover now the Russians use it as pretext for occupation of Poland - they are claiming that because Poland was itself aggressor in 1938, they had to invade it to prevent Poland joining forces with Germans. Moreover Polish and Hungarian support for Nazi German anti-Czechoslovak policies was essential for Beneš's decision to stand down after München agreement, although the army was fully mobilised (read about Fall Grün, Germans understood Polish and Hungarian support as essential). He couldn't wage war against all three states. It paved the road to WW2 and moreover German propaganda was widely using it to excuse their occupation of Borderland. Poland lost most of its international reputation due to this act (see Churchil's notes). Therefore I believe that occupation of Zaolzie does belong to Polish history and it should be mentioned there. (not mentioning that the way Polish authorities behaved during occupation made Poland loose credibility among Polish minority in the territory). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please dont say anything about how Russia got involved. They invadedPoland because of a pact with Nazi Germany. They just used this as a cover up because this pact was secret. Its only a simple piece and does not belong in the "Poland" article but should deserve its own article. There already is a section about this and you could expand that.Biala Gwiazda (talk)

16:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that but for its importance it should be mentioned also in the thorough introduction page of Polish history.


 * I only mentioned the Russians to show that this act still affect international discourse. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont mean to offend you by this, but you have just shown me that this is a joke. You think this should be mentioned in the intro? What is wrong with you? The intro only summarizes KEY POINTS, through international organizations, geographic location, and important historic events, like World War II for example. Please just leave this article alone. You are free to go expand/update the article that this should be in.Biala Gwiazda (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Euro 2016. Please reply.
Hello.

I have a website. subject: Euro 2016

Would you like to become an editor? We need editors who can speak Polish and English.

Please contact me: nilbek@hotmail.com.tr or tr:User:Nazif_İLBEK

Nazif İLBEK (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No thanks. I appreciate the offer though. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I mostly work on Polish related articles but if i have the time then i'll work on some players. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of UEFA Euro 2020
An article that you have been involved in editing, UEFA Euro 2020, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – PeeJay 00:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland activity check
We are doing another activity check on members of WikiProject Poland. I've noticed that you have not been active in the Poland-related articles in the past few months (we define it as doing 10 or more Poland-related edits per month in the last three months period), and as such I took the liberty to adjust your position in our Participants list from active to semi-active. Please note that this is just a method of keeping track of how many editors are currently active on Poland-related topics. Feel free to move yourself back if you disagree with this, and/or comment on WT:POLAND. In case you are not aware of that, our project has many active discussions on its talk page, we also list Poland-related article news (hee), Poland-related new articles for review (hee), Poland-related articles in need of cleanup (here), a listing of most popula Poland-related articles (here), a portal (here), and other tools. If the activity incrases, we would like to implement other tools, such as project A-class reviews and a newsletter. We are looking forward to seeing you around more often! Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arrinera


