User talk:Krótki

Welcome, from Gflores

Welcome!

Hello, Krótki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Gflores / ^{Talk to me!}

Linking to MobyGames

Please could you explain [1] where you appear to have linked a Wikipedia article to an external website which has a shallower article than the WP one on it? I just thought I would remind you of WP:EL? Thanks--BozMo talk 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I see, that website contains screenshots and cover photos, which cannot be added to Wikipedia under GFDL, and also detailed credits. These reasons match WP:EL#What should be linked p.3:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

But thak you for turning my attention to the MobyGames controversy. From now on, I will check if the MobyGames page contains any useful information before adding a link, instead of doing it blindly. --Krótki 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I understand totally that you added the links in good faith (although there are others whose faith was less good). The images/screenshots issue though is a little more complicated since I don't think MobyGames possibly owns image copyrights so either the images are a copyright violation there (in which case we should not in general link to copyvio sites) or the images constitute fair use and we can use them too. That's not to say we should never link to MG as we've both agreed: but doing so for the sake of images which they do not appear to own cannot be a good reason. --BozMo talk 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on MUD client

Most of the items listed on that page are as notable as the one I listed, yet you complain only about mine. Thus, I find your point moot. Heres the answer to your question about wintin - You seem to have a link to it yourself, as you support it wholeheartedly. So, you delete mine, I delete yours. I didn't start this, you did.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Caverns of Mars first level.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Caverns of Mars first level.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cavers of Mars II in-game.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Cavers of Mars II in-game.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:A5200 PacMan.png

Thanks for uploading Image:A5200 PacMan.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Krotski - it's been great chatting - welcome to your edits on the article about Storm Thorgerson. Saul Douglas Whitby (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:A5200 Dig Dug.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:A5200 Dig Dug.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:A5200 PitfallII.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:A5200 PitfallII.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:A5200 Jungle Hunt.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:A5200 Jungle Hunt.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Palaces in Poland

Krótki, I admire your dedication. You are almost as obsessed with Wikipedia as I am! At one level I understand your attempt to enforce some logic of hierarchy on the structure of categories for Palaces in Poland/Warsaw, but I fear it is in vain. I don't believe there is any technical reason for not adding the categories 'Palaces in Poland' and 'Palaces in Warsaw' to the same page. I don't think the system of categories is in any sense a real hiearchy, given that anyone can add any category or sub-category virtually anywhere, including to other category or sub-category pages. Categories seem to be much more a convenience; a way of indicating groupings and relationships. It seems to me that a person who is not familiar with the palaces of Poland would find it very convenient, when he is on a page for a palace in Warsaw, to be able to jump directly to a page which provides a complete listing of all palaces in Poland. Your reversion of my choice of categorisation prevents that person from doing that.

Categories are not, I believe, a hierarchy. They are much more an infinitely complex, multi-dimensional, network. Such a network makes it possible to express something of the incredible complexity of knowledge, and the thousands, millions, of diverse reasons to link one thing with another by putting it in the same category.

There is no way we can control this complexity, as each person has a different view of what links and categories should exist. Just consider the complexity of categories on the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science,_Warsaw

There is no way we can police such categorisation to be sure that it is strictly hierarchical or non-circular. It is just too complex.

Let the categories flourish. I believe your reverts deprived readers of useful and relevant links and listings.

Cricobr (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope you're not taking this personally. I just happen to agree with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization, where our issue is described in detail. Since I don't consider "Palaces in Warsaw" a non-diffusing category, I've decided to apply the guideline to these articles. I believe these guidelines are there (and seem to be followed by Wikipedians) for a reason - now the page Category:Palaces in Poland presents its contents in a logical fashion. Previously, presence of both "Palace of Culture and Science" and "Category:Palaces in Warsaw" articles on the "Palaces of Poland" page, could suggest a viewer that Palace of Culture is _not_ placed in Warsaw.

Categories are not, I believe, a hierarchy. Each category can be a subcategory of another, so they form a hierarchical system by definition. This actually helps reflect the nature of the world, in which almost everything is (or can be) arranged hierarchically.

Such a network makes it possible to express something of the incredible complexity of knowledge, and the thousands, millions, of diverse reasons to link one thing with another by putting it in the same category. The reason for existence of the aforementioned guidelines is to somehow control this complexity in a logical way.

