User talk:Chip-chip-2020

Welcome!

Hi Chip-chip-2020! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Grimes2 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Chopin and homosexuality

Please see the discussion on the talk page concerning Chopin and homosexuality. - kosboot (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi kosboot,

thank you for reviewing my improvements and specifications in the article about Frédéric Chopin.

I am following the discussion on the Chopin talk page, no worries. But I would like to ask you what were the precise reasons to remove all of my improvements.

1. I think it's quite relevant information whith whom Chopin lived together in Paris, as cited in the improvements he lived for years with Jan Matuszynski and Julian Fontana.

2. Why did you remove the pictures of personalities in Chopins live, which were obviously very important for him, as he writes himself in his letters. And as Fontana writes in his letters too.

3. As confirmed by the Chopin Institue in Warsaw, there is no reliable proof at all for his "affairs" with Gladkowska or Wodzinska, as cited. The citation linked to these stories are more than 20 years old.

4.That there has been a debate for decades about if Chopin was gay, this probably should be shown to readers of an encyclopedia, or not? Especially because there are many indications for it in his own letters. The readers of an encyclopedia should bee able to see all the discourses to be able to build their own opinion, shouldn't they?

Please answer these questions with good and reliable points and citations, and then we might can ask for a third opinion, okay? Best regards,--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove the pictures and there has not been a "debate for decades" if Chopin was gay. In this context that radio broadcast is certainly far from a reliable source. - kosboot (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please answer the questions with good and reliable points and citations--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: Maybe you should read this book, it was published more than two decades ago.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

References

December 2020

Hi. The RfC on "Chopin and sexuality" lasts for 30 days. During that period, editors have been requested not to make any edits relating to "Chopin and sexuality". Unfortunately the edit you have just made has been exactly of that kind.[1] Please could you self-revert? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. Mathsci (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Chip-chip-2020! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Task Center
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! GizzyCatBella🍁 17:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you GizzyCatBella🍁 for the nice welcome and the links! A happy new year and: even if it took a while till I could eat them, the cookies were still warm and delicious :-)--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome, enjoy, the bakehouse could be terminated at any time - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Advice

@Chip-chip-2020: You might like to know that an editor is free to delete messages from their talk page, and they can do that as many times as they like—it is not edit warring and it is not vandalism. There are certain exceptions but they rarely apply and definitely do not apply in the case referred to here. The reason it is not edit warring is because deleting messages in your own user space (which includes your talk page) is an exception—see WP:3RRNO: "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." (The "guidelines" refers to certain things like not leaving the talk page in a state that would mislead anyone seeing it later about who-said-what.) At Wikipedia, "vandalism" is defined at the link I gave earlier—nothing in the current dispute fits that definition. Accordingly, you should not claim it is vandalism, for example, by posting at WP:AIV. Falsely claiming another editor is performing vandalism is a personal attack. As mentioned at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Feels like hounding, the way to avoid being described as an WP:SPA is to substantively edit a variety of topics without focusing on sexuality/Chopin. I have not looked at the issue but I saw a couple of comments claiming that there are no reliable sources that cover the issue in question. If that is true, you need to find another website because Wikipedia will not promote ideas unless they are WP:DUE and reliably sourced. Someone like Chopin has had an enormous amount of biographical analysis and very good sources would be needed to raise an issue not covered by established authors. That might mean that some new insights are not reported at Wikipedia because they are not yet accepted by scholarship. Tough: that's the way Wikipedia has to be because editors are not vetted to establish themselves as arbiters of what is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq for these informations, they are helpful!

