Jump to content

User talk:Bastruk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Bastruk, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 17:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman 17:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures Olivier Sukiennicki

[edit]

Where are all these signatures from? How can we verify they are accurate? In any event, why are they notable? GiantSnowman 19:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman The official account of Wisła Kraków shared news about a footballer signing a new contract, including his signature, as the club has a tradition of featuring it on their media graphics. In this case, you would need to demonstrate that signatures are insignificant in biographies-"not needed" is not a valid argument. You were the first to delete the edit, you are starting a WP:WAR. Help:R: While reverting can sometimes be appropriate, undoing good-faith contributions can disrupt collaboration and lead to disputes. Bastruk (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#X (formerly Twitter): Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other web presence or is known for their X activity. - Wisła Kraków is "known for their X activity", A specific posts (tweet) may be useful as a self-published, primary source. - Wisła Kraków official account is a primary source here. Bastruk (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that your actions on this particular article amount to treating it as your own, simply because you created it (WP:OWN: No one, no matter what, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article), without that, you wouldn't be acting here at all. You don’t have the authority to dismiss content as "not needed" based solely on personal opinion, as that isn't appropriate on wikipedia. Bastruk (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop mis-citing a bunch of random policies at me, and deal with the matter at hand. GiantSnowman 20:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
??
  • X (formerly Twitter) can be used as a source
  • you can't simply write "not needed" and revert a good-faith edit without providing any arguments
What don't you understand here? Please @GiantSnowman come back with a proper argument for removing the signature from the infobox in a person's biography, any person's biography, or prove that this one is somehow unique. Bastruk (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SLP, whilst only an essay, is nevertheless important to consider. It is not common or standard in footballer articles. GiantSnowman 20:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even this essay states that there is no consensus, so you still bear the responsibility to justify deleting a good-faith edit. The apparent lack of common usage in articles is only due to the fact that images of signatures are not widely available in internet sources; however, when such signatures are available (mainly for well-documented biographies of notable individuals with extensive sourcing), they are included. As I mentioned, nowadays it is difficult to find a major biography of a well-known person that does not include a signature. Bastruk (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with being good faith or not - and I would not say that lower league Polish footballers count as a major biography of a well-known person. In any event, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Add them to politicians if you want, not footballers. It's simply not relevant to their career. GiantSnowman 21:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, now you went, checked my recent edits and reverted them all on the same "not needed" lack of an argument. I already thought we had an understanding that this is not acceptable as a revert description. Go to Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo too please, so we can gather broader discussion about signatures of footballers.
And why are they relevant for politicians? Footballers are local stars, they sign contracts, autographs for fans, etc., just like music/movie stars. That’s why it is relevant.
"major biography of a well-known person" was a figure of speech to prove to you that the lack of signatures in less well-known biographies is due to the lack of images of their signatures, not because they are "not relevant for less important people", as you seem to be arguing here with your reference to "lower league Polish footballers". Bastruk (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't revert them all, what nonsense - just footballers. I don't think they're relevant for politicians either, but I'm not bothered about those. GiantSnowman 21:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you starting WP:WAR? Since you are not Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies, since there are no policies about inclusion of signatures, only an essay that says that there is no consensus. You are not Reverting vandalism, Reverting edits of banned or blocked users nor Reverting edits in one's own user page either. Bastruk (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
whats the problem I read all the messages but I'd like to know how I could help and what you all want me to know Goetia (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@The Ars Goetia WP:DRN redirected me to post {{helpme}}
Administrator GiantSnowman keeps reverting my edits that add signatures to biographies. He does not include any arguments in the edit summaries other than "not needed". He is ignoring my explanations, continues to use "not needed" after our dispute, and is effectively creating a nonexistent policy that prohibits including signatures in footballers’ biographies. He is also ignoring other biographies of well-known persons (raising WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), where the argument concerned the availability of known signatures for less-known individuals compared to well-known. I have shown that the source is valid and pointed out that his reverts do not fall under any of What edit warring is not. He is choosing which biographies can and cannot include a signature, which is biased on his part.
User talk:Lowyat Slyder, it seems, is also confused. Bastruk (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to guide me on how to resolve this dispute, since user GiantSnowman will keep reverting edits and I don't want us to repeatedly override each other. Bastruk (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Im not an Administrator so we might need one to get one to have their view but heres what I say
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay not actual wikipedia policy; however, WP:5P5 is wikipedian policy also there's WP:BOLD if the source is good then I see no problem (although if you could find that same info outside of X/Twitter that's always preferable)
The only thing I could possible see wrong is WP:TLDR and if it makes the page to long or hard to sort information with all the new and extra data but a signature is so small of a thing it's almost laughable of a concern and for that reason WP:BOLD and WP:5P5 take priority over WP:TLDR