There is no way we can control this complexity (...) There is no way we can police such categorisation to be sure that it is strictly hierarchical or non-circular Why would you think it's impossible? Thousands of editors who create and follow guidelines seem to keep it in good shape.

I believe your reverts deprived readers of useful and relevant links and listings. There are two sides to this - your solution allows a user to reach a specific goal of listing all Polish palaces in one place, while mine allows to navigate the categories in a logical way. In "your" case, there exists a tool called CatScan which allows to display contents of a category and all its subcategories.

Anyway - please do what suits you best.--Krótki (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But it seems that if I do what suits me, you will undo it!

I really don't see the need to impose the hierarchical structures on the world that you seem to feel are necessary. Computers allow us to create networks of infinite complexity which, I believe, more closely represent the infinity of ways in which different people see and interpret the world. I have nothing against hierarchies. They are a useful concept, but they attempt to force a structure where often no structure exists, or where many parallel and intertwined structures exist. The world is not hierarchical. Almost everything is a complex interacting web: society; the financial system; the human body; the planetary systems of wind, water and heat. How do you impose hierarchies on those?

Cricobr (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

you will undo it! No I won't. I've stated my concerns, that's enough for me. Now you know about the guidelines and about the CatScan tool that can overcome the use case that bugged you - so you can look at the issue from a different perspective. You'll have to decide yourself, whether the guidelines are sensible and whether they should be applied in this case or not. If you want to discuss the guidelines themselves, then their article's talk page would be a better place.

I really don't see the need to impose the hierarchical structures on the world that you seem to feel are necessary. Computers allow us to create networks of infinite complexity which, I believe, more closely represent the infinity of ways in which different people see and interpret the world. When there are people to use that networks, I'm sure they would appreciate them being less than "infinitely complex". Good category system can help here.

they attempt to force a structure where often no structure exists, or where many parallel and intertwined structures exist. All palaces in Warsaw are also in Poland - so there exists a simple non-intertwined hierarchy. You seem to draw parallel between our special case and the general complexity of the Universe, which is not justified IMHO.

The world is not hierarchical. From Wikipedia: "Almost every system within the world is arranged hierarchically." I agree, you don't seem to. Discussing this difference of opinions would be pointless and completely off-topic, don't you think. --Krótki (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. From your first paragraph it seems you really are a very sensible kind of guy. I had rather thought I was dealing with one of the Wikipedia obsessed. Seems you agree with the proposition that Wikipedia is an open environment in which convention is arrived at by consensus. I in return will not be undoing what you undid, even though I disagree seriously with the limitations imposed by the current facilities for tagging/categorising/linking/relating/grouping articles in Wikipedia.

Your first message set me off on a long night reading about categories in Wikipedia. I learnt lots. I learned specifically that the very subject of categorisation is now into its 14th or so talk page. That suggests there is a great deal of discussion about the idea of categories, and just what they mean and how they should be used. For now, in the English Wikipedia, it seems the hierarchers have swayed the consensus in their direction. However, I found a number of dissenting voices who point out that this is not a feature of all Wikipedias. Seems the German Wikipedia has a much more relaxed view of categorisation which makes much better use of the technology to deal with the volume of links produced by the undeniable need to be able to create relationships between articles.

I have nothing against hierarchies. They have their uses (in many situations in life). They are, however, very limited in that they deny (by definition) the cross links that almost always exist between things, whether they be Wikipedia pages, people, or whatever.

I do not agree with the proposition "Almost every system within the world IS arranged hierarchically." (even if Wikipedia says it!), but I do agree with the proposition "Almost every system within the world CAN BE arranged hierarchically." for certain specific goals.

I believe Wikipedia makes very poor use of the infobox concept. This is an obvious place for putting much of the, often systematically repeated, information that leads to much of the unnecessary manual categorisation that the hierarchers seem to be against. The infoboxes and their fields are like tags. They say that the page is about a thing of a certain type, and that it has a whole lot of predefined properties. By using infoboxes we could have a new category (!) of auto-generated categories. Categories such as 'Towns and cities in Poland' could be generated virtually automatically, and consistently (for instance, a similar set of categories would be generated for every country, or building, or car, or whatever), for all pages with the same kind of infobox. Any automatically generated categories existing for a page would be accessed through a single link in the category section of the page. Any attempts to manually reference these categories would be ignored by the system. The simple existence of this automatic categorisation system would mean that most people would probably feel there was little need to create or reference manually created categories. Indeed it would become pointless to create any similar categories manually.

