1. Co do twoich edycji o gwarze śląskiej to jest niepokojące, że dokonujesz takich nikczemnych edycji, narodowości Śląskiej nigdy nie było, nie ma i nie będzie, bo nie można sobie ot tak wymyślić narodu na podstawie gwary, których w Polsce jest cała masa, sama gwara Śląska dzieli się na kilka rodzajów, ja na przykład należę jednej z nich. Powiem jeszcze tylko, że twoje edycje są niezwykle niegodziwe, nikczemne i kłamliwe.

2. Proszę cię nie likwiduj dobrych edycji, według najnowszych danych z lipca 2012 roku w Warszawie żyje 1 802 000 ludzi, a w Hamburgu 1 799 000, to są najnowsze dane przeprowadzone przez urzędy statystyczne w Polsce i w Niemczech.

Dlaczego twoje konto zostało założone wtedy kiedy dokonano pierwszej edycji przeze mnie? Czyżby obawiasz się prawdziwy wikipedysto, że będziesz osądzony o bluźnierstwa? Na to wygląda i jest to jeszcze jeden dowód na twoją nikczemność i fałsz. :/

Mimo wszystko pozdrawiam i życzę powrotu do zdrowia, bo chyba coś masz źle z głową.--83.28.244.229 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A co ma "gwara śląska" do narodu? To są dwie niezależne rzeczy. Narodu śląskiego nie ma? Więc uważasz, że prawie milion osób w trzech niezależnych państwach ulega zbiorowej halucynacji? (wyniki spisu powszechnego). Poza tym, niezależnie czy uznajesz naród śląski czy nie, Ślązacy żyją w 3 państwach: w Polsce, Czechach a najwięcej żyje w Niemczech. Ślązacy pod żadnym pozorem nie są synonimem Polaków i nie możesz sobie przypinać Ślązaków do Polaków zwiększając tym samym liczbę Polaków. Poza tym źródła piszą o 60 mln Polaków a nie 62 mln, więc fałszujesz źródła podając liczbę 62 miliony do źródła w którym pisze o 60 milionach. Podstawowa zasada Wikipedii - wszystkie dane muszą się opierać na źródłach. Dlatego twoje edycje są i będą cofnięte, i to zgodnie z zasadami Wikipedii. Także dlatego zostaną usunięte, bo nie spełniają innej zasady Wikipedii - Wikipedia:NPOV.

Druga sprawa: nie podałeś źródła do tych danych dla Warszawy. Jeśli w Warszawie żyje 1 802 000 ludzi to podaj źródło, jeśli nie twój wpis będzie naturalnie cofnięty.

I nie obrażaj innych Wikipedystów.