1. So I can delete posts from others on my talk-page too?

2. And: how to deal with people changing my contributions on article-talk-pages?

Some keep changing my title for example, like Mathsci, or hide or change appearance of only my answers.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can delete posts from others on your talk, although it's often better to just ignore them if you don't want to reply. Article talk pages operate under WP:TPG which includes WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. That points out that no one owns a heading and others are free to change them if they have a good reason. An article talk page should not be used to discuss other editors and it's hard to draw a line about what comments should or should not be collapsed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks a lot, Johnuniq, again very helpful and good to know! Last question: But comments on article-talk-pages or on reporting-pages (except ones own) mustn‘t be cancelled or changed to another meaning by others, that is forbidden, right? Best, --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a strange place that takes a lot of experience before pronouncing that something must or must not occur. That's because the context matters a lot. The answer for anyone with less than a year of editing on lots of topics is WP:TPO which says to not change comments from other people. Nothing here is forbidden (see not bureaucracy) apart from totally obvious things such as making threats or copyright violations. When faced with push-back the best thing is to make actionable proposals to improve the article based on policy: WP:RS + WP:DUE mostly. As mentioned, I have not examined the issue in question, but a relevant factor might be that it is hard to introduce material from a new source at Wikipedia when that source differs from established sources. I believe there is absolutely no evidence about Chopin's sexuality so however obvious a conclusion might be, any source which declares something in this area as known fact is, by definition, not reliable because it is just someone's opinion. However, I'm unlikely to say more than that on the matter as I have things to contemplate at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Formatting, reliable sources

Hi, and thanks for your additions to Harad and Lothlórien. In both cases, indeed on ALL Middle-earth pages, the date format is DMY, like "14 January 2021", please (and the language is British English, like Tolkien himself).

On sources, the use of commercial websites is basically undesirable for two good reasons. Firstly, such sites are inherently biased towards their own commercial advantage, so they cannot be fully trusted and must be used with caution; many editors object to them, especially in Good and Featured articles. Secondly, such sites change pages (and disappear) frequently, making them risky to use; this problem, but not the first one, can be mitigated by adding an archive link such as from https://web.archive.org/, where you can retrieve, and if need be store, links that might otherwise get lost.

I'd be grateful if you would take care that anything you add to any Middle-earth page has correctly-formatted dates and suitably-archived (or better, fully-reliable) links from now on. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, thanks for the hints. The date format was made automatically by Wiki, can I adjust that somewhere? That it automatically produces the right format?

It depends on the tool you're using; some allow you to specify the date format, others are meant to read a setting in the article, others you're probably on your own.

About sources: The printed books about the Locations, would they be a better source in your opinion? Best, --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually, as I said; obviously an academic textbook is better than a travel guide. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

ok!--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

... and if we do want to cite a book, we cite the actual page (like |page=123 ) of the actual book (not WorldCat or bookshops or libraries or Amazon or anything else). But Harad is fully-cited and has been independently reviewed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Chip-chip-2020! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Feels like hounding, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello again. Thank you very much for working hard to format your sources at Rohan. Unfortunately ... the sources are all unsuitable. In this case the numbers are such a minor detail that we barely need to source them (though it's be desirable), but we can't use sources off the web like that.

In particular, fan-sites, blogs, or anything that the public can edit, like a wiki (or indeed this Wiki) can't be taken as reliable, so all such sites including (alas!) Tolkien Gateway and similar places, are not usable as Wikipedia sources. If you look at the sourcing of the sourcing of Rohan (go on, click on it and see), you'll find that we rely on scholarly books, a couple of major news outlets for popular matters, and a couple of dictionaries. Other articles make heavy use of academic journals. That is the standard of evidence that is required. The result is that the articles are solid, authoritative, and widely trusted. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the hints Chiswick Chap!--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical figures and sexuality

When it comes to historical figures and their sexuality, they should only be claimed as LGBT under the circumstances described at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality. The relevant portion: For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such—but no such doubt exists about the sexuality of Oscar Wilde or Radclyffe Hall.

