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.

Please start all new discussions at the bottom of this page and include a heading. When in doubt, click the "New Section" button above.

If I left you a message on your talk page, please answer it there by indenting one line and starting your response with a ping: {{Ping|Piotrus}} If you leave me a message here on my talk page, I will answer your message here by pinging you.

Always sign your message (by clicking the sign button or by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~). Thanks in advance.

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.

Lurking stats

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:MarcelinaMajerczyk/Reception of the Jews, from the series “History of Civilization in Poland”

Cześć,

Piszę tutaj, ponieważ sprawa dotyczy angielskiej Wikipedii. Nowicjuszka w ramach akcji Wikimatejko na pl wiki napisała do mnie, żeby przenieść jej do przestrzeni głównej angielskiej Wikipedii tłumaczenie z pl wiki. Osobiście sądzę, że – zwłaszcza biorąc pod uwagę ostre kryteria artykułów na en wiki – ten artykuł jeszcze się do tego nie nadaje. Jako że brałeś udział w tworzeniu wyróżnionych haseł o Matejce na en wiki – zerknąłbyś na ten brudnopis i przesłałbyś nowicjuszce uwagi? Pozdrawiam, Filip (MNK) (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Filip (MNK) Witam. Więc w skrócie, tak: hasło można opublikować, tak jak na pl wiki, temat jest oczywiście encyklopedyczny, natomiast zawiera sporo niedociągnięć technicznych (trochę stylowych, są problemy z przypisami/źródłami). Hasło może być zbrudnopisowane jak się przyczepi ktoś, no i na pewno w obecnym stanie nie może być wyróżnione przez ekspozycje na stronie głównej. Jako, że prosisz o konkretne uwagi dla nowicjuszki:

• widzę, że to tłumaczenie z pl wiki. Tam jest oryginalne hasło, niestety też niedokończone (tj. nie spełniające obecnych standardów), no więc wszystkie błedy i problemy przetłumaczono do nas. Przy czym moje uwagi w zasadzie dotyczą też hasła polskiego
• za mała gęstość przypisów, na Wikipedii wymagany jest przypis do każdego paragrafu. Więcej niż jeden, może być też do każdego zdania. Musi być jasne, skąd pochodz dana informacja. Odsyłam poglądowo do Dobrego Artykułu z en: Stańczyk (painting)
• straszne propagandowo brzmi "The depiction conveys the concept of showcasing the high level of intellectual and moral standards in Poland" i boli tu brak przypisów. Jaki historyk sztuki tą laurkę napisal? Można zostawić jak da się to komuś znanemu przypisać.
• "Matejko presented us with a fictional event" - zły styl. Nie piszemy na Wikipedi "nam" (us).
• techniczna rzecz, nie wymagana do publikacji, ale warto nauki (wymagam tego od moich studentów): linki do haseł istniejących na pl wiki a nie na en formatujemy szablonem {{ill}} tak: Jarosław Krawczyk
• ogólnie, nie podlinkowano pewnych ważnych terminów (np. słynny rzeźbiarz Leopardus - jak jest słynny to pewnie jest hasło by podlinkować?, czy "jego następcą Aleksandrem" - pewnie to też jakaś postac ency), a za to są niepotrzebne linki to pojęć typu Polska (Poland) w środku artykułu.
• do formatowania przypisów, i na pl, i na en, warto użyć szablonów cytuj. Poza tym brakuje pewnych danych, np. nr ISBN książek
• na koniec, na pl wiki jest "Historyczna akuratność", to brzmi jak kalka z angielskiego? Po polsku to chyba "dokładność"? Po angielsku jest ok :)

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES

If you are so sure that enough quality sources exist to salvage the article, then find those sources and show them.
If you want to argue that those arguing that coverage exists must...

1. Find a source and post it,
2. Provide a detailed analysis of the source, and
3. Integrate that source into the article

... all during the course of a deletion discussion, realize that the essay you quote only expects the first.
But more than that, failing to review sources provided by other editors is an WP:ABFish behavior. If I took the time to post a source, then I expect you to take even less time than it took me to find, evaluate, and post the link by clicking through it and reading what I posted before asserting that you can't know if each link provides appropriate coverage. If I consistently posted random nonsense that had nothing to do with the AfD in question, that would be tenditious editing behavior, and I should be sanctioned for it. But while we may disagree about what constitutes independence or significant coverage, I have never posted in such a time-wasting manner nor have I ever seen (to the best of my recollection) any regular AfD participant doing so. So if you have, then by all means, let's sanction editors who regularly post entirely unsuitable links and claim that they are sources. But failing that, by not reading links I post, you're not acting in a collegial manner nor AGFing that a source I post will at least arguably contribute to notability.
Or is it not reasonable to expect you to read links? Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, too often I have seen sources provided by, among others, you, that fail SIGCOV. I assume good faith, but burn me once, twice, thrice... I lost count. Sorry, but if you want me to consider your soruce useful, please provide a relevant excerpt, quotation or analysis. If you cannot, than based on numerous past experiences where you have provided sources that failed SIGCOV, contained nothing but a plot summary, or were unreliable, I cannot assume that soruce is useful. Now, to be clear, I have also seen you post good sources, and as you know, I have never suggested that the quality of sources you post requires any sanction - what you do is totally within the acceptable rules of the project (it is just not, IMHO, up to the level of optional but best practices). In my opinion the amount of not good (or at least, not good enough for me) sources you share in AfD is too high for me to assume that what you post is good to accept at face value as proving notability (in particular, SIGCOV), without the requested quotations/analysis. For the record, I try to preach what I say and I usually try to discuss SIGCOV or such (or provide quotations etc.) when I post sources to AfD (although I am sure occasionally I split too). In other words, if my standards are too high, I nonetheless try to follow them myself and walk my talk. You do not have to do this, but the results are, well, as seen in that AfD. I suggest that we either agree to disagree, or that you try to follow the best practices and provide quotations and analysis to show that the sources you found prove notability of discussed topics._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll provide an example of you, Jclemens, engaging in disingenuously posting irrelevant sources: WP:Articles for deletion/Death Eater. Indeed, you said you would proudly keep repeating it any time I see a nomination that lacks a sensible BEFORE effort. You say you should be sanctioned for such behaviour – will you now stand by your principles and self-report at the appropriate venue? On the subject of regular AfD participants who do this, there has been at least one high-profile case where a WP:Topic ban was handed down (though it was not the sole reason). TompaDompa (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