Franek K. (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twoje sugestie, jakobym fałszował historię jest niezwykle obraźliwa. Tak, "narodu" Śląskiego nigdy nie było, nie ma i nie będzie. Takie poglądy może wyrażać tylko osoba nie znająca historii swojego kraju i tworząca różnorakie teorie spiskowe, jakoby taki twór istniał. Są to poglądy wysoce nacechowane nacjonalistycznymi zachciankami niektórych osób, które w ten sposób szukają sławy i lewych pieniędzy na sponsorowanie takich nacjonalistycznych praktyk kosztem zwykłych ludzi, którzy są niezwykle łatwo wmanewrowywani w takie socjologiczne pułapki. W ten sposób równie dobrze możesz twierdzić, że istnieją takie narody jak np Wielkopolacy, Bobrzanie, Mazurowie, Górale, a to są tylko i wyłącznie gwary języka polskiego. Polskę tworzyło kilkanaście plemion słowiańskich zanim ostatecznie zlały się one w jeden naród, a spośród nich choćby Wiślanie, Lędzianie, czy właśnie Ślężanie, od których w ogóle wzięła się nazwa Śląsk, a z kolei z tej nazwy - Ślązacy. Od początków państwowości Słowian te tereny należały do Piastów. Przecież w 966 roku gdy Polska przyjmowała chrzest czy w 1025 roku, gdy staliśmy się królestwem, Śląsk był nieodłączną częścią Polski. Jednak po rozbiciu dzielnicowym w Polsce w XIV wieku powstały państwa śląskie rządzone przez polską dynastię Piastów. Śląsk odłączył się od macierzy na kilka wieków po zajęciu tych terenów przez Czechów, później Austriaków. W XVIII wieku na te tereny zaczęli licznie napływać Saksończycy i Brandenburczycy (oddzielne narody czy jednak gwary Niemieckie, jak myślisz?), a to ze względu na zajęcie tego terenu przez Prusy (też oddzielny naród, czy nadal Niemcy?) i właśnie z tego powodu w 1939 roku było tam sporo Niemców. Wcześniej Czesi i Austriacy nie zasiedlali swoimi obywatelami jak to robili Niemcy, głównie w okresie germanizacji Polaków na Śląsku, Wielkopolsce, Pomorzu czy Kujawach. Dopiero w 1945 roku Hitlerowcy musieli oddać z powrotem te tereny Polakom, w tym Pomorzanom, Wielkopolanom, Ślązakom i Kujawiakom. To tyle z historii - nigdy nie było państwa i narodu Śląskiego. To są suche fakty, a nie te nacjonalistyczne mity. Jest to niedobre i złe, że pojawiają się tacy ludzie, którzy starają się siać radykalny nacjonalizm wśród Polaków Śląskich i wzniecać takie dziwne i niepotrzebne zachcianki wśród innych Polaków, którzy nie do końca wiedzą, w co są wmanewrowywani i co się wyprawia takimi zachowaniami. Naprawdę, po co im te wszystkie działania? Po co Tobie, Wikipedysto, słuchać tych niedouczonych ludzi? Zostaw tych szaleńców, nie idź za nimi, ich śladami, nie rób głupstw jak do tej pory. Bądź mądrym człowiekiem - czy naprawdę potrzebna jest taka zadyma na cały kraj? Nie rozumiem, jaki jest cel tych Twoich niepoważnych edycji. Tych niebezpiecznych działań tajemniczym ludziom...--83.28.29.151 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you undo revision it will be good to give reason why you do it. I gave reason why I changed article. In this moment article of Silesian language is not objective. I understand that you are on one side of dispute about language status, but please respect other people as well. After your editions article is nonsense, because you wrote "Sometimes is mistakenly considered a dialect of the Polish language" and next is paragraph about dispute between language nad dialect status. I wrote about it in talk site. EDCBA (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Franek K. in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Franek, just want to let you know that these are Guidelines and not policy. You may use another language if you wish.Ollew (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great for me. Thanks for notice, Przemub (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the matter of the Silesian language at the Talk:Slavic languages instead of reverting. Benwing has started a discussion and he quoted some relevant sources. Thank you! Boraczek (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please not that Benwing is not Polish, so it is not reasonable to assume that he holds strong personal views about the issue. Boraczek (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, according to the core rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, this data were modified. Changes by Benwing is typical original research, for example "However, because many Silesians consider themselves ethnically distinct from Poles, there is an ongoing movement to create a distinct Silesian ausbau language: i.e. a standardized literary form based on the spoken varieties, which would then allow a claim for separate language status to be made" and this is not Neutral point of view, for example: Benwing removed information about Lach. This version is more neutral. Franek K. (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Slavic languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second edit-warring notice you get for the same issue, albeit a different article.

Also, misleading edit-summaries when what you actually do is continue the warring are inappropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

didn't I just post the above and advise you not to do that kinda stuff? Go the talkpage, wait for responses. You're going about this the wrong way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained here: User_talk:Seb_az86556#March_2013. Franek K. (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

You did not explain, you blatantly abused a warning template with no merit whatsoever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made ​​a typical vandalism [1] (removed text + sources from Wikipedia) and you start new edit war (two reverts) and reverted to yesterday version by Benwing (for which there is no consensus). This is new edit, I only added opinion by linguistic organisations and political issue (regional language) + sources, do not change the tree of languages. We can freely edit Wikipedia, I added new data + sources. I have a right to this. Franek K. (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On this Wikipedia hard to offend some people and their national languages​​, ignoring the facts and international documents. The fact that the Serbian and Croatian two different standard languages, here it does not matter how big the difference is, it deals with linguistics. Why did you lie about that?

