User talk:SebbeKg

Welcome!

Hi SebbeKg! I noticed your contributions to List of wars involving Poland and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Kopystrzyń (December 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NoobThreePointOh was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Kopystrzyń and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SebbeKg! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Kopystrzyń (December 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Kopystrzyń and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

List of Wars involving Poland

What's the point of adding the Deluge when it's already mentioned in the Second Northern War ? Olek Novy (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bełz (1672) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Bełz (1672). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Lwów (1672) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Lwów (1672). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of wars involving Poland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Polish-Moldavian Wars and Polish-Holy Roman Empire Wars. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Sample infobox109

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Sample infobox109, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Polish–Teutonic War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Albert of Hohenzollern and Mikołaj Firlej.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

Hi. i just wanted to say i find our username difference quite funny. Sebbers10 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations

As a Turkish history lover, I really liked the edits you made, keep it up. I'm waiting for Ottoman-Habsburg/Hungarian/Moldavian Wars. Thank you :) Vbbanaz05 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vbbanaz05, I too am a fan of Turkish history my personal goal is to create articles for all the conflicts and wars that the Ottoman Empire has fought over the centuries with Poland, Moldova, Hungary and the Habsburgs. As for the conflicts between Poland and the Ottoman Empire, I think I have covered them all (Apart from Stefan Potocki's intervention in Moldavia in 1607 and 1612 and Samuel Korecki's in 1615). I will be working on Turkish-Hungarian conflicts in the near future, so you can keep an eye on my site if you like. SebbeKg (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have discord? or somewhere else we can talk. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vbbanaz05, no unfortunately I don't have a discord although I could set one up if it was about something important, but unfortunately I don't have the ability to voice or video chat because I currently live in a boarding school and don't have a microphone, so contact with me would be limited to writing. And what exactly do you want to discuss with me? SebbeKg (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not an discussion, I check your edits every day to see if something is wrong. You are truly making a great contribution to the history pages of Ottoman-Moldova-Poland. What I wanted was to chat easily via in discord with you that's all. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so tomorrow im gonna set up a discord, then we will be able to chat, today i am a little bit tired,. I write you tomorrow. SebbeKg (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, good night. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My discord: sebastian.1100069, you can message me if you want. SebbeKg (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I added you. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sample10099

Template:Sample10099 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eustachy Sanguszko.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Civil War in Poland (1077-1079)

Hello, SebbeKg,

Thank you for creating Civil War in Poland (1077-1079).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Copyright violations or WP:CLOP

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Hi, I fixed the problem with the article, can I delete the note now? SebbeKg (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Sample 1010109

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Sample 1010109, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How to use sandbox

Please consider making test edits at User:SebbeKg/sandbox instead of creating "samples" in template namespace. Check out Wikipedia:About the sandbox for more information. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Should probably also see WP:COSMETIC TylerBurden (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024 (2)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of wars involving Poland, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. [1]  // Timothy :: talk  14:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Please also read the talk header section of pages in this topic area for possible additional information and editing restrictions. It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse.  // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

These references you recently added do not support the content you are referencing. Examples, [2] no where here does it refer to this incident as a war. The articles you linked to here [3] do not have sources showing these raids were wars. I haven't reviewed the rest of your edits, but the maintenance tags have been restored and should not be removed unless reliable sources showing these entries meet the article criteria, clearly stated in t he title, List of wars involving Poland", or the entry is removed per WP:BURDEN.  // Timothy :: talk  16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Over the next few days I will give the references relating to each conflict, although I still don't understand why you need references relating to already existing articles that are on this list??? SebbeKg (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Sebbers10 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SebbeKg (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing on English Wikipedia

You have created a number of good articles, however the sourcing in most of your articles is lacking (at best) and almost entirely absent in some.

Here are some of the worst examples: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

The unsourced content needs proper sourcing and any original research needs to be removed. You should cease creating new articles until these are cleaned up with proper sourcing.

