User talk:Swetoniusz

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Swetoniusz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I am happy to be the first person to welcome you to English Wikipedia! I have prepared this welcome message to help you with your continued adventure here, check out the links below or just visit the new contributors' help page! Happy Editing! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started: Tutorials and Training

Click on "show" to the right to expand

We have some interactive tutorials and trainings you may want to try:

And some regular articles you can just read:

Getting Help: How and Where to Ask a Question?

Click on "show" to the right to expand

There are numerous ways you can ask for help.

You can ask me on my talk page.
You can copy and place {{helpme}} with your accompanying question on the bottom of your talk page and someone else will show up shortly to answer your questions here.
You can try one of the specialized fora listed at the "Where to ask a question" page.
If you prefer live chat, try #wikipedia-en-help IRC chat room. Click here to get connected through your browser!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date

On a final note, you may want to try the new (beta) VisualEditor, check out our weekly newspaper, the Wikipedia Signpost, and join a WikiProject of interest to you. WikiProjects gather editors interested in certain topic areas, providing them with information, tools and a place to discuss the topic in question. Based on your recent edits I think you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland. For a list of all WikiProjects, see here. Joining a WikiProject makes the Wikipedia experience much richer! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Łucja Okulicz-Kozaryn) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Łucja Okulicz-Kozaryn, Swetoniusz!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An editor has already tagged the article with notability issue. If possible, kindly add content that would establish the subject's notability. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—usernamekiran(talk) 20:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leszek, Duke of Masovia

It is a pleasure to see a nice historic article like this, reminds me of my early Wikipedia days. I did an English c/e - please take a look at what was fixed if you want to use it to improve your English (which is pretty good overall) - and I assessed the article as B-class. For next level of assessment, see WP:GAN. I will be looking fwd to your next Wikipedia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jadwiga of Poland

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Jadwiga of Poland

You may still avoid a block for edit warring if you agree to stop reverting and wait for consensus. Please give your answer at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the closure of this complaint, you are warned for edit warring. You may be blocked if you revert again at Jadwiga of Poland without getting a talk page consensus first. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dobroniega Ludgarda of Poland

I will try to read it shortly, I was no short wiki break (holidays). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I c/e this for language, adding one cite needed. Nice job. May I suggest that you consider improving articles on more famous figures? As much as I personally like to write about some obscure figures myself, it is worth noting that such articles on such individuals are read maybe several times a year, but more popular articles (on Piast kings for example) are read dozens if not hundred times each day. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Swetoniusz. 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)[reply]

WP:BRD

Why do you not abide by WP:BRD? Do you understand what that's about? Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also remember my previous message ([1]) that you deleted ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Leszek, Duke of Masovia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leszek, Duke of Masovia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Dobroniega Ludgarda of Poland

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dobroniega Ludgarda of Poland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Leszek, Duke of Masovia

The article Leszek, Duke of Masovia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leszek, Duke of Masovia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Dobroniega Ludgarda of Poland

The article Dobroniega Ludgarda of Poland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dobroniega Ludgarda of Poland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Mary, Queen of Hungary

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

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swetoniusz. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your continued deception using the Tedesci (talk · contribs) account, I have now extended your block on this account to indefinite. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to read the guide to appealing blocks, then use the unblock template as explained in the block notice above. Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did no use any other account on en wiki. It is revange of two wikipedians, Borsoka and Surtsicna, who regularly insulting me. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not use any of sockpuppets Swetoniusz (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2018 (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.

After 1 April unil now I did not edit en.wiki. I was banned only by suspitions of two wikipedians Borsoka an Surtsicna who are insulting me as I try to improve some articles that they are usually editing.

CU should check my IP and alleged sockpuppets, as well as Borsoka and Surtsicna who may framed me.

Recenly I wrote two GA articles. I feel very disappointed how I am treating an also by fact that nobody try to stop two Wikipedians that insulting me and blacken me. Swetoniusz (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I did not use any sockpuppets. CU provided the fact that I did not use any sockpuppet [3]. I was blocked by Mz7 who omitte this fact. Someone try to frame me.

Accept reason:

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134, checkusers have indicated that you did not engage in sockpuppetry; instead, someone else (a troll completely unrelated to your editing dispute) was trying to make it look like you engaged in sockpuppetry. This information was not available to me when I initially examined the evidence. I sincerely apologize that this mistake occurred, and I have now lifted the block and notated your block log to clarify that this block was erroneous. Mz7 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo and Mz7: pinging you so that you're both aware of this request. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, TonyBallioni. It did occur to me that the sockpuppets were being rather naive here, perhaps overly so. I was also rather perplexed at the situation because Swetoniusz seems to be a fairly established editor at pl.wiki, and Surtsicna noted behavioral differences at the April 6 SPI. I would be happy to unblock with sincere apologies to Swetoniusz if the checkuser results indicate this is someone trying to frame Swetoniusz (@Borsoka: apparently the technical information is indicating that the same person is framing Manipulateus (talk · contribs) of sockpuppetry; the troll appears to be targeting editors who have been blocked for edit warring and creating throwaway accounts to "continue" the edit war and make it look like sockpuppetry). Currently, we're waiting for a second checkuser to verify Ponyo's results at SPI. Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above information. If he is not a master, he should not be blocked for sockpuppetry. I still think that he should accept that those who who do not agree with some of his edits are not insulting him and edit warring is not the proper way of editing WP articles. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and Surtsicna falsely accused me of sockpuppeting. I am waiting for an apology. Swetoniusz (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you brought supplies. Surtsicna (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This senence show what kind of men you are. Swetoniusz (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what kind is that? Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long I have to wait for second CU who proofed my innocence? Swetoniusz (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as it is obvious that you are not a sock master, I will apologize. You should also realize that the adoption of your selfish style and frequent personal attacks enabled the impostor to track you (and me). You have not apologized for your behaviour for which you were punished. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will edit using proply academic sources and not calumniate other editors. Swetoniusz (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, until you are unable to understand that Britannica is an authoritative source for proper English usage, you should not make negative comments about other editors. According to my own experiences, editors who cannot cooperate are sooner or later banned from this community. Sorry, I will not answer your personal attacks in the future and I will not apologize. The present ban put you at your proper place. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to unblock the user. They haven't engaged in sockpuppetry per this. Sro23 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Swetoniusz. 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)[reply]