What are these languages: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomo%C4%87:Sadr%C5%BEaj http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%9B:%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%98

See official international documents:

1. https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/indo-european
2. http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php
3. http://euobserver.com/news/31343
4. http://hrv.nsk.hr/dokumenti/Sluzbeno-prihvacanje-izmjena-ISO-639-2-Registration-Authority.pdf
5. http://www.danshort.com/ie/iesatem.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.18.219 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On this Wikipedia hard to offend some people and their national languages​​, ignoring the facts and international documents. The fact that the Serbian and Croatian two different standard languages, here it does not matter how big the difference is, it deals with linguistics.

Problem:

1. Ignoring the internationally recognized language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Slavic_languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavic_languages.png

See documents:

1. See official international documents:
2. http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomo%C4%87:Sadr%C5%BEaj
3. http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%9B:%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%98
4. https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/indo-european
5. http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php
6. http://euobserver.com/news/31343
7. http://hrv.nsk.hr/dokumenti/Sluzbeno-prihvacanje-izmjena-ISO-639-2-Registration-Authority.pdf
8. http://www.danshort.com/ie/iesatem.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.18.219 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you violated the 3RR Rule --Sobiepan (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franek, I appreciate your helpful edits on Poland-related subject. I have also been on English Wikipedia for 10 years, and I have seen editors self-destruct (retire or get themselves blocked) for not being able to find a solution to escalating conflicts such as this one. I have reviewed your and his edits and I think both of you are trying to help this project. Please read WP:AGF and WP:TEA, as well as my essay here, and try to work things out. I can try to help and mediate, and I would hate to see any of you blocked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont edit my comments--Sobiepan (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dzięki za informację, ale niestety, moja słaba znajomość angielskiego uniemożliwia mi dyskusję. Pozdrawiam --Pudelek (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

niby tak, ale dawanie głosu bez uzasadnienia to trochę takie bez sensu... do kiedy jest głosowanie? --Pudelek (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

z translatora czasem wychodzą takie kwiatki, że używam go bardzo rzadko - to już chyba lepiej dać głos bez uzasadnienia ;) --Pudelek (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Silesian seems reasonable, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for repeated editwarring and tendentious editing after multiple warnings. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I could have blocked both of you several days ago when the original editwarring reports were filed. I didn't, in hopes that blocks could be avoided and productive discussion started. Luckily, there is a productive discussion ongoing in the move request at Silesian language that didn't exist before, but unluckily, both of you are still editwarring. Franek: do not exceed three reversions in 24 hours on any page at any point. On any page that involves Sobiepan I would advise you to not exceed one revert before starting a discussion on the talk page. If the talk page isn't bringing in comments form other people, you can use an RfC or other method to draw in the opinions of additional, uninvolved editors. I'm not going to draw a line in the sand about what I'm going to consider editwarring in future situations, but please keep in mind that you can be blocked for editwarring even if you have reverted less than three times, that your prior history of behavior will be considered in whether or not to block you, and that any blocks subsequent to this one are likely to be longer. It is probably in your best interest to stay away from all articles related to language for the time being - you have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and it would be sad if you were blocked for an extended period of time over something as small as this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Franek K.. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 21:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Silesian German shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted only one, two editions is bold (see Wikipedia:BOLD). Franek K. (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want your tendentious edits or ridiculous warnings. Stay away. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your fraudulent voting as well. You cannot vote for other people, and you don't get three first choices. Pick (1) your first choice, and (2) your second choice, and let others vote for themselves. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing as you[2]. Franek K. (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please not continue to edit-warring, remove whole posts by other users, personal attacks and replace correct wikilinks on redirects, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Franek K. (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

• Please note: I have imposed an explicit one revert restriction at Silesian language, regardless of the content involved. I will also be sanctioning editors who have received this warning who perform more than one revert per day on any article on Wikipedia if the content they remove (or add) is related to the debate over whether the subject in question should be labelled as the 'Silesian language' or as a dialect. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make baseless accusations or describe other user's edits as "trolling", like you did here [3]. If there's a disagreement, try to work it out on the talk page. And it would be really advisable if you stopped edit warring across multiple articles, and against several users.

There is a discretionary sanctions notification right above this comment. Please pay attention to it. Volunteer Marek  00:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[4]  Volunteer Marek  21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for ethno-nationalist battleground conduct, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=630623388#Franek_K. (not an AE block). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Sandstein  08:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to Silesia and Silesians.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]