User talk:Czarnybog

Welcome

Hello, Czarnybog, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Czarnybog, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - Radiphus (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Cyndi Lauper. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It must be mistake, it's not p2p proxy, please read my explenation

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Czarnybog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 185.119.151.153. I don't even know why I'm blocked. Czarnybog (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed p2p proxy. See Template:Blocked p2p proxy for more details. Yamla (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Czarnybog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 185.119.151.153. I don't know how you detected that this is p2p proxy but I'm just using my computer normally without VPN or anything like that. You can even see that my edits on this Wikipedia are rare and consistent an you can see that I am very active on Polish Wikipedia and the topics I edit are consistent too. I don't vandalize, I don't spam and nobody uses this IP except me. How is this p2p proxy? I seriously don't know what kind of bad thing I did to deserve it. Czarnybog (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you'll read the page suggested by Yamla, that will explain this situation. It's entirely possible you aren't the operator of the VPN, but we have no way to know this. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla: @331dot: I'm sorry but this is unfair. You basically are making assumptions that I use p2p proxy and send me to page explaining that I can't use p2p proxy. Cool but what I'm telling you is that I don't use p2p proxy. It's my normal IP address. @331dot: admits that it's entirely possible I'm not the operator of the VPN, but you have no way to know this. Well then why I got this blockade? Can't you just manually check the activity related to this IP address and check is it really used by multiple people on the whole wide world? I use this IP on Polish Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons and this Wikipedia is the only one that has problem with my IP. Can you at least tell me what should I do? Since I'm not using VPN, I can't turn off VPN because there is nothing to turn off. Nobody can even explain to me how was this IP confirmed as p2p proxy. I feel like I got blocked at random. Whatever tool you use, it's broken. Is my only solution really buying myself a new computer or changing Internet operator, however that works? I even can see on the list of blocked IP addresses that with my IP address there is a name od my internet service provider. How is that p2p proxy then? What made anyone think I use p2p proxy? What's going on? Please stop sending me to pages explaining that I was blocked because I used p2p proxy because I didn't use p2p proxy. It's ridiculous... --Czarnybog (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the template page states, "If you have not recently used any proxy, VPN, or IP changing service, it is possible that a previous customer who was assigned your IP address was running one of these services. More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software." Perhaps your ISP can help you further. Yamla may know more than I, but this is the extent of my knowledge. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Oh great, so the verification is made by people without knowledge of how those things even work and what can be done to fix it. How do You even verify it then? You said yourself that there is no way for you to know if I use p2p proxy. I don't think it's my ISP's fault since this is the only place in whole Internet and only version of Wikipedia this problem occurs. Isn't that a prove of anything? Everything you wrote until this points suggest that there is no base for me to have this blockade. I hope you see it? --Czarnybog (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla is not going to be around for a bit, you are welcome to make a new unblock request for someone else to look at. It is true that other language versions of Wikipedia(which are all separate projects with their own policies) are less strict about this. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm unblocked now... thanks whoever? --Czarnybog (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Lay Zhang has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Czarnybog, replacing a template with text that does the same thing is not a fix. Why are you removing the template? Peaceray (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Peaceray:. I just noticed that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia biograms have a birthdate in the header in the form of plain text, and only a few articles use a template for the same thing. I thought what I was doing was standardization. Am I wrong? Do you think we should change the birthdate in the overwhelming majority of biograms to a template instead? Or is there a rule that the first person who writes the birthdate decides what format it will be forever? What are we doing here? --Czarnybog (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary fix did not describe what you were doing, hence my reason for reversion. The means of displaying the birth date is up to the individual editor. A more appropriate edit summary would have been something like I do not see the need to template the birth date, so I am converting it to text. Be aware that in infobox templates, using the {{birth date}} or {{birth date and age}} templates are standard & often recommended by the infobox template description. Also {{convert}} is another template that should never be converted to text.

Personally, I think that there are far bigger things to attend to than converting birth date templates to text, especially if they are already displaying the dates correctly. Peaceray (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: I did nothing to infoboxes and didn't touch {{convert}} template. All I was doing was changing one thing in the header to match the way we wrote overwhelming majority of headers on Wikipedia. I guess there are far bigger things to attend but You kind of choosed to attend whatever I was doing and I'm not sure why. I made those changes basicly because I don't like inconsistency. Will You allow me to continue if I'll write a different summary or must I stop all together because You will revert my changes anyway? If so, I'll stop, it's not worth that much. --Czarnybog (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not indicate you changed any infoboxes or convert templates. I was offering those up as unacceptable things to change arbitrarily. What I did write was your edit summary was misleading. If you had actually described what your were doing & your reason for doing it, I would not have reverted it, even though I would disagree with the necessity of removing this particular template. I certainly would not call it a fix. Arbitrary changes require sufficient explanation. Peaceray (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]