The automatically generated categories would be created by writing SQL-like queries on the database-like structures produced by the infoboxes. This world of category queries would be editable in the same way that pages are editable, with the proviso that the query would have to compile.

Manually generated categories, such as we have at the present, would only exist as a fallback facility for creating previously unimagined categories, or to represent links not currently described, or describable, using infobox properties (although once identified it could be that the new category could be easily assimilated into the world of automated categories by adding the appropriate field, or fields, to the infobox, and/or a new SQL-like query to the world of automated categories). Manually generated categories would be the only categories to appear directly in the category section of a page (thereby addressing the clutter problem).

With the vast majority of categories created automatically (and most importantly, consistently (and therefore machine processable)) it would be very simple to automate the listing of, and access to, these categories by producing automated index pages (perhaps like the German Wikipedia pages?) and search facilities.

Just to conclude on a lighter note. On my travels through the world of Polish Palaces I chanced on a series of pages which led me to wonder how many categories one could invent for a (semi-)imaginary page about an 19th century Italian architect, from Florence, who designed neo-Gothic palaces for Prussian princesses, in the Sudetes mountains of Silesian Poland.

best regards,

Chris

PS. the infobox-based automated category idea is not entirely mine, it was sparked by a comment I came across during my reading of the category talk pages. All of the detailed expansion of the idea presented here is, however, mine. Just for the record!

Cricobr (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to Video Game Den

Hi Krótki, I'm sorry to see that you removed all the links to Video Game Den. I've never added them to promote my site, and only on occasions when I thought the information I had could help and complete the wikipedia article in the same way as other "external links" do. I never meant to do it to promote my site, and I apologize if it looked like it did... what would be the best way for me to add these links legally ? Thanks for your help and understanding --Lkermel (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like you're quicker at removing links that discussing them. No problem. I'm still confused about why you removed links to my site whereas other external links, which are often totally empty of any relevant content, survived. Also, various people have literally copied some of my game reviews to Wikipedia - so how come this is considered fair but not me adding a relevant link to my site ? Thanks for your understanding :) --Lkermel (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the wallpaper groups

Thanks for correcting the wallpaper group assignments for the binary circle packings, I can't believe I made so many errors! --99of9 (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Shakin' Stevens

ELNO #11 refers to blogs, not foreign language links. Foreign language links are perfectly valid. If the link were proven to be a blog, then, and only then, would #11 apply. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake - I meant p. 10 (links to forums). The "foreignness" of the website is a separate issue, discussed at WP:NONENGEL. --Krótki (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

River Raid

Z nicka mniemam że mówisz po polsku ? Sir Lothar (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is language you speak (Krótki nickname - supposed you speak Polish). Nevertheless, I think there's no need to put WP:VER template - one of the most notable shooter games on 8-bit Atari. It's obvious there are plenty of sources, like PC Gamer for example. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Czyli jednak mówisz po polsku ;). Sorry, ale to jest naprawdę łatwe do znalezienia, więc nie ma potrzeby do wycofywania zmian. Rozumiem nową grę (powiedzmy jakiegoś RTSa) z dajmy na to 2003 ? Ale czepianie się gry sprzed 20 lat, która ma ugruntowaną pozycję ? Nie rozumiem takiego działania. Sir Lothar (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're too quick in reverting, I suppose ;). Sir Lothar (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

please keep such remarks to yourself, we're not buddies. Nope, we're not. I'll keep that in mind - sorry for that. My point was, your revert was irrelevant, because topic was clearly verifiable. I'll put some sources to article tomorrow. Thanks for your time. Sir Lothar (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides I remind you Wikipedia:Assume good faith. So please, keep it civil. Sir Lothar (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where did I offend you, mate ?;). What part of discussion ? Just understand my point of view - my point of view was there's no need to put source template, because it can be easily verified. You've made of it a big deal, and that's where it started. Sir Lothar (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"this part is about spelling, not pronounciation"

True, true - my mistake. Still, I think the words "sometimes", "occasionally" for "Szopen" spelling are not the right ones. It's considered as often as "Chopin" spelling (AFAIR from history and music lessons). Greetings, Sir Lothar (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me - I'm not going to defend those two words. But then, I doubt if music or history lessons did elaborate that much on the topic of frequency of usage of particular spelling so as to make it usable in supporting your view. These days I tend to observe "Chopin" as a way more common spelling in Polish media.