A tag has been placed on Arrinera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. → Σ  τ  c. 05:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Biala Gwiazda, thank you for creating the article Arrinera! Your contributions to Wikipedia are valued.  I have removed the speedy deletion notice and added some references to the article to demonstrate notability.  References like that are the best way to prevent a new article from falling into the crosshairs of the New Page Patrol.  I hope you are able to improve the article further, and get me a test drive someday. :-) cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to Rutgers University, Newark
Um...sorry, dude...it's Rutgers-Newark and the move you performed should be reverted. This name has never ever been used, neither has "Rutgers University in Newark". It has always been Rutgers-Newark, or Rutgers Newark Campus. I seriously do not know what you are thinking with this move. Making something "look more professional" doesn't really mean anything if it is entirely wrong. It has always has been Rutgers-Newark, and for the foreseeable future it will continue to be. I don't know what logical basis led you to think New Jersey's Rutgers system could be compared to the University of California system--they are two completely different animals. If you lived in New Jersey or were a Rutgers alumnus or knew (or asked) a Rutgers alumnus, you would have been better informed. Please revert this back. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First, it was a mistake so if you can fix that then that would be great. Second, its not just Rutgers Newark. Thats not the official name just a sub-name used to refer to the school. If you want to expand that article and add more information then please go ahead, just dont change things that were fine before. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I spent some time yesterday reorganizing the article and making improvements. If you don't know anything about Rutgers, you shouldn't be spreading disinformation on the Rutgers-Newark article. And yes, it is commonly referred to by Rutgers itself, by the press, by students and faculty, by people who know of the campus (in and out of New Jersey) as "Rutgers-Newark"--despite what you think. No one, absolutely no one calls it "Rutgers University in Newark" so please stop trying to impose with that error.  I will revert any misinformation you attempt to impose. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC) (by the way, I'm a Rutgers alumnus and I've taught there...so please do not insult my intelligence by persisting in your errors.)
 * You can stop editing the beginning of the article because that was not the way it was before you started tampering with it so leave it in its original state. You sound very mad, who are you trying to fool? Yourself? You can add more information to the body but the beginning article starting point is completely fine. Also, calm down you're not scaring anyone. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will continue to revert improper or incorrect information whenever I see it--irregardless whether it is located in the body of the article or the lead. I could care less what it was before if what it was before was wrong. I disagree with your claim that I am "tampering" by correcting something blatantly wrong or inaccurate. I am asking politely, and reiterate it again. If you do not know anything about a subject (as evinced by your ignorance of Rutgers and specifically Rutgers-Newark), and only add incorrect or inaccurate information, you should not be contributing to that subject.  Therefore, please stop.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE BE ADVISED that I have reported your recent behavior to administrators, sought page protection and sought a third opinion to resolve this without further incident. If you revert one more time (as you have done so twice tonight), I will notify adminstrators that you have committed a violation of the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) and will seek disciplinary sanction against you. I will not countenance what I perceive as disruptive editing by any party that in any way undermines the accuracy of an article. Therefore, for a final time, I respectfully ask you to cease inserting inaccurate or incorrect information at Rutgers-Newark. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not scaring anyone and by doing that you just showed youre incapable of resolving your problems and calmly discussing them. You dont have any right to tell me or anyone else "not to be contributing to the subject" so keep that to yourself and take some time off to think about your mental problems that you may be having. The original opening was completely fine and relevant and doesnt need any editing. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you continue to persist in posting incorrect information and be belligerent, someone else will tell you can't contribute because you will be blocked. If you persist, I will recommend such a sanction and applaud when it is enforced.  We have a right to make mistakes, we don't have a right to continue imposing them on others and ignore that it is a mistake.  If your only contribution will be to disrupt an article (as I assert you are doing at Rutgers-Newark), your efforts are best directed elsewhere. Your lack of civility (i.e. evinced above by resorting to an ad hominem attack claiming I have "mental problems" because I strenuously disagree) is inconsistent with the policies of Wikipedia and will be noted for a formal complaint I am prepared (with no compunction whatsoever) to make. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * The report at WP:AN3 is now closed, with full protection of the article and with warnings to both you and ColonelHenry. See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Rutgers-Newark
Hello Biala Gwiazda. I've noticed you and another party reverting on this article. Please open a discussion at Talk:Rutgers-Newark to discuss your concern. Otherwise, admins may need to intervene. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Are you starting this argument again?
This matter was settled with adminstrator intervention last month. If you want to discuss it again, the talk page would be appropriate location and we'll obtain a consensus. There is no use getting in an edit-war, or repeated reverting the page. But if you want to start edit-warring again absent such an attempt at reaching consensus, I will not hesitate seeking administrative intervention again for what I characterize as unproductive, disruptive editing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop spamming me and the page. Its been combined and doesnt need any of your unnecessary changes. They dont even sound good or worded correctly.Biala Gwiazda (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than get into an edit-war with you, and because you do not seek to obtain a consensus before defying the decision made after ANI last month, I've reported this to the Administrator's Noticeboard, notice below. Once again, please stop being belligerent and seek consensus. This matter was already resolved by several users last month. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasnt resolved since nothing changed. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)