User talk:Piotrus
You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today. |
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Oh, Template:Talkback is ok. Thank you. |
---|
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance. |
---|
Talk archives:
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Current RfAdminship
Lurking stats
Happy New Year
Please don't take this to extremesBeing involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
"Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin" listed at Redirects for discussionA discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Artie 3000Re proposed deletion- the robot has been discussed at length in New York Times, The Guardian newspaper and other notable outlets. I don’t know how to improve the references but they are out there! It’s an interesting scientific educational toy, so I would hope it’s worthy of a page. Tomhannen (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
All in! Games SA proposed deletionHello, Piotrus. It's my first time replying here, so please let me know if I'm doing something wrong and how to fix it :) So, I noticed your comment about the proposed deletion of All in! Games SA. I'm not sure how I can find the sources you need. As far as I know, there are no academic articles about All in! Games. The company is featured in some news on Gnews though: https://news.google.com/search?q=all%20in!%20games&hl=pl&gl=PL&ceid=PL%3Apl I saw that you published 82 good-class articles, so it be great if you could share some tips. I also checked a few other wikipedia pages for comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemia_Interactive Could you help me understand how they are more valid than All in! Games? I'd like to learn how I can make the All in! Games wikipedia page better, but I don't have enough wikipedia experience. I was also wondering what exactly the point when a piece of media reaches enough cultural importance to be on wikipedia is. I mean, e.g. there is this anime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Blacksmith How did The Sacred Blacksmith had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education? Please help me understand wikipedia better :) If you want me to reply on your talk page instead, please say so clearly. -> umm which way is more convenient? Please choose whatever method of communication is better for you. Agnieszkasek (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
DiscussionNotice of noticeboard discussionThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Bob not snob (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Soliciting support at pl is canvassing, by definitionPiotrus, what are you doing? Why would you risk your EE/APL editing status like this? Obviously, if I were to solicit input on an important WP:ARBPIA matter only on the Hebrew Wikipedia (or conversely, only on the Arabic Wikipedia), that would be a major WP:CANVASS problem. This is most unexpected. I must say that I'm quite dissapointed, truly. You have tainted a key discussion and probably should suffer some lasting consequences due to that. I'm just not sure what these ought to be at this time. How you think it's okay to prompt this kind of outside partisan influence —bizarrely, one which you often complain against!— is quite beyond me. Wow. El_C 17:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2021
|