User talk:Dr Wojciech Kosek

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dr Wojciech Kosek2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Tzafun[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Tzafun meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzafun. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My answer for Yoninah:[edit]

Can I have quite different opinion about my article TZAFUN?
The first problem:
Because Dr. Kosek's work was published as the doctoral thesis on the well-known, famous academy in Cracow, so this is not any private opinion of a little boy, but the normal source for Wikipedia! I wrote my article on Wikipedia because Dr. Kosek's doctoral thesis is really very well proved!
The next problem:
Do You know Hebrew language? It stands to reason that you know... I want You to read this article again and simply check the thesis, please.
Is not the true that AFIKOMAN is the Hebrew word? Is not the true that the Hebrew word AFIKOMAN can be red as AFIK+O+MAN?
Is not the true that AFIK means channels (or: the beds)?
If You want to know the true, You can read the Bible:
2Sam 22:16: "Then the channels (or: the beds) of the sea appeared, The foundations of the world were laid bare, At the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the wind of his wrath."
Psa 18:16: "Then the channels (or: the beds) of waters appeared, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils."
Is not the true that AFIKO means "its channel" i.e. "the channels of something"? Is not the true that the Hebrew word MAN means manna? Is not the true that the Hebrew word TZAFUN (in Haggada) has the same consonants as the Hebrew word ZEPHON (in Bible)?
The next problem:
Can You check the numerical dependence (and the bar graph) which was found out by Dr. Kosek in the Hebrew text of Exod 1-18? Is this dependence true or not? True! - the Hebrew text of the Bible answers! The Bible can be interpreted by people in different ways, but these numerical relations simply are! Did You know them earlier? Is not Dr. Kosek's doctoral thesis the important source for Wikipedians? Yes, it is!
The last remark
It will be a good custom to read everything to which the article in Wikipedia links. It is necessary to have a time to do it, of course, but it is important, isn't it? The responsible man first with the kindness reads what is to be evaluated by him, and only afterwards expresses his own opinion... I wish You a good time and a lot of time to spend this good time on reading everything what Dr. Kosek wrote for everybody on English version of his web: THE ORIGINAL RITE OF THE PASSOVER IN THE LIGHT OF THE LITERARY SCHEME OF THE BOOK OF EXODUS 1–18.
Dr Wojciech Kosek2 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Hello, Dr Wojciech Kosek2. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18. October 2012 My answer for MrOllie:[edit]

Thank You very much for Your letter for me! I appreciate Your opinion about my incompetence of understanding the rules on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but my opinion about it is quite different...
Can You think the same about You?

What about Your possibilities of being neutral in Your point of view when You write about my "too close" connections with the subject and institutions?
Can You prove Your opinion?
Is it possible to prove it at all?

Can You notice that nobody can write on Wikipedia any new (but: scientifically proved!!!)) truth, when he is to prove his loose relations with the subject or scientific institutions!!! Your opinion leads to nonsens, I am sorry...
We are to discuss about the main topic of articles - it is the first rule on Wikipedia, isn't it?
So I want You, MrOllie, to answer the question I wrote in my answer to Yoninah.
(isn't He in the close relation with You, MrOllie? Well, it is my sarcasm, isn't it?).
Dr Wojciech Kosek2 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24. October 2012 My answer for MrOllie:[edit]

Dr. Kosek's doctoral thesis were published in Cracow in Poland. You can simply check this information - see 978-83-7438-159-8
Dr Wojciech Kosek2 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tzafun new[edit]

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.

A tag has been placed on Tzafun new, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at Tzafun new, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Using a slightly different title was clearly a deliberate attempt to evade the protection on Tzafun. Attempting to unilaterally overturn the decision reached by consensus at a discussion is unacceptable, and using underhanded methods to do so is even more unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

225. October 2012 My answer for JamesBWatson:[edit]

It wasn't normal debate, was it? Nobody could answer my questions! Nobody!!! Is it normal for brothers of the Only Father our God? No, it is not normal. Sorry, it is not in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Before somebody decides to delete article, he must answer questions. Otherwise this is not the discussion, but the pseudo-discussion!
Can You answer the question: what is the reason that nobody wants to accept that Dr. Kosek's doctoral thesis were published in Cracow in Poland and that this is the main argument to accept my article?! You can simply check this information in the official catalog - BASES OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY in Poland - see:

Dr Wojciech Kosek2 (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

Hello! Dr Wojciech Kosek, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! (P.S. You might also be interested in these links: Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial.) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]