Anyway, both of our views are unsourced, so frankly I'd rather see both words removed and replaced with "also called", to make it neutral. Pozdrawiam--Krótki (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, let it be then - probably it would be more neutral. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: złoty

Hi Krótki! I would like to apologize for my silly edits on the złoty article. However, I have reverted the article name (back to Polish złoty) so that it is in line with the WikiProject Numismatics style guidelines. – Zntrip 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. I do not participate in that wikiproject, so I was not really sure which of the two fixes (reverting the page move or updating the navbox) was more appropriate.--Krótki (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if anyone has any concerns, I'd be happy to discuss it with them. – Zntrip 08:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

About Met-Art links

Hello,

i put link on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MET-Art" page, and it redirects to met-art.com through CCBill. You are right, it is affiliate link and i get that you admins don't want adult webmaster wars on Wikipedia :), but as far as i can tell it's not prohibited to put such links, just not recommended. It's really not a big deal, link gets visitors of Wikipedia to official website so there is no real problem. I changed link once again, and if you undo it i won't try anymore, but come on, be a pal, this really means a lot to me :)

Anyway, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdevenport (talk • contribs) 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not an admin here, just an editor, same as yourself. I appreciate that you're intending to resolve our conflict in the civil way.

But the ccbill link simply cannot stay. It is not an official link to the MET-Art website, so putting it in the article and describing as being official would be skewing the truth, to say the least. That alone is enough to remove it. I'm going to revert your edit again.

Not to mention that we don't like freeloading on the backs of editors who expand Wikipedia for free for their own satisfaction. --Krótki (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a strange definition of notable.

When adding a Crane Simulator to the list of vehicle simulators, you reverted it with the message:

"the game is not notable from the point of view of this article."

If it is not notable, how come it got noticed over 8M times with a download? Your revert was misplaced, just so you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.32.162 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Adventures of Robbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why I removed Category:Amiga games from Treasure Island Dizzy

I removed Category:Amiga games from Treasure Island Dizzy since it was already in a subcategory of Category:Amiga games. To be more specific, it's in Category:CD32 games as well. I was trying to avoid overcategorization by doing so. --I dream of horses @ 07:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As we don't have a separate subcategory for games published for the Amiga computers, Category:Amiga games is used for this purpose. Dizzy was released first for the Amiga computers, and later for the Amiga CD32 console as part of "The Big 6" compilation, so it should reside in both categories. --Krótki (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks for telling me. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. @ 08:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it didn't

You edited the Blue Max article to say the Atari version had the same features as the C64. I do not recall cars or a number of other features. Do you have a play through showing any of these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: No, I don't have one. I believe that it's you who should try to verify the claims that you were trying to add to the article, not me.

Just try playing the Atari version again. Encountering a car passing one of the bridges is quite rare, and not guaranteed to happen on the first playthrough, so it might take you a while. Fortunately, damaging the plane due to being shot at is easier.

By the way, what about this claim: "Missions were shorter, about half as many stages as the Atari version"? I know both the Atari and the Commodore versions, and I have encountered all three stages - river with bridges, road with buildings and airfields, and finally the city with the three bunkers - on both versions. --Krótki (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a version number for your Atari version? None of these appeared in mine, nor do they appear in the complete game play through available on Youtube. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: The cars are there in all versions of the game, including the original US Synapse release, the UK US Gold release, and the XEGS Atari release.--Krótki (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Alright, here you go: a car passing by.--Krótki (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Krótki. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Krótki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Matt Lucas

@Krótki:; Here you revert my removal of the uncited claim that a game called "Matt Lucas" existed. I considered this sufficiently dubious as it was uncited, the name of a personality who was never famous in his own right until long after the company was defunct, and added circa 2006, when Lucas' career was probably at its peak (hence the significant chance it was inserted as nonsense).

That's not to say that it doesn't exist, just that- since it was never cited- it was sufficiently questionable to warrant removal.

You claim that "Google provides enough evidence that the game exists"- in which case it's your responsibility to add such evidence as a reference/citation. Please do so, or the claim is likely to be removed again. Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ubcule: Here you go. --Krótki (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You've shown that the game exists; I'm satisfied of that. You appear to have missed the second bit- "it's your responsibility to add such evidence as a reference/citation. Please do so, or the claim is likely to be removed again."

