User talk:Wim Kostrowicki

Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painting

Thanks for the links, but "Renaissance" always has a capital "R" in English. Please adjust. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Hello, I'm TheOldJacobite. I noticed that you recently removed content from Raiders of the Lost Ark without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get the hell of my page and fast. Supply sources first instead of writing utter nonsense. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Chaheel Riens. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Raiders of the Lost Ark that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You writing nonsense on Wikipedia is not very civil. Please piss off and stop writing things that are obviously not true. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Raiders of the Lost Ark 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. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use the talk page before you add complete nonsense to an article? And by the way, the talk page is already used to discuss this ridiculous matter. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know the talk page is being used - I started the discussion there, which you ignored. I just felt that you deserved to be warned that your editing may lead to a block for edit-warring. You are aware that you have ignored WP:BRD and are at your third revert, I assume? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your nonsense to yourself and get the hell off my page. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notify user

Wim, just so that you know, putting @username at the start of a reply won't notify the user. You need to use a template like {{Ping}} - X201 (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course that's what you did and I'm seeing the substituted version. - X201 (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know how it works, but both users were responding at the same time, for the sake of being clear I wanted to point out to whom I was responding. I presume they go to the talk page themselves to see what's going on. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground mentality and personal attacks

Hi there. This is inappropriate.

See WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA.

Please, stay calm. I'm glad you are using talk pages. State your case. Often, people cannot agree. If that happens, please ask others for opinions and see how that goes.

Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack.

This 21:09, 15 November 2017 edit is edit warring and is not observing WP:BRD.

Again, if you introduced the edit and it is reverted, take it to talk. If you cannot win over an adversary, engage others at the talk page and see if you can sway them. If that is not successful, try something else. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

If you persist with the attacks and warring, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

I just want to make sure you are both aware of the WP:BRD cycle.

Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Salvator Mundi (Leonardo)

On 16 November 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Please agree at FOOTY.

Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) 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....Modernist (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added it first here. It was reverted. The onus is on you to get consensus at the talk page for inclusion. Please do not revert again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@Anna Frodesiak: If the other editors are not responding to my questions, then the discussion becomes pretty pointless. Besides, I think the 'onus' is on them to provide sources for the information that they're adding. And since I asked this several times and none of the contributors gave me a proper source that contained the claim, I don't see why this non-information should be included. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

You were edit warring at football articles, were warned, then went over to Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) and did the same. I have therefore blocked you for 24 hours.

Above, things have been made clear to you about BRD. The bottom line is that if you introduce a change and it is reverted, you cannot keep reverting to your version. Use the talk pages and sort it out. If you are having trouble with a specific editor there, seek to engage others and sway them. If that fails, there are other avenues.

Please remember, when your block expires, follow BRD.

Thank you in advance for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I don't think he's understood there may be on going discussion and that his addition is to wait before it's established; he's at it again at Leo and Juve. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial sockpuppet

Hi User:Wim Kostrowicki, I was just wondering whether or not, just like User:UnicovW, are you a sockpuppet of User:C.Gesualdo? Perhaps you'd like to resign before you are blocked indefinitely? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that, Martinevans123. SPI reopened. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've identified several other usernames or IP addresses, that Wim Kostrowicki potentially used for sporadic hit-and-runs or sustained edit-war campaigns targeting other users. Note, certain edits by these users actually conducted operations that countered or opposed one another, thereby stirring the pot on several fronts of an issue, i.e., a specie of cognitive dissonance and/or Ben Franklin effect, or simply for attention seeking and confrontation:

Note, these were all participating at Salvator Mundi (Leonardo). I have not checked the edit history of Juventus F.C. or Raiders of the Lost Ark for potential socks. Coldcreation (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about these guys too:

Also relative newbies with a lot to gripe about on the same pages...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernist: You nailed it. I recall very unpleasant exchanges with user Max Eisenhardt, he was obsessed with things Dutch, and very rude (both on Talk page and in edit summaries, such as here), exactly like Wim_Kostrowick. I'm going to look into this further... Coldcreation (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the user contributions of Max Eisenhardt. Just as Kostrowick, he was obsessed with Western art and football (e.g., Cristiano Ronaldo). He ended up very often at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, just as Wim. I have another candidate sock he used. I'll be back with that. Coldcreation (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to throw in a few more "possibles", based on editing behaviour outlined above:

Both IP addresses geolocate to Washington USA and share editing habits. All three exhibit the same kind of behaviour as discussed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also possible sock of this user: User:New Media Theorist. Just as the case here, he was suspected of being a sockpuppet (by User:Flyer22 Reborn), and just as Wim, had a long history of conflict, particularly in the visual arts, and similarly to Wim, was obsessed with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Coldcreation (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Coldcreation, Thanks for enriching my vocabulary. I looked up the meaning, and checked my head and can happily guarantee, officially and on the record, that I'm not a sock puppet. I like the word though, and it reminds me to check the page of Pierke Pierlala 😀. https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierlala Kind regards. Correctum86

Correctum86, I believe you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2017

Your recent editing history at Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) 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. Coldcreation (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

You came off your block and immediately started edit warring. Furthermore, it seems very likely that you are a sockpuppet of C.Gesualdo.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]