Hello, Mr Happy Shoes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Marek Kukula, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. PamD 07:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia refers to people by surname, not given name - I've corrected Marek Kukula.

Please also notet that when you add references to an existing article you should keep the date formats consistent with existing references. Please go back and tidy up the dates in the refs you have added. Thanks. PamD 07:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Happy Shoes, you have been at Wikipedia for a little over a week. In that time every single one of your edits has been to insist that certain damaging material must, must, MUST be included in the Marek Kukula article. You are what we call a Single Purpose Account. That alone casts doubt on your good faith in being here. You have pursued this campaign at the AfD discussion, the article itself, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and particularly at the BLP noticeboard. You have made the same arguments over and over, replying to and challenging literally everyone, and refusing to accept Wikipedia’s requirement for WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources (that does not include sensationalist tabloids). At the BLP board, five people have disagreed with you; no one has agreed with you; but you refuse to accept consensus or Wikipedia rules, and you continue to insist on your own viewpoint.

I am here to tell you, or more accurately to warn you: your behavior is becoming disruptive. It HAS become disruptive. If you continue to insist on your viewpoint, you are very likely to be blocked for disruption or for WP:NOTHERE - meaning that you are not here to build an encyclopedia or to accept encylopedic standards, but just to make a point. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My refusal is legitimate. The protection of children is paramount, and supersedes the dogmatic objections of five Wikipedia editors who make arguments as absurd as the ones I have seen. Verfiability and Reliable Sources do not support any position which says you should automatically assume what these newspapers write is untrustworthy. Verfiability and Reliable Sources both require context and circumstances to be properly considered. It is highly significant that both of these reports match, both are bylined, both have the same quotes, and there is ZERO evidence to indicate they could be false. The only disruption is the ongoing refusal of others to critically examine this issue on that basis. I will happily let this lie, if a single Wikipedia editor can, for example, prove that the Sun or Mail has ever printed a false story about a serious criminal conviction, especially one that has featured direct quotes from a judge, lawyer and prosecutor. One editor has just offered the example of Amanada Knox as proof, even though the links he provided shows that story was online for only two minutes, and was a case of a misunderstanding, one which caused several newspapers to make the same mistake. It doesn't say if all of those newspapers were tabloids, but I don't see why a broadsheet wouldn't be capable of making the same mistake. If this is what you consider non-disruptive behaviour, then I pity you, and Wikipedia, especially if you are blocking people if they continue to dare to call this out for what it is. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.VikingDrummer (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]