User talk:Cleaghyre

Silesia - warning
Twoje edycje zostały cofnięte, część przez usera Dominus Vobisdu (odnośnie granic), reszta przeze mnie. Twoje działanie to zwykły trolling. Dlatego tego typu twoje edycje będą automatycznie cofane. Przychodzisz na angielską Wikipedię i zaczynasz robić "swoje" porządki w kontrowersyjnych artykułach. Jesteś "nowy", nie znasz dobrze ani tutejszych zasad, ani obyczajów wśród tutejszych userów, masz praktycznie zerowy wkład w Wikipedię, wprowadzasz kontrowersyjne zmiany, prowadzisz wojny edycyjne, nie prowadzisz merytorycznej dyskusji jeśli są sprzeciwy wobec twoich zmian (jedynie piszesz bezsensowne opisy zmian kiedy revertujesz oraz wypisujesz w dyskusji o stronie użytkownika bo nie jest tobie na rękę, mimo że na Wikipedii strona użytkownika jest jedynym akceptowalnym miejscem do pisania swojego widzimisie). Jeżeli nie zmienisz swojego zachowania i wciąż będziesz wprowadzał kontrowersyjne zmiany, trollował oraz prowadził wojny edycyjne to będę zmuszony powiadomić administratora. I uwierz mi, wystarczy że zobaczy twój praktycznie zerowy wkład w en.Wikipedię!!! + ogólne zachowanie (reverty, kontrowersyjne zmiany) - blokada jest praktycznie pewna, znam to z doświadczenia. Dostajesz ostatnią szansę. PS. To jest upomnienie. Nie odpisuj mi na nie bo nie do tego ono służy. Jeśli odpiszesz (każdy doświadczony użytkownik Wikipedii wie co początkujący odpisuje po otrzymaniu upomnienia) to jeszcze bardziej udowodnisz że przyszedłeś tu dla trollingu. LUCPOL (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning - your edit war, again
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * Ależ proszę, powiadom administratora. Wyręczysz mnie. Licz się z tym, ze zostaniesz zablokowany bo to ty masz znikomy wkład w Wikipedię, wprowadzasz kontrowersyjne zmiany, trollujesz i prowadzisz wojnę edycyjną już nie tylko ze mną. Administratorzy zawsze sprawdzają sprawę zanim kogoś blokują (nie zablokują mnie bo ty prosisz), ale zobaczą że jesteś nowy i co wyprawiasz i wyciągną konsekwencje. Zatem, chyba się pożegnamy. Powodzenia. LUCPOL (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You have very stange valuation method of a person. Write in English that the administrators can read you acts of offences. Beside I see you acting on Wikipedia is clearly recognizable reviewing the reprimendas on discussion your page. --Cleaghyre (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See talk page
You didn't even give me time to finish typing my response. For your information, I live in Silesia (Wrocław), and have been living in Poland for ten years, so I'm very familiar with the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User Dominus Vobisdu explained to you, citation: "Silesia currently has no borders because it has ceased to exist as a political entity both in Germany and Poland. The Oder/Neisse line is solely a border between Germany and Poland, and it's only relationship to Silesia is that it bisects the historical territory of that name. That is more of a coincidence than anything else, and not a particularly interesting or noteworthy coincidence at that. The fact that some of the territory formerly known as Silesia now lies withing the borders of Germany is already clearly stated in the article." Well said. I have to agree with Dominus Vobisdu. If you can not understand the obvious things, if you can not discuss, if you're going to play God, please - do not edit Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also the fact of political and legal statusfor this reason the German Polish agreement is VERY important. Some privately dislike it and this is the reason of you opossition, I think. --Cleaghyre (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks please
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.


 * And what i am referring to is this edit and this edit summary. Don't threaten other editors with "Administrative actions", instead, discuss the issue at hand with them, and try to reach concensus. Also, note that you may not revert an article more then 3 times every 24 hours (WP:3RR). Also, when in a dispute, discuss. Don't start an edit war over it, as mentioned above.   Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Your recent edit to the page Constitution appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Constitution, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Constitution. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BilCat (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BilCat is correct, if you feel your addition should stand, please start a discussion on the Talk:Constitution page and try and gain consensus for it there. Edit warring it in repeatedly without discussion will only result in a block of your editing abilities. Dayewalker (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring report
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead attempt to frighten start discussion. I found you questions on discussion page of "Constitution' article, and I give you logical explanation. 1) You should mention you express you doubts on discussion page 2) You should not reverse it if it is not reasonable problem. 3) You preference is not important. The facts are important. 4) it is unfriendly and impolite to leave this notice instead start to argue about facts, I would say it is juts vandalism. --Cleaghyre (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You were reverted by many other editors, it's your responsibility to start a discussion and try and prove your point. No one else understands it. When you return, please continue the discussion on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is not an 'invention' to push editors on this site, it is a rule that you have to follow on this privately owned website. Refusal to abide by consensus and continuing to edit war is disruptive editing, which is not tolerated.  I suggest you take it to the talk page; edit warring wins you nothing but a block here.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 06:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Constitution. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 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.

Consensus, and the Five Pillars
If I may make a suggestion, you'll probably have an easier time editing here if you'll read about the five "pillars" of Wikipedia, and what "consensus" is and why it is so important. Your comments to me and to Tim here seem to indicate you don't feel you need consensus, which is the opposite of the way Wikipedia works. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here and I'll do my best to help you. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Johann Dzierzon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Your behaviour is discussed here. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''You removed my report of User:Medo3337, probably accidentally, when you added your own comments to a different report in this edit. Please try to be more careful.'' Msnicki (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Johann Dzierzon
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Johann Dzierzon. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. Some of your edit summaries are offensive and contain slurs against other editors. Any change in this person's name should be worked out by agreement on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

AE
You have been reported at WP:AE. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)