Talk:Alicia (album)

Sections
Marketing and Sales is not standard practise. Assume good faith instead of using words like "dogmatic". The majority of articles have a separate commercial performance and marketing/promotion section. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 11:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I did assume good faith. That is why I said "please." Your changes can be done in good faith yet be wrongheaded too. isento (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your explanation suits the definition of "dogmatic." "The majority of articles have ..." Can you really quantify that? Does it even matter? Why do they? I think I have an idea (Other stuff exists). isento (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please argue on the merits of the content in this article. isento (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please consider the average reader, our audience, etc. "Commercial performance" sounds like a complex technical term, and the Google results reflect that. "Sales" is simpler, gets the point across better with a layperson (WP:AUDIENCE). isento (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've seen this too many times, where these headings are slavishly used without much reason against a better alternative. isento (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ... and as I explained in the edit summary, the first-week sales were reported by Billboard to have been bolstered by the concert-tour ticket sale, which connects it to the marketing of the album. isento (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I based it off other Featured Articles and Good Articles hence the "many other articles" point. Dogmatic suggests you were expecting me to quote a specific hard figure such as "80% of articles", which you know would be impossible to quote. I went off my knowledge and experience of what's easily understood from editing wikipedia for over 12 years and 48,000 edits - something we both have. I also used my experience of writing in plain English e.g. concerts are more promotion than marketing. I found your comment "please consider the average reader" a bit patronising - always consider user experience and navigation in all my edits. Having said that, in the grand scheme of things, this debate really isn't worth pursuing as there are plenty of other pressing and blatant violations of guidance and policies on other articles. The changes being debated here are minimal in impact and certainly not going to annoy me or make me feel aggrieved, its just two differences of opinion on ultimately trying to do the same thing - make the article clear and easy to read for others. I won't be reverting back or changing again - don't think its worth disagreeing over. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel ya. But I still feel this particular trend of headings you advocated is more accessible to editors (or users) than readers, if only for the simple fact they've been used long enough to feel familiar for us. And I don't mean to patronize again, but promotion is an element of marketing, as it's defined online. isento (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: Marketing addition
, as I said at your talk page, I reverted a large part of your recent edit to the article, because the German program video you cited was posted by an uploader that didn't appear to be the original program, making the source unfit per WP:RSPYT, while the Japanese program doesn't have an article, which suggests to me a lack of notability. The section lists many media events to market the album, so readers get the point without needing to pile on more with sourcing/notability issues. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we shouldn't list every single effort Keys made to promote the album simply because we can at the expense of source reliability and inherent notability, not to mention readability. No one wants to be inundated with listings of media appearances and dates with no other context given, I think. Also, keep in mind that this is a featured article, so higher standards apply (WP:FACR), hopefully. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , please stop edit warring and discuss your changes here. Much of your changes are not improving the article's sourcing, focus or readability. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You removed the parenthetical note that the concert special was, when the pandemic is the main subtext of the section. You also added the descriptor "concert special" when readers can already tell it was a concert from the name iHeart Living Room Concert for America.
 * You added a superfluous mention of Keys announcing her next single on a talk show, when the single isn't released until several days after, begging the question why is this important to mention to readers?
 * You removed Keys' remarks about the single and its connection to the contemporaneous issue of police brutality, when the music's connection to such concerns is a prominent theme in the article and would only serve to offer readers insight into her thinking here. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've seen repeated removal of sourced promo appearances made by Keys in support of the album. Threats of me getting blocked is not a very consrtuctive way forward. It may not me be who's getting blocked! There's nothing controversial or problematic about my edits. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've explained clearly, properly and repeatedly, with citations to relevant guidelines, why I removed certain material you added. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You removed this material claiming it has nothing to do with the album's marketing, when in fact the use of music from this album in other media is promotional in nature. Furthermore, it relates to the themes of humanitarianism and the pandemic that are at the heart of this section, as well as in the section on lyrics and themes, the general socio-political spirit, caring about other people, etc... Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed the detail about "Lift Every Voice and Sing" being known as the Black national anthem, claiming it's irrelevant, when in fact she sung it for a reason (current events, again) and the source(s) cited mentioned that detail for good reason. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You left grammatical errors (eg. ) and stiffened/bungled the flow in at least one paragraph (, which adds an extraneous sentence structure with more promotional appearances after the previous sentence had already introduced the few listed items as "promotional appearances"; this was previously condensed together, and rightfully so.) And again, as I clearly explained above, you added poorly sourced media appearances of dubious notability: the German program heute-journal is attributed to a YouTube video for which the uploader is not even the original program (which would fail a source-check, per WP:RSPYT), while the Japanese show Sukkiri (for which it appears your draft for an article on the show was declined) is sourced to a press release from Sony., what say you about all of this? Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do fully side with you on this one, believing that the sourcing in parts is unreliable and there are issues with notability. Also, you are correct about the prose having grammatical errors as well as reading awkwardly. --K. Peake 06:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. @K. Peake Stop nit-picking and over-analyzing. Keys' promotional appearances in non English-speaking tv shows can be and will be added in the marketing section (the heading should be changed to Promotion). There are multiple sources for the Heute-Journal interview, as there is for her Sukkiri appearance. I find strange to say the least that there is a mention of a non-notable firm, who was hired to design marketing materials for the album, yet my edits of Keys's tv appearances were removed. The fact that "Lift every voice and sing" is called the black national anthem, has nothing to to with promotion of the album. Also irrelevant is a mention that iHeart Living Room Concert for America was staged in response to COVID-19 pandemic. Press releases and twitter posts announcing single releases from the album should be discussed in respective single articles.

