User talk:Władysław Komorek/Archives 2009

Convince me that he was notable, and I'll restore it. DS (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you "do not have too much information about him", then maybe you're not ready to write the article yet (no offense intended). I should not have to go consult the pastor in Webster; you should have done that beforehand. From what I can see, Father Chalupka was a quiet, good-hearted priest who came to the New World and founded a church for people of his own ethnicity... one of thousands of men who did that. I am not yet convinced. DS (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Dfly67 that referring to a pastor in Webster is not enough to establish the subject's notability. I'm not saying he isn't notable, just that you'll have to find some proper sources, e.g. books or articles, in order to demonstrate this (and meet the guideline). --Aqwis (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left an outside opinion about the Chałupka article here. Please feel free to follow up with me on my talk page or on that page. — Carl (

Francis Chalupka 	
  Source Citation: Who's Who in Polish America

Can I suggest that you try to source a copy of that book, and then we can look to redo the article with the information that designates notability. Information about notability is at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the responsibility is upon the editor to demonstrate that their article is worthy of inclusion, and by the use of sources. It may even be worth undertaking the article as a subpage to your account, and move it into the main namespace, when enough data has been collected. I am happy to restore the deleted page as your subpage so that you can build further data there.

How does that sound? -- billinghurst (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already starting to be very annoying. How many people I have yet to answer? Please talk to them first.

1. It was not me, to began a discussion on User talk:DS, that was request of someone else.

I wasn't criticising, I was asking.

1. Is it OK, delete the article without asking, and then avoid responsibility by writing about a death in the family?

This is not why I am here. I am not judging people, or blaming people. I am looking forward.

1. I feel very sorry for him, but if someone is in mourning and did not want to be responsible for their actions, should keep away from Wikipedia the period of mourning. IMHO, it is very rude to act like this.

Okay, you are entitled to your opinion, how about the article?

1. Based on a comparison with other articles, most of which are very few or no sources at all, but are accepted by the administrators of Wikipedia, I have the right to consider that this is discrimination based on religion.

This is about this article, and what we need to do to get it up to speed, to get up the notability. Would you like to discuss that? Please don't yell discrimination, it is not becoming, and said without basis.

--

talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We can dance around all sorts of matters, they are not relevant, and I am looking forward to a solution for all. The solution is demonstrating notability. Truly. For that we need sources, and I have given you a source that looks useful.-- billinghurst (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All our discussion is meaningless. Discuss the article which does not exist. First, this article should be recover, and only then discuss its contents.--

If you don't want the discussion, that is okay, it is your choice. I have given some time, and options. I have plenty of other things to keep me busy. When you do want the discussion, restart the conversation here, as I have added your talk page to my watchlist. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This time I will highlight my request, because, looks like, it is not visible.

This article should be recover, and only then we can discuss its contents..

I can not discuss the article which does not exist.

--

I will presume that you are asking, is "Would you please recover the article, and move it to a subpage of my account, so that I can work upon it." Happy to do so, it should be there in the next few minutes. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Chalupka

I created

Congratulations, both on the presentation, and the improved article. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does. See

Article looks better now; good work. DS (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inappropriately emptying categories manually, such as

Please take the discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, the criteria given does not apply for a 'speedy' deletion Skier Dude (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this needs to be deleted, then you must list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Your concerns are exactly the type that are addressed there. Skier Dude (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you put a note on a talk page [1] and didn't make a listing for discussion on the category. The instructions on how to do this is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#How to use this page - n.b. that it's a 3 step process, a bit lengthy, but the instructions are pretty clear. Skier Dude (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to fill in your rationale at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 27#Category:Polish refugees Skier Dude (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's just a process of waiting for feedback - that's why it's given a week's run for comment. Skier Dude (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a number of pages on at first sight non notable parishes, e.g.

Nominating pages for deletion is not vandalism, it is standard operating procedure. As for proving that something is notable or not: the

Fram (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please don't try to put outside motives on actions. Discuss edits, not the editor. I have created or expanded articles on roman catholic cardinals, abbeys, beatified priests, ... My editing is not based on prejudices, but on our guidelines and general principles.

Fram (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Do not remove AFD notices from articles, this is considered vandalism. An AFD notice is not the same as a prod and cannot be removed until the process has concluded. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Em.. no you did not - this is you removing the AFD notice. You can remove a prod notice, you cannot remove an AFD notice until it finishes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

With the tagged articles, you have two choices. Either accept that maybe Fram was correct, and allow the process to take place; or challenge them by removing the Prod notice and leaving an appropriate edit summary. if you do this, you should also be prepared for AfD nominations to follow as part of normal Wikipedia processes. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Władysław Komorek. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
Message added 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~ mazca ^talk 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on removal Polish parishes in the U.S., from Wikipedia, initiated by