How long did it take you to go back two years' worth of AfDs to find that? I agree that those sources weren't what I would post today, but note that I mentioned their own relative weakness when I posted them. I apologize for not investigating those better. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It took me no time whatsoever; I remembered calling you out on it. I have not looked through your more recent AfD contributions. Moreover, calling them "weak" is understating the situation something fierce—you misrepresented completely irrelevant sources as being germane to the topic. The reason I remembered it so distinctly was your admission that you had no compunction about doing so if you felt the nominator had not done their due diligence in looking for sources. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus, I'm so sorry to have previously inconvenienced you by posting links that you didn't think met your standards that you can't be bothered to click any links I post going forward. Is that a fair summation of your statement? If not, how should I better interpret it? Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To keep this constructive and friendly, let me reitarate: please post not just links/names of the website, but choice quotes of analysis. Surely, you must have seen something in those sources besides their headings/titles/names? And if so, a quick copypaste of most relevant soundbite, or your own short summary, wouldn't go amiss? Even better, adding them to the article during or, if you worry about wasted effort, after, would do wonders for improving our working relationship. I strongly recommend that you try to contribute more to the mainspace, rescuing articles by actively improving them. We are WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia, and there is no substitute for creating content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already proposed that an AfD nominator whose nomination ends in a 'keep' outcome be compelled to integrate identified sources before starting any future AfDs. That puts the onus back on those who take actions that, if unchecked, would have damaged the encyclopedia. (Note that an AfD of truly unencyclopedic material, with no potential to become so would be improving the encyclopedia; that's not at issue) While your AfD nominations are increasingly well written and propose reasonable ATDs, they are still too focused on the current state of the article, rather than its potential. This is a known philosophical disconnect: I believe in potential, you believe in looking at the article as it is. Thus, I don't take offense when you misunderstand my efforts as if participating in AfDs to keep encyclopedic material in the encyclopedia wasn't directly affecting mainspace. Indeed, it's my best "bang for the buck" in the limited time I have to contribute to Wikipedia. So yes, I will continue to label sources, but no, I don't see me imitating the awesome work Cunard does by posting excerpts and source analyses: I simply don't have time. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ETA: FWIW, I only comment in any way on perhaps 20% of the AfDs I review, so what you see in AfD participation by contribution is a much smaller proportion than what I actually review. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ditto (as in, we are looking only at the small part of the picture). I think it is best to agree do disagree and keep on doing what we both are. From plularity of opinions comes the gem that is Wikipedia (collective intelligence, etc.). Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, no. Your polite refusal to click offered links while opining in an AfD on the basis of current article content because doing so might be a waste of your time is still WP:ABF, no matter how nicely we dress it up. Your position comes across as a proactive middle finger to any effort I put in, in that conflates disagreement about sourcing (I think something counts, you don't) with bad-faith contributions (I'm just putting in random garbage to waste your time) that do not merit review. It's entirely possible this is ripe for an RfC, because I agree there's not likely to be further movement here, but the fact that we can be polite about it doesn't in the least mean your behavior is appropriately collegial. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you want to hear it this way: you reap what you sow by providing low quality sources too often in the past. Nobody (me, (@TompaDompa, etc.) is required to spend our time to review your sources, when so often in the past they failed our policies (SIGCOV, ALLPLOT, etc.). If you want to earn our trust, you need to prove that you are capable of finding good sources without having us to jump through the hoops. We did it in the past, again and again, and got burned. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is now on you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Big Money Threepwood FYI... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This content belongs oj fandom not Wikipedia. Every character in every soal opera isn't worth a page Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Deadline 1(Week 2)-LI LINLIN

Hello, professor. I'm LI LINLIN. I'm taking classes of 'Understanding Wikipedia' and 'Everyday Life and Social Structure'. I have completed deadline 1.

1. I have completed the [Basic, Special topics, how to refreshers, and some exercises] in the 'Student training module'. Here is the link.
2. I have entered in our courses 'Understanding Wikipedia' and 'Everyday Life and Social Structure '.

Please check it, best wishes! Leeinm (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)