There are multiple issues with the article, the least of which are my grammatical errors. I'm surprised it qualifies as a good article. It seems to be written in "praise", not in prose. In many parts the sources have been over-analyzed or misinterpreted. Writers of the article seem to think that Keys released her album to end racism and cure covid! There are irrelevant details, incorrect information and clumsy writing in the article.

Heute-Journal
 * https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute-joursnal/alicia-keys-musik-in-corona-zeiten-100.html
 * https://www.facebook.com/ZDFkultur/videos/heute-journal-alicia-keys-eine-frau-mit-einer-unfassbaren-stimme/3986271858052286/?extid=SEO

Sukkiri
 * https://twitter.com/ntv_sukkiri/status/1318386897140412418?lang=fi

Taylor Swift's appearance on Sukkiri has been included in Lover album article, yet here the show has been deemed not notable. Keys herself has appeared in it twice!

Samsonite Man (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That's an alarmingly owner-ist attitude to have, that your changes, despite at least three editors objecting to them so far.


 * A marketing firm being hired to put up promotional art around a major city isn't another monotonous listing of program name plus date. So your comparison isn't apt. In fact, much of your remarks aren't appreciated. Keys has said herself the music has taken on new meaning in light of current events:


 * Don't be naïve now, pal. Entertainers (and people all around, really) often, for lack of a better word, take advantage of current events, monetize them, etc. As Nietzche said, Anyway, the connections in the article are clearly there, whatever the intention, and Keys touches on it herself in what's quoted of her, even if she does so unconsciously, subtlety or elusively enough to avoid shame or scrutiny. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyway, thank you for at least one of the new sources, ZDF appearing to be the most appropriate of them. However, I don't see where it says in the source that Keys was interviewed for the program. The translated text in the source reads: Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand that the ZDF link text is a description of the interview, but the video isn't available on the player. The interview is however available in other sources. I suppose putting up posters is promotion, but the name of the firm who was hired to do the job is irrelevant. What Keys has said about the album has no relevance for the present discussion. It seems that you've written most of the article, so I'm not surprised that "much of my remarks aren't appreciated"... And I'm accused of having a owner-ist attitude. The fact is that that article still needs a lot of work. Samsonite Man (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no mention of an interview in the source.


 * Putting up posters seems like one of the most basic of promotional tactics.