This obviously applies to such claims in the main article text as well, as WP:V and WP:NPOV likewise apply. Note, too, that all material about individuals' sexuality must follow WP:Due weight. Sometimes such claims are too fringe to mention at all, such as if they do not appear in any academic WP:Scholarship. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Crossroads, thank you for the hint. I don‘t know though why you deleted all of the names: With Tchaikovsky f.e. there is such a concencus, even more since his letters were published. Saint-Saëns even said himself in a famous quote that he was homosexual (or péderaste, like he wrote it in an old french term (an expression which of course is not free of homophobia)).

Oscar Wilde could be added to the list too, Vladimir Horowitz etc. So I think it would be the best thing to discuss it on the articles talk page. Do you agree if I copy your comment in there?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Advocacy

Edits such as this need more justification than having been mentioned in a source. Adding that someone accepted a dedication to them with pleasure is original research because it is obvious from other edits that the intention is to guide the reader towards believing that there was a personal and possibly intimate relationship between the two men. That assertion may well be true but edits that hint at something are not permitted at Wikipedia. Either make the assertion based on WP:RS that satisfy WP:DUE or omit the cherry-picked factoid. It's pretty obvious why Wikipedia requires that articles be based on reliable sources. However, DUE must also be followed. That means that it is not permissible, for example, to amplify views from a source unless those views are at least discussed without dismissal by the standard (and preferably scholarly) works describing the topic. Many of the topics where your edits have been reverted concern people described in a vast array of reliable sources. Those sources may have missed important points such the sexual relations followed by the subjects. However, at Wikipedia, those alleged sexual relations cannot be mentioned simply because WP:RS might be satisfied. It is also required that WP:DUE applies with the result that Wikipedia follows mainstream thought and does not lead it. For example, the edit summary for this edit at Tytus Woyciechowski includes "Please do not delete sourced facts". It should be obvious that being sourced is not sufficient since articles do not contain every assertion made by sources.

Wikipedia is often edited by people who advocate various points of view. As an administrator, I am supposed to reduce the disruption that inevitably follows. I have no opinion on the content at articles such as Michelangelo and Tommaso dei Cavalieri and Tytus Woyciechowski. However, I believe I pointed out somewhere that topics like those are covered by numerous reliable sources. Therefore it is necessary that assertions added to the articles follow the mainstream view of those sources. Minority views should be included if they are expressed by significant numbers of independent sources.

You have a total of around 450 edits since starting in November 2020. Many of your edits are reverted. I have no opinion on whether the edits should be reverted. In the above I am merely explaining standard procedures that apply to all articles. When disagreements occur, the procedures at dispute resolution must be followed. That means the issues must be discussed at article talk pages and reverted edits should not be repeated unless there is consensus. If discussion fails to resolve an issue, an WP:RFC may be necessary. I will block you if there is further disruption or a long-term edit war. You must follow the dispute resolution process and avoid editing as if a single purpose account here for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Johnuniq. But what would be better than a hand written source by Tytus Woyciechowski himself? As you can see in small letters on the right hand side of the title page, including his name. Confirmed also here. So please undo the deleting, thank you. Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

References

You may not understand my role. The content and the references are not relevant to me. What counts is the disruption including the long-term slow edit war. You must follow the procedures I outlined above or be blocked. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse where they will confirm that returning to a topic and repeating previous edits without consensus is not permitted. As stated above, the procedures at dispute resolution must be followed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that‘s all totally understandable. But it seems a bit odd to me that many of my contributions were reverted by the same user. Even if the sources are very solid and precious, like a rare manuscript. Moreover if I start a talk just that same fulltime-user is often the only one who filibusters my contibutions away, as you can easily see, many times without having solid arguments. That is not concensus either, I think, and cannot be the intention of an open encyclopedia like wiki. (And in general, many users put changes into articles without discussing them on the talk page.) Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Question for administrator

User always deleting my well sourced and relevant contributions concerning Chopin and friends, without good reasons and without noticeable good faith. User, that has been involved in many edit wars, has been reprimand for his behaviour many many times and also blocked etc. for similar behaviour.[2]>