I'm assuming from the sources you did insert you are aware of policies and guidelines regarding sources, you may wish to refresh yourself on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:BURDEN.

If you continue to create articles with sourcing issues like the ones noted above you may have your editing permissions restricted. I hope you decide to fix these articles and stop the problem, because some of your contributions are rather good.  // Timothy :: talk  20:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue

Timothy i am not a robot, you just gave me a ton of work by putting 100s of ´´citation needed´´ notes to the article ´´List of wars involving Poland´´.

When i will have time i will fix the issues, don´t worry i have enough sources, those articles you just brought up were some of the first I created. SebbeKg (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Just fix them; if you have the time to create new articles, you have the time to properly source the ones you have already created. Content is supposed to be sourced when it is added not as an afterthought. Per WP:BURDEN unsourced information can be removed at any time. As the tagging in your articles show, you have attracted the attention of more than one editor regarding improperly sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  21:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue

Dont worry Timothy as i said i will do it when i will have some free time, i told you those were some of my first articles i created...

But, please could you finally stop writing me? SebbeKg (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Added page to your user space

I have started cleaning up List of wars involving Poland and have placed a copy of the version you were working on at User:SebbeKg/Outline of military events involving Poland. If you decide not to work on it, mark it CSD U1 (or request that I do so). Create with it whatever you wish, but you need to respect the list criteria at List of wars involving Poland. The criteria should be unambiguous and the list entries need to meet this criteria.  // Timothy :: talk  07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been persistently adding poorly sourced content, refusing to heed the concerns of other editors, and you have made a false accusation of vandalism, which you have not withdrawn. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Where is that accusation? I've been reviewing edits by that user and I think we would be better served by allowing him to keep editing, given his promises to improve the quality of their edits. Maybe a ban on creating articles in the mainspace and requirement to use draftspace would be sufficient; I can volunteer to review some of the stuff he writes. I don't see sufficient reason to block him above (and on this talk page) without a consensus at AN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus, if the editor requests an unblock, I will take your assessment and your offer into consideration. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Can you tell me where was the false accusation of vandalism? I was looking at WP:XRV and thining of WP:BITE. I have hard time understanding how this user got indeffed with no prior block history. I'd strongly recommend we unblock him for 'time served' as I struggle to see what merts an indeff here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus, at 16:21, 19 February 2024, this editor created a thread at ANI called "Vandalism by user @TimothyBlue". This editor presented no convincing evidence, and TimothyBlue is a long time editor who has never been blocked for vandalism or anything else. This editor displayed a very poor understanding of importance of reliable sourcing in that discussion, defending the use of a 500 year old source with the comment that they would find better sources in the future. So, I am not going to unblock an editor who made a false accusation of vandalism, didn't withdraw or apologize, and showed poor understanding of our core content policies. This all happened about five weeks ago. Why haven't we heard directly from the editor, and why are you advocating on their behalf at this specific time? Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Because I am concerned you overreacted and chased away a well-meaning editor, who, yes, made some false steps, but was creating overall good content (they created dozens of articls, none were deleted so far), and they promised to fix the errors in sourcing/etc. Neither a single accusation of vandalism nor using primary sources should be enough to warrant an indef, without a community discussion or an escalated history of warnings and blocks that were ignored. IMHO this was a bad block, and I am asking you to vacate it and be more careful with blocks in the future. This was a user that should've been mentored - I would have been happy to give them some guidance on using reliable sources myself, as well as told them to be polite and apologize to Timothy - but instead they were kicked of this project, which is particulary unfortunate since they were active in the topic area of Eastern European medieval history which is very much in need of volunteers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

