User talk:TrueHistoryPoland

Tripe soup
Thank you for your comment on my Talk page. Discussion of article content should normally be on the article 's talk page, so I will copy your comment to Talk:Tripe soup and reply there. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia! --Macrakis (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncollegial editing
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tripe soup. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Macrakis (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

August 2012
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Kielbasa, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''May I add that your edit summary is flawed for many reasons. One could call it a (poor) attempt at bullying.'' Drmies (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Kielbasa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice 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.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for inline citations
Thank you for this addition, but it is completely unreferenced. Please add inline citations to this, or it will have to be removed. This article is currently being reviewed for GA class and your unreferenced section has been identified as the primary problem in getting this article listed as a GA. Please note that adding citations is a basic requirement of Wikipedia (WP:CITE, WP:V). Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)