User talk:Korwinski

Welcome!

Hello, Korwinski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Toddy1 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Lviv, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Szlachta". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 September 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Szlachta, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

"Anti-Polish" Uprising - Sign It

Hi Korwinski,

Please sign your last entry at Talk:Szlachta#Korwinski's_arguments. - Exxess (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want to get third-party opinion about use of phrase "anti-Polish" appearing in source - Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements - Exxess (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've changed it Civil war. Civil war can't be Anti-Polish. So no point arguing anymore Korwinski (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Ukraine are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Grand Duchy of Lithuania, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but removing encyclopedic content without any reason is. Just because you say something is "completely false.", that doesn't mean that it actually is. The same goes for statement about Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth. Its partial implementation existed longer than Constitution of 3 May 1791. Doesn't mean latter one shouldn't be added to the article. Especially since it was mentioned in the footnotes and not in the main text.

Also you said "The discussion went nowhere so there is no consensus to include this nonsense". And again I never said there was a consensus per se as you completely ignored that discussion. But since I did meet all possible requirements in such case, I do have sources and there aren't any other valid objections, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't add them. Korwinski (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Pofka (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czy Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie jest częścią Republiki Litewskiej?

Zapraszam do wzięcia udziału w dyskusji na temat kategorii Category:Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania na Commons, gdzie proponuje się rozwiązanie całej kategoryzacji symboli Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, a wszystkie akta uważać za częściowe symbole współczesnej Republiki Litewskiej. Zasugerował to uczestnik z Litwy.

Nawiasem mówiąc, z inicjatywy tego samego uczestnika z angielskiej Wikipedii usunięto artykuły en:Pahonia i en:Pogoń Litewska. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Mellk (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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."

So why are you not following this? I had started the discussion. List out all of the issues that you have with my edits and we will work on improving them. Korwinski (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD and WP:CON. You did not get consensus for your bold edit. You have violated 3RR so if you do not self-revert, it might lead to a block. At least the stable version should be restored. Mellk (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats funny. When I had stated that i will forward this discussion to admin board in case you don't list out your issues with my edits so we can work on them, you claimed it was a threat. But now you threatening me with a block. Russians and double standards at their best. Korwinski (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't repeatedly restore your bold edit until you find the reason you were reverted to be adequate. You violated WP:3RR and have chosen not to self-revert, which in fact can lead to a block. Also, don't make assumptions. Mellk (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reasons in comply with Wikipedia guidelines were listed when you reverted my edits. As far as I know your edits were vandalism and disruptive editing. Please do spend some time on Discussion page instead of my User talk. Korwinski (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mellk (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard"

Oh my. Who knew that submitting request to noticeboard is not a threat, but a standard practice. Korwinski (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rurik. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a step back

Hi. To the best of my knowledge, I've never interacted with you before, so please take this in the spirit it is intended; impartial advice. I see you've been around for eight years, but have relatively few (under 500) edits. Despite the small number of edits, you've managed to be involved with a request at the WP:Mediation Committee, another at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and a third one at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And now the case request at arbcom. I haven't looked at any of these threads in detail, but I think it's fair to say that if you're entrenched in this much controversy after so few edits, you're doing something wrong. May I suggest that you step back, take a break, and consider that other people's points of view are as important as you own?

You might also want to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute#Being right isn't enough and consider how it might apply to your own editing. RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message! But I did. At this point I'm trying to find out why discretion of some administrators here goes one way and they ignore the other side despite admitting that other party's actions can be considered as edit waring. Korwinski (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh did a good job explaining this in Special:Diff/1173196853, particularly the second half starting with The difference between your reverts and Mellk's .... But the bottom line is if you're in disagreement with another editor, the right thing to do is to work it out on the talk pages, not continue to revert and nit-pick about the details of how WP:3RR should be interpreted. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood his position with the exception for the part where he says "Mellk's 4th revert outside of 24 hours can be considered edit warring" and does nothing. Like he doesn't need my petition to noticeboard to at least issue a warning. And due to that all I see at the moment are tolerance of actions that slightly bypass 3RR rule. Korwinski (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biased interpretation of the 3RR declined

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]