--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an editor's conduct, take it to WP:ANI. Also, you've left this template on other pages saying the same thing. Please don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Note the advice given by admin User:Johnuniq concerning the RfC on "Sexuality of Chopin"; these have appeared several times on this user talk page. I am not sure whether User:Bbb23 has noticed that (see above). Chip-chip-2020's edit here seems to be an example of "asking the other parent". His edits to Tytus Woyciechowskihave not been made in good faith: User:Smerus and User:Nihil novi have had to revert his edits to the article several times. Not acknowledging the consensus of the RfC is unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chip-chip-2020: Regarding these edits at Variations on "Là ci darem la mano" (Chopin): Adding factoids to the lead in order to guide readers towards drawing a conclusion is a common but prohibited tactic at Wikipedia. You need a reliable source (probably a scholarly reliable source for something to do with Chopin) that comments on the significance of the factoid (see WP:DUE). In addition, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the body of the article and is not a place to add factoids. Regarding someone always deleting your contributions, that is quite common. What happens is that someone who understands the topic sees what they regard as unhelpful changes so they carefully monitor the situation and revert what they think should be reverted. When other editors see that, they say to themselves "good, that problem (if it is a problem) is being handled and I don't have to spend time investigating". In other words, onlookers leave it up to the two editors.

A similar edit is at Tytus Woyciechowski where similar text is added. We all know that your intention is to point readers towards the possibility that Chopin's friendship with Woychiechowski contained homoerotic components that may have been shared and/or may have involved physical love. The problem is that what sexual encounters occurred 190 years ago can rarely be established with any degree of certainty, particularly when the participants may have needed to keep the matter private. My recollection is that you have a source somewhere saying that the affair occurred. Whether that source is "reliable" is not really relevant when it comes to a topic for such an exhaustively studied subject as Chopin. The point is that for every source concluding that a homosexual affair occurred, there will be a dozen other sources regarded as standard texts for the topic, where no such conclusion is drawn. Perhaps the majority of sources have omitted information due to an inability to see the truth or due to a misguided desire to avoid talking about sexual relationships. Again, that is not relevant for Wikipedia. The point is that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit must restrict assertions to conclusions drawn in the majority of scholarly sources.

I will have to insist that you follow WP:DR—that means you must not keep pushing the same line without getting positive assent on article talk. I haven't investigated the history recently but I suspect three editors might have reverted your additions? If that is true, and if you try it again, I will block you. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq well I am trying to follow WP:DR as you can see f.e.here[3], the content is just facts, no interpretation, and the only answer given is an opinion and a harsh delete. At universities people work differently.

And I’m sure a publication by three scolars from Warsaw Univerity, which is one of the sources, is a reliable source - much more reliable than other books labelled and promoted on the pages in question.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what content should be in that article, however, I outlined above the standard situation regarding how topics like this should be approached at Wikipedia. Your response shows no indication of even having read what I wrote so I'll list some key points:

• "to guide readers towards drawing a conclusion is a common but prohibited tactic at Wikipedia"
• "You need a reliable source ... that comments on the significance of the factoid"
• "the WP:LEAD is a summary of the body of the article and is not a place to add factoids"
• "what sexual encounters occurred 190 years ago can rarely be established with any degree of certainty"

• The point of that is that any source concluding that sexual encounters occurred would need extraordinary evidence for their conclusion to be any more than a dime-a-dozen opinion. Editors might believe Chopin had sexual affairs (that seems very likely to me) but it is virtually impossible to draw specific conclusions 190 years later.

• "for every source concluding that a homosexual affair occurred, there will be a dozen other sources regarded as standard texts for the topic, where no such conclusion is drawn"

Again, I do not know what reliable sources say about this issue—I'm just setting out the very likely situation. If you had experience editing a wide range of topics you would often see examples like this where a couple of sources conclude that something occurred, but where there are libraries full of standard works that have not made that conclusion. Wikipedia provides a summary of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources and that means some views do not appear in articles. Articles do not contain everything said about a topic.