 * I suppose your opinion could be fact. But the fact is you're gonna need to do a lot better convincing than this to get your changes restored (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). Maybe me and the other editors are simply not intelligent enough to see what you see and need more persuasion. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. The source is the interview. I'm glad that we can agree that putting up posters is promotion. It has not been shown that my edits on the article are contrary Wikipedia guidelines and principles. Since you've written most of the article, I can understand that you don't want other editors to contribute or offer constructive criticism. I kindly suggest you stop over-analyzing and nitpicking other contributions to the article and refrain from starting edit wars. Despite our disagreements, I can say that you've done an excellent job on the article. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you assume good faith. You would not want to be accused yourself of forcing fancruft at the expense of objectivity because your edit history and username are wholly dedicated to articles related to Alicia Keys....


 * The source does not mention any interview, any transcription of an interview, anything suggesting an interview. The source simply does not verify what you want to use it to say (WP:V, WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. The pot calling the kettle black! Please, use common sense and stop nitpicking. Yes, my user name refers to track 14 on Keys's album The Diary of Alicia Keys, and all I do is edit and write Alicia Keys related articles and I'm proud of it! Samsonite Man (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I am balancing common sense with encyclopedic sense, so that this article remains FA quality, Mr. Kettle.
 * Your attempted pings are not getting through btw, nor are they necessary, since I have this article and its talk page on my watchlist, me being the pot that I am ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: August 28th edits by Samsonite Man
, I've reverted your edits to the article today for the following reasons. MOS:PARAGRAPH and MOS:ALBUM both encourage merging short paragraphs into larger sections; short paragraphs generally don't warrant their own sections. The paragraph you moved in particular directly relates to marketing, which is defined as the action of promoting and selling a product, and the paragraph also ties a marketing tactic (about the tour) to the sales performance, which would justify its placement in the marketing section, specifically the subsection on marketing after the release is announced and executed. Regarding your removal of the further reading link, WP:FURTHER READING identifies "historically important publications", which The Harvard Crimson is, as appropriate sources to be linked in such a section. The link was addressed in the featured article review, and I will reiterate the justification here: the review offers "additional and more detailed overage of the subject" (per the guideline on further reading sections). Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. Commercial performance (chart positions and sales) are typically included in a separate paragraph in album articles. This article is no exception. The article now reads that Keys did a concert on UK television after the album fell off the Billboard charts, which is both incorrect and nonsensical. The external link article to a student newspaper reiterates what has been said in many reviews and other articles about the album, and therefore does not offer any "additional and more detailed overage of the subject". Samsonite Man (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There's nothing at MOS:ALBUM about necessitating such a section for the sake of convention, and the fact of this formatting existing in other articles is a line of argument that is discouraged in content discussions (WP:WHATABOUTX).
 * How is it incorrect and nonsensical? The charting happened in September/October, while the concert you're referring to was in December.
 * Please stop restoring your revision. Merely posting comments here does not fulfill the essence of the BRD process. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Piotr Jr. It is incorrect and nonsensical because the UK television concert has nothing to do with the album falling off the Billboard charts. Keys did a lot promo appearances in September-October 2020, most of which are mentioned in the article. It has already been pointed out by another editor on this talk page that "marketing and sales" is not standard practice and that albums have a separate commercial performance section. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The concert is mentioned in a different paragraph, and introduced as among the promotional efforts done since the original chart run. Different paragraphs deal with different topics. That is basic grammar.
 * I have cited several guidelines in support of keeping my layout, none of which have been responded to by you. The editor you are referring to dropped this subject as inconsequential, if you read the thread thoroughly, and I have made it clear the fact of other articles as being inconsequential to this article, per one of those guidelines. If you are not going to address any of the guidelines I've cited as a basis for my arguments, as was advised to you by, then you seriously need to let this go. I put a lot of thought and effort into this article, including repeating for you the relevant guidelines supporting my decisions, and seeing your incessant reverts and off-hand dismissals of any of my reasonings here is unsettling. This has to stop. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Piotr Jr. I've read the guidelines and they do not support your arguments. Commercial performance and promotion are two different things and should have separate paragraphs. Let's stick to standard practice. Samsonite Man (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No. "Marketing" is defined as . You are incorrect. Let's stick to accurate grammar and meanings behind words. [User:Piotr Jr.|Piotr Jr.]] (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: The popularity of such a practice is not a valid rationale for implementing the practice here. You need a better argument to support it here, and all you've offered it seems is your misapprehension of the meaning of the word "marketing". Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What is this now with your claim that the recording period is wrong? The recording section supports this year range, even with the circa symbol offered to qualify that this is an educated estimate. This was settled on at Featured article candidates/Alicia (album)/archive1. I've referred you to the FA review often before. Maybe do your homework first? Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Piotr Jr. Your definition of marketing is irrelevant. As I've stated before, albums have a separate commercial performance section, see for example Donda. A number of songs on Alicia were recorded for Here, so the 2017-2919 recording period is incorrect. See this article: https://www.revolt.tv/2021/2/25/22300793/alicia-keys-engineer-ann-mincieli-interview The sources do not define a specific recording period for the album. It's just an erroneous assumption. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * LOL MY definition? It's the universe's definition xD The meaning of words is irrelevant? Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on finding a reliable and useful source! How about we incorporate it into the article so readers know it's not just our "erroneous assumption"? Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Piotr Jr. You've added another erroneous recording period not supported by the source.Samsonite Man (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Care to elaborate? Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: September 16 edit war by Samsonite Man
, this is not a trivial item nor a detailed listing of chart positions. It's a very brief summary of the chart run, and the fact that it lasted only three weeks is crucial to understanding the extent of its performance, common sense would dictate. I don't know, maybe I'm so burnt out by your edit warring up and down this article that I have no sense left. But you've gotta stop compulsively undoing shit. My original edit summary undoing you was more detailed than this item. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Piotr Jr. / Isento. You are exhibiting all characteristics of ownerlist behaviour laid out in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.


