User talk:Piotrus

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.

"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.

Archive

Talk archives:

Reasons for my raising wikistress: Some general observations on Wikipedia governance being broken and good editors trampled by the system Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. Current RfAdminship RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online signature on your own personal and non-commercial purposes of this morning but I have no idea how much of it is a rider to be able to get the new season of my favorite places to be able to do it again Lurking stats Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days Detailed traffic statistics Happy New Year Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  Please don't take this to extremes Your recent editing history at Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being 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) Francis Schonken, Blanking of entire articles without a WP:AFD is a much bigger problem than my mere two reverts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC) See my reply to your last post at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#New article: Sexuality of Chopin. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin" listed at Redirects for discussion A 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 3000 Re 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) Tomhannen, If you can find references just add them to the article. But this doesn't really count as in-depth coverage as requested by WP:GNG, I am afraid. But you are welcome to remove the PROD and then we can discuss it at WP:AFD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC) All in! Games SA proposed deletion Hello, 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) Dear User:Agnieszkasek. Let's talk here, I'll WP:ECHO you when I reply like this time. First, please read WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Also, consider WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (that's regarding the other companies linked). What we need to show (for All in! Games) is how an article meets the criteria described at the linked pages. Regarding the anime linked, consider Wikipedia:Notability (television) (but it's not passed yet, so we default to GNG). I think most anime shows like this have some reviews which counts towards reception. In the end, Wikipedia needs to strike the balance between providing useful information and not being swamped by spam and fancruft, and some topics are in the gray zone. This is why yo can always challenge a WP:PROD and then we can have a larger discussion at WP:AFD. If you have more time, look at the ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies, it's a good study in which borderline companies get kept and which get deleted from Wikipeia. Lastly. Practice makes better. Some of my early contributions were deleted as well. I've been here 15+ years, it helps... but experience makes one better but not perfect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Discussion Notice of noticeboard discussion There 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 definition Piotrus, 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) El C, I am sorry, I messed up. I didn't think it was improper, but I really should have notified Russian Wikipedia too. Bad error in judgment, but singular. I won't do it again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC) The Signpost: 31 January 2021 News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021 Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation In the media: The world's press says "Happy Birthday!" with a few twists Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report! Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020 Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction The following sanction now applies to you: You are topic banned from discussing or editing anything having to do with WWII (including pre- and post-war) or anything having to do with Polish political history, as broadly construed as you can imagine, for one month You have been sanctioned per this AN report concerning canvassing on the Polish Wikipedia. I realize it did not materialize, but the point is that it could have. I am reasonably confident that you will be cognizant of this in the future, so as to not have this WP:EEML-like incident repeat a decade from now or whenever. Anyway, I think this a relatively mild sanction, but important, for the record. It's possible that the Arbitration Committee may decide to take additional action, but I estimate the likelihood of that as being relatively low. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBEE#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. 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.  El_C 15:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)