If you examine WP:DR you will find that slow edit warring (repeatedly adding your preferred text) is not an approved technique. You have to choose other approaches or drop the campaign. You can ask for other opinions at WP:Teahouse or WT:WikiProject Classical music. If you have new information that was not available during the March 2021 RfC, you could start another WP:RFC with a specific proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, in his farewell-post Mathsci identified his network, to which you as his friend belong - that clarifies a lot, f.e. your comments here on my talkpage. See: [4] The two of you, together, have been heckling me. This is not an approved technique on a free encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Frederic Chopin article

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Frederic Chopin, you may be blocked from editing.
You need to stop inserting POV text about homosexuality in the Chopin bio. You've been warned on this several times. Please undo your reinsertion of the content I just deleted, and please do not make inaccurate edit summaries such as suggesting that your most recent edit was a matter only of translation. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

who are you to tell me about disruptive editing SPECIFICO? It’s actually you who’s doing that. You should give good reasons before deleting well sourced content, not just delete it because you personally don’t like it.[5], [6]… about your attitude we already know plenty [7][8].Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Question for administrator

SPECIFICO deletes well sourced content [9], talks aggressively and threatens to block me.>

--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I note that another editor has reverted your reinsertion of the content I disputed. You may use the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO has, very kindly, given you further warning about your persistence in editing practices of which you have already been warned numerous times from late 2020 until now, rather than reporting you to administrators for action. However, you have decided to draw an administrator's attention to the problem, so it has been dealt with accordingly. JBW (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  ‚very kindly’? Deleting sourced and vital content without good reason from an article (Rita Steblin) which needs to be improved you name ‚kind’? Maybe you can have a look at the explanations in my request to undo that swift block, see bełow. Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If you read my message again, carefully, you will see that I did not say that removing article content was very kind: I said that giving you another chance by posting yet another warning, rather than reporting you to administrators, was very kind. JBW (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to correct wrong information in the Chopin article, which has been promoted there by a group of users around Mathsci(permanently banned for edit warring), Smerus, Nihil novi and others, some of which know eachother in real life [10] [11], and sometimes under particular attitudes, as one wrote I had a ‚prurient mind’ [12] [13][14](point 3 - quite ideological mindset, he forgot that there are also those who are presenting facts). The translation of that quote there is wrong, which is obvious for every polish speaking person. There’s a translation by a professor of slavic languages from 2016 (David Frick, issued by the Chopin institute), which is more precise than Walker’s, and which I added as source [15]. The other informations about Chopin are based on information and confirmation from the Chopin institute, as quoted in the article I added as source. In the Rita Steblin article, SPECIFICO just out of the blue started to delete well sourced information, I just undid that twice, not three times. So please take back the block. Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Did you take the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting an unblock request? Apart from the aspects of your request which fall under the heading WP:NOTTHEM, you are essentially arguing that your edit-warring was justified because your edits were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that they were right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.JBW (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I did. Did you check the diffs?

And still, I think there shouldn’t be obviously wrong information and translations in Wikipedia. (Fortunately everyone nowadays is able to translate originals into any language online.)Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't check anything because the block is expired. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Chopin's sexuality

Many thanks for your assistance on the discussion of this matter. I fear that there will be no progress... It is like banging your head against a brick wall! Some are obsessed about discrediting the view as it is based on "one source" - which it is not - and ignore my point that the article is inherently biased and homophobic in the way it is written. I intend, at least, to update the pages on his concertos, which state that Gładkowska was unquestionably his inspiration. I wonder why there has been no Wikipedia uproar about this particular baseless (if not discredited) claim... Glissando1234567890 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I totally agree Glissando1234567890. And there were actually no solid arguments so far against your and my suggestions for improvement in the Chopin article either. So I think there is a consensus there anyway.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)