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]

Hello, I'm HighInBC. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your points, many times over, in discussions regarding the text in the article Marek Kukula. Repeating yourself over and over does not help at this point. Your words are still visible in the discussion at WP:RSN. See here, to wit Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Your feelings on the matter have been considered, and a wide swath of the community, over several discussions, have heard your position and rejected it. Your energy would be better spent finding legitimate reliable sources and not those that have been deprecated by the community. Your next comments on this topic better include those better sources; repeated attempts to argue for the use of deprecated sources will be considered disruptive, and may result in sanctions. You have been warned. --Jayron32 17:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly proof that they haven't heard me either, is it? You obviously haven't personally reviewed this situation, not really listened to what was being said or why, otherwise you wouldn't even be asking me to spend my time going forward on an utterly fruitless search for reliable sources that multiple people, including myself, have already searched for. They do not exist. Probably never will, unless something changes, and probably not in a good way, certainly not for anyone who tried their hardest to conceal this man's full and honest biography from the world, whole claiming to be a responsible encyclopedia. This is the scenario. This is your paradox. What to do about an incomplete biography, that could and should be completed, if only you could get past your unjustified refusal to accept there is any reason to suspect those sources, for this context, couldn't possibly be false. You need to accept that their are consequences to your choices, especially if they derive only from prejudice. Including you shutting down a discussion just when it was starting to look like some people had understood things might progress faster if they dropped the dogma, and engaged on the specifics. The recent claim that these two reports would be functionally no different to the rumour mill in the wise eyes of a perfect Wikipedia editor, is a claim that can be tested, and inevitably found to be what it is. Wrong. Pure garbage. But it was not to be. No matter. I have settled on a different way forward. I have put the original decision to keep this, up for review, on the basis that I would have NEVER voted to keep it, had I known then what I know now about Wikipedia editor's universal intransigence regarding this deeply held prejudice. Not even the potential of dire consequences seems to want to shift them. Which is to be expected from those who hold prejudices so dearly. To the end, I guess. We shall see if this will finally be the time the Wikipedia community wants to take responsible ownership of their actions here. If not, I will probably have enough material to be getting on with, and don't foresee a need to bother anyone else about it here, except for the usual formalities. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here are inappropriate and I will give you a final warning on personal attacks, aspersions and enlighten you as to what Wikipedia, or rather it's editors jobs are - it's simply nothing. We have no obligation to write about anything. This isn't an advocacy organization. So take a read of WP:NPA before you comment again. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but the person I was replying to certainly seemed to think what Wikipedia's job is, and by extension I am sure they meant the editors, is a valid topic for debate. I shall keep this in mind, and it actually helps quite a lot to appreciate my experience here, knowing that nobody here is obliged to do anything. As in, what they do here, is always a deliberate choice, an expression of their unique will. Which makes the results all the more remarkable. Normally you really would have to pay, to get this kind of uniformity. What happens here, is most definitely not what would happen in a professional environment, where sometimes not even pay can persuade people to divorce themselves from reality in pursuit of a prejudice. Perhaps others think that is a good thing. Perhaps other think that is the magic that keeps Wikipedia at the top of Google, alongside the tabloids they would rather people simply ignored. They might get a shock one day. Google doesn't care what Wikipedia editors think of a source, clearly. If Google ever develops a prejudice against user generated media, well, wouldn't that put a rocket up some people here? I nearly said a rude word for bottoms there! Learning fast. Like an AI. Classification and sorting. Good stuff. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]