Basically be bold there are no rules here any info is good as long as the source is good I say don't fight keep the signature Goetia (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Goetia, sorry but this is bad advice, in giving it you have encouraged edit warring. I have started a wider discussion at WP:BLPN. GiantSnowman 18:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You started it Bastruk (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I reverted and started a discussion per WP:BRD - you're the one who began reverting. GiantSnowman 18:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bastruk It doesn't help anyone to play the blame game just keep calm and try to compromise/ state your points Goetia (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per chronology below, how can he blame me for starting an edit war? Bastruk (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
nobody should be undoing any edits until a consensus is reached Goetia (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman By the way, those signatures come from team accounts, from announcements about contests to win a signed jersey, about signing a new contract, etc. The fact that for a large number of people including such a signature in promotional materials was considered necessary fully proves that they're relevant.
People collect signed items, that signature may mean nothing to you, but it means something to many others. Bastruk (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you are taking graphics from club websites/twitter etc., you are likely engaged in WP:COPYVIO. GiantSnowman 18:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're proving that you have no clue what you're talking about Bastruk (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have 100 edits, get a grip. GiantSnowman 18:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
More like 3000, but sure.
He is doing it again - mass reverting non-vandalism edits, even though three people (Lowyat Slyder, me and Goetia) are trying to explain to him why he is wrong here, and he keeps ignoring. As an administrator, he is also using dismissive, authority-based wording such as "get a grip" and "deal with the matter at hand" instead of refuting arguments. Bastruk (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are 'A user with 120 edits. Account created on 5 May 2020' - so if you have 3,000 edits, what other accounts have you edited from?
Any editor is fully entitled to revert good faith edits - and there is early, emerging consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Signatures of living people that supports my edits. GiantSnowman 19:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason for a help me request, you are in a content dispute which is currently going through a noticeboard, you should not be reverting until the noticeboard has a concensus. – LuniZunie(talk) 19:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic but I adore your signature Goetia (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks =) – LuniZunie(talk) 22:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@LuniZunie My request for help concerns an administrator's behavior in this dispute. Specifically: repeated reverts of good-faith edits with the edit summary "not needed", without citing any relevant policy or guideline; reliance on essays instead of policies to justify removals; inappropriate comments such as "get a grip" and "deal with the matter at hand"; raising copyright concerns and other allegations without clearly substantiating them,
The sequence of events is:
if there is no clear policy prohibiting such content, then removals should not be enforced unilaterally before consensus is established. Everything which is not forbidden is allowed.
He should refrain from repeated reverts until consensus is reached.
TL:DR {{helpme}}
For now, I only ask you to instruct the fellow administrator not to use empty phrases or personal opinions in edit summaries or reversals, and to stop using ad hominem arguments in the discussion.
The comment "You have 100 edits, get a grip" is inappropriate because it shifts from topic to the editor and uses edit count to dismiss the argument.
If he had, from the start after my signature edits, instead of reverting them, started a discussion on the noticeboard, reached consensus there, and then come back and reverted with a link to that consensus, without the "not needed" wording I'm allergic to, everything would have been civil. But no, he had to do it his way.
I hope somebody will tell him that this is the proper chronology and that he will follow it in future disputes. Bastruk (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You should bring this to WP:ANI then. The help me template is really not supposed to be used for this. – LuniZunie(talk) 22:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this, I am a relatively new Wikipedian trying to help here but I think I'm going to wait a little for more people to join in and weigh their thoughts as well, I do want to see a consensus or compromise so If anyone has the link to the noticeboard I'd love that, also please keep pinging me Goetia (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@The Ars Goetia
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Bastruk
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Signatures of living people Bastruk (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastruk: this is far outside the intended use of the {{helpme}} template. It's not designed to bring other people into a dispute you have, nor is it designed to raise a complaint about another's behaviour. As far as your timeline goes, cross-referenced with the essay on the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it looks like your initial addition was the BOLD edit, GiantSnowman reverted it, and at that point you should have taken it for further discussion, not readded it.
I'd strongly recommend continuing to take part in the discussion that was opened about this at WP:BLPN#Signatures_of_living_people which is precisely where a discussion to come to a consensus on the matter lies. At the moment, it looks like consensus is leaning towards removal of the signatures project-wide, but I'm not going to argue this or take a position myself.
If you've got a genuine complaint about another user's behaviour here, you could raise it at WP:ANI for wider discussion (I see you've already done this). Be aware, your own behaviour here will also be analysed, and I personally don't think you're on the correct side of our various policies and procedures here so it might not be the best idea.
I've linked a lot of pages in this response, and I strongly encourage you to read them.
@The Ars Goetia: I see you're also a new editor with few edits; unfortunately it seems some of your attempted assistance here hasn't been particularly good advice for the situation at hand. I'd recommend having a read of some of the pages I've linked in this reply too for future guidance. stwalkerster (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thak you, I've tried being helpful because I saw the need for help message but I think this all has been a bit beyond me Goetia [She/they/any] (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take sides when it comes to wikipedia (or at least i try my best). Although I do want more facts on wikipedia then not, but GiantSnowman has a few good points. If I could offer up a compromise, we could not include the signature but then make a category: signatures of footballers' page and then put it in the see also Goetia (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Be bold is more important than SLP essay
Signatures may not be common in footballer pages but nothing has ever changed by doing as it always has been done
If the info is good and it doesn't clutter the page (which I highly doubt a signature would do) I say that him keep it Goetia (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bastruk&oldid=1351753038"