PS. I've found the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Problem_continues, where I see a weak consensus to block, with effectively two editors endorsing this and you implementing it. I think we should have waited a few more days to get a more clear read on the community consensus. Moving from proposal to block to a block within 24h and one comment is too quick, given other members of the community expressed their support for this editor, ex. @Vbbanaz05 He is doing his best, he is really doing a lot of good for Wikipedia, and a few Wikipedians even congratulate him for that. Yes, some of his references and sources may be very old, but it did not make sense for me to put so much pressure on him. Also he adds current references. Please be patient, he will fix everything. Mind you, I agree this user needed to stop and review their (wrong) attitudes towards primary sources and apologize for accusing another editor of vandalism, but this could have been achieved with a few days block, not indef. Now, if after a few days they'd just resume their problematic behavior, I'd have supported indef - but we did not give them a chance. For a new editor, following unblock instructions can be challenging - they are not written in a very user friendly way (I've seen a student of mine recently struggle to understand said instructions after they were unfairly blocked for using f-bomb word while citing an academic work using this word in the title... sigh). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus, the proper time to discuss an unblock request is when the editor requests an unblock. Indefinite is not infinite as you well know, and indefinite does not mean kicked off this project because all the editor needs to do is acknowledge their errors and commit to acting more appropriately in the future. A time limited block allows an editor to "serve out" the block and resume disruptive editing. What I want is a convincing commitment from the blocked editor that the disruptive editing will not resume. But the blocked editor remains silent and here you are, advocating for an editor who is either uninterested or unwilling to speak for themselves. I acted in good faith for what I believed was the best interest of the encyclopedia at that time. An administrator can block to implement a clear consensus at a noticeboard and an administrator can also block at their own discretion based on their assessment of problematic behavior. I believe my block was well within discretion, and if this editor apologizes to TimothyBlue and convincingly commits to following our core content policies, then I will certainly not object to another adminstrator unblocking. Until the editor speaks on their own behalf, I believe that I have offered you sufficient feedback on this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Since that editor is indeed silent, it is true that continuing this will just waste our time and I do not want to cause you unnecessary distress. I already stated that IMHO you acted too quickly, and I do not agree that this editor contributions represented disruption that needed to be stopped - I feel we have not exhausted other alternatives. But overall, yes, continuing this is not beneficial. Let us hope that this editor comes back, acknoledging their errors and promising better behavior, including revising their articles, which I feel are generally valuable but I also fear nobody will be fixing them anytime soon. A shorter block might have been more conductive in achieving that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Commemt: Blocks are preventative and that is exactly what this block is doing: preventing further disruption. The personal attacks were only the final straw. This editor needs to address the reason they were blocked. If they do that, the unresolved ANI thread (which they started) should be reopended to discuss their problems and editing restrictions. But only if they address their current block properly and show they will cease the problematic behavior. They have a serious problem with WP:IDHT and have given every indication they will continue problematic behavior.

IMO this is not a good editor; a significant amount of what they've contributed has serious problems and I expect much will be deleted or merged. I have nominated one article already, I was waiting to see if anyone would work on the others. I have no faith that this editor will do so.

The idea this editor was "chased off" is nonsense. They were being disruptive in mainspace and then they decided to take it to ANI and continue it. Students get more leeway but this is way beyond that.  // Timothy :: talk  09:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Article titles

Regarding article titles, please read WP:ARTICLETITLES, with special attention to the WP:PRECISE section. Article titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Use either the most common name used in English-language sources, or use a concise but precise descriptive title.  // Timothy :: talk  02:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

The article Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability, sourcing, written by indefinitely blocked user - based partly on unreliable sourcing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

 // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SebbeKg. Thank you for your work on Samuel Korecki's expedition to Moldavia. Cocobb8, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the article. This does meet WP:NEVENT, but I would like to see more WP:RELIABLE sources for verification.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Cocobb8}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cocobb8 The user is blocked (see discussion a bit above), so we don't know if they'll read or care about your comment (with which I genrally agree). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus It's still helpful to leave a comment as it also appears on the article's talk page. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)

Template:Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)

Template:Campaignbox Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)