There is no Cabal

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 edit

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Polish Roman Catholic abbesses edit

A tag has been placed on Category:Polish Roman Catholic abbesses indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter edit

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a real problem and it isn't personal edit

please do not portray it that way. I do not want to go into this either here or in email but... You leave me speechless. I will say this here however: you are not mentoring. Are you enabling? It probably is something you need to decide, not me, and please note that this is a question not an accusation. I think you and I should just let this sit for a few days, but let's keep in mind that you proposed a completely unwarranted sanction on me, hmmm? It is always your mentee that starts the drama, always, and always has been. It's time you acknowledged that. Houston, we have a problem here. Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elinruby Dear Elinruby. Am I mentoring? Not much, since I do not have time to follow what other editors are doing and respond only if pinged or such. Am I enabling? Well, enabling what? You say Marcelus is starting trouble. Perhaps - but all I see just some minor editorial disagreements (mind you, I repeat, I had no time to devle into most edits, I just checked a few at random, inclusing some, but not all, of what you presented - sorry, I am very busy these days; on the other hands I notice Marcelus starting new, nice articles like Sigismund Augustus Gymnasium in Vilnius and I'd hate to see him go and loose a valuable content cotnributor). IF there is a real problem - well, hopefully admins will see it and act. But please note that I am not proposing a sanction on you, I am just saying that uninvolved admins may conclude that the easiest solution for a standard dramu on admin board is to sanction everyone involved, and I do not want to see you sanctioned (and would oppose any serious sanction on you if proposed, since I consider you both a wikifriend and a valuable contributor to Wikipedia). On his talk page, Marcelus told that he will do his best to stay away from you; I hope this will be the case and that it will solve the issues we are facing. In either case, I have withdrawn from the A-thread and I agree we should let uninvolved editors look at the case and evidence. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not want to argue with you in front of your students. However.
I understand that you are busy but that is the problem. People gave him rope because they thought you were paying attention. As we both know, he does not consult you.
Point of order, he told you he *stays* away from me, which is not not true, and he is entitled and domineering when he parachutes in and demands changes for which he refuses to provide a source.
And I guess I hallucinated the part about an interaction ban? That would also be a sanction on me, and prevent the cleanup I am doing in Lithuania.
I documented several straight-faced misrepresentations at noticeboards. How am I supposed to trust his sourcing? Please find the time to go read my finished statement. I am not asking for a public reaction, just a good hard look. I can't keep allowing this. Holocaust in Lithuania doesn't even discuss the Jewish resistance ffs. I understand the importance of Vilnius but it is important in more ways than just to Poland, for example.
I would like to resolve this. I will give some thought to a way forward but source verification can't exclude Marcelus, especially given his misrepresentations in his appeal.Elinruby (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for elaborating. I think what you are doing is correct - presenting evidence for admins to review. Source misrepresentation is a serious issue and should be look at. If there is any Polish source that cannot be translated easily, I'd be happy to take a look. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am saying that at ANI he misrepresented what happened at AE and at AN right now he has failed to mention his final warning from November.
I do not know if he misrepresents sources because he doesn't provide any or when he does he sneers when I cannot verify his sourcing. When he deigns to provide any, which he generally refuses to do or even to discuss. What he puts in articles may well be fine. But a specific issue is that he replaced a bunch of my sources with and insists on using Wnuk, 2018 I think it was, who as best as I can tell is a respectable historian. On the other hand it's not online and not available in any library within 500 miles of here. And this is for stupid stuff like the date of the June uprising, that *was* sourced to something online in English. It is true that sources are not required to be online, but English language sources that are easily verified are preferred. Seriously. Just look at the attitude on display. He wants to use that one because... It's the source he knows and he has a copy. And in the thread I linked titled "Recent changes by Elinruby" he just demands that I make changes, refuses to provide any sources that say so and just tells me I am wrong
And I am supposed to believe him after he implied at ANI that Cukrakalnis had had a final warning over at AE whitewashing Nazis or whatever, when in fact in was for losing his temper over being repeatedly accused of this. Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to mention that he is claiming "trouble-free editing" after making that egregiously false accusation over Cukrakalnis removing IP vandalism from the lede. Elinruby (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that I did not initiate any of this. Those links in my oppose are ALL very much NOT Marcelus leaving me alone like he just told you he does. Are you starting to see why I felt I had to say something? Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going back to what I was doing. Take some time with this. I don't need a reaction right now. Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024 edit

Władysław Umiński at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction edit

Saw that was among the most recently added SFE entries. I hope to see many more entries in the future! TompaDompa (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TompaDompa Thank you - they forgot to email me with the info that it was public/accepted (I did not notice it on their front page). In related news, I wrote an article about most of Umiński's works, for now mostly in Polish (pl:Kategoria:Twórczość Władysława Umińskiego). Given the COI, I'll let you decide whether the article merits citing in our discussions of Mars, Venus, and military sf (Umiński work is IMHO one of the earliest if not the earliest example of Polish mil sf; I am particularly proud of my OR here, as no prior critical work about him has noticed the sf elements of those two works I discuss in my entry). Hmmm, we do not have an article about submarines in fiction or airships in fiction (just categories), so that is not that helpful yet. Some of this might be worth adding to our Good Article about Umiński himself too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We probably should have articles on submarines in fiction and airships in fiction; I recall both coming up a fair amount in the sources I used for George Griffith. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umiński was already mentioned on Mars in fiction and Venus in fiction. I added the SFE entry to both per WP:NONENG as both mentions were cited to Polish-language sources (I kept the original source on the Mars article as it was on the overarching topic and replaced it on the Venus article as it was on Umiński). TompaDompa (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]