User talk:Macjelly

October 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to World War II reparations, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thanks for the info.
 * What in your opinion was wrong with my contribution? I would like you be more specific on that matter.


 * Kind regards
 * Marcin Kisielewicz 82.132.186.196 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There are several reasons why your edits are problematic, e.g.:
 * Blog posts are not a reliable source. Please only include information published in reliable secondary sources (such as peer-reviewed journals).
 * You can't add entire sections from primary sources to the article.
 * Your choice of sources shows that you don't have a neutral point of view on the subject. However, this is one of Wikipedia's [[WP:Core content policies|

core content policies]]. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jean Claude,

Thanks again for your reply.

Do you speak/read/understand the Polish language? Seems not to me; otherwise you wouldn’t delete my contribution without contacting me first.

There is nothing personal in my job. I am an archeologist by my formal education. I have published some scientific papers as well. I know the trade.

All infos included are public; the sources, besides one blog (which author has discovered the linked UN document) is also reliable and verifiable as they come from the Polish Parliament Online Archives, the Polish government or papers published in scientific journals.

What could be wrong with this kind of sources, please?

The linked UN document exists at the link provided.

Okay, I can accept that the excerpt form the UN document seems to you too long. What about making a separate page and link it to the main article then?

Best regards Marcin Kisielewicz

82.132.186.196 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have again reverted your changes. The document you mention is irrelevant unless it is discussed in a reliable secondary source.


 * Once again: Please do not violate Wikipedia's core content policies and familiarise yourself with our guidelines. Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)