You've been editing Wikipedia for ten years- I assume you don't need me to explain how this works.

Or did you think it was my job to do something you can't be bothered doing yourself? Ubcule (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ubcule:: No I don't think it is your job to do anything on Wikipedia. But you seem to suggest I should feel obligated to fix your laid-back approach to content removal. You haven't performed the minimum amount of research before deleting the title from the list, so please don't claim I should do it for you. And don't delete things without at least googling them up, it's counter-productive.

Editing Wikipedia is not my duty; I come here on a whim to make slight improvements but indeed often can't be bothered to do more complicated things such as finding proper citations, especially when editing from a touch screen. In this case, reverting back the game's title made the Interceptor article silghtly better than leaving it removed. Anyway, my edit comment was apparently enough to inspire you to add the citation yourself, so that's great, isn't it? --Krótki (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My initial search was along these lines and showed nothing to suggest that the inclusion *wasn't* a hoax. You can complain that it was cursory in hindsight.

However, the onus wasn't on me (or anyone else) to do the work of investigating and supporting someone else's claim; especially when there was good reason to believe that it was a hoax. (Reasons I've already stated, but which you failed to acknowledge in your complaint).

You'll also notice I didn't rush to remove any of the other games despite their lack of sufficient references.

I'd have done a more in-depth search after you implied that the game existed. However, stating that "Google provides enough evidence" without even including a bare link is essentially saying "you do the work". No, it was *your* claim- either you had a link you could provide, or you didn't. (Which you did, but only after prompting).

You're under no obligation to provide a reference, or to contribute anything else. But if you can't be bothered doing that, the game (which you made a fuss about) would have been removed. That's how it works.

Yes, I added the reference. I could have been a dick and not added it at all- and left the {{cn}}-tagged entry to be deleted eventually- but by that point it was clear the game was genuine. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not to see it degraded.

On the other hand, it was also clear that- as you say- "you couldn't be bothered". So I felt under no obligation to extend you the courtesy of letting you know I'd already done that.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ubcule:: Sorry for late reply; I got ill and later forgot about our issue.

I apologize for assuming you did not do minimum amount of research before deletion. I still think though, that your initial Google search was not enough - it should be obvious that searching for a game title that is a common name, and company name that is a single common word, will give an unsatisfactory result. My initial search results also didn't confirm the game's existence, but I noticed that I had simply screwed up the Google search, so I refined it a bit. I'd like to advise you, when doing a search, to think if your search phrases have any chances of returning wanted results. In this case, it should be IMO obvious, even before clicking "Search", that they would not.

In this context, your remark that my "Google provides enough evidence" comment was essentially saying "you do the work", is correct. I believed, and still believe, that your research was not enough.

Please don't attach too much negativity to my remark that "I couldn't be bothered" - it was simply a statement of fact, that at the time I had minimum time to spare on any distractions (not to mention I had no readily available reliable sources to add to the article, as my Google search only found links considered non-RS such as MobyGames), so I did the minimum amount possible, ie. point other editors in the right direction (it turned out that this other editor would be you, but that's irrelevant, I guess). I certainly think that it was a better choice than to not do anything; after all, as you yourself noted, "by that point it was clear the game was genuine" - and that was my only objective.

If you feel offended by my action, I am sorry. I understand you don't like doing others' work, but please understand - I have the same reservations about this issue, as I feel you were forcing your work on me, by not performing a proper Google search and claiming I have further responsibility wrt. the issue at hand. --Krótki (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. *You* were the one who wanted to defend and keep an uncited claim. As such, the onus was on *you* to research and back that up with the necessary evidence, not me.

Holding me to the same standard is missing the point.

My Google search was only ever intended as a quick check in the face of an almost certain hoax. It's easy to say that, in the light of evidence, it *was* legitimate, but that evidence was never provided in the first place, and it wasn't my job to waste my time backing up someone else's claim.

Ultimately, I *chose* to investigate the issue and added the reference, and if I'd known in advance what I knew later I wouldn't have deleted it, but hindsight is wonderful.

Anyway, I'm more bored than offended(!) by the whole thing at this stage, so no hard feelings. Ubcule (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Krótki. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)