 * 1) An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.
 * 2) An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
 * 3) An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental.  This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
 * 4) An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.
 * 5) An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article.
 * You have reverted every edit me and other editors have made to the article for the past three months or so. You continually wage edit wars. You have left numerous threats to me here as well as on my talk page, and you have reported me to administrators for editing the article. Your behavior is both baffling and embarrassing. If you are so consumed by policing the article and overseeing every edit, why don't you just stop and leave? Samsonite Man (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

, care to comment? Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pinging me. ANI is where the discussion about the edit warring and disruptive editing is occurring. I will make comments concerning the case there. The article talk page is for content discussion of which I have none at this time but I encourage you both to continue discussing content with civility. -- A Rose Wolf

(WP:READFIRST). Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Samsonite Man continued ...

 * "Some songs on the album were recorded before Here." - The sentence qualifies the following with "primarily", so we are not referring to some songs, but most of them. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "Recording period not supported by source. Removing footnote as per MOS:INFOBOX" - The recording period is supported, and the recording period is qualified with circa, with the earliest known date of a recording being 2015... And there's nothing at MOS:INFOBOX barring footnotes from the infobox. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * unexplained - she is primarily a piano/keyboard player alongside vocals, and the removal of the chart fall-off remains unjustified from the earlier thread. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "Unencyclopedic fluff" - not found to be fluff at Featured_article_candidates/Alicia_(album)/archive1... Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "quote not needed" - Why not?? It kind of illuminates with further detail the previous statement... Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * unexplained - restoring previously challenged changes is disruptive. Get consensus if you can't dissuade my arguments above... Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.
 * "Alicia is the seventh studio album by American singer-songwriter and pianist Alicia Keys". -> Removing "pianist" per MOS:LEADSENTENCE (Keys is a singer and songwriter first and foremost, piano her instrument)
 * Dozens of sources, including AllMusic's bio, define her as a singer/songwriter and pianist. Nothing at MOS:LEADSENTENCE supports removing pianist. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Removing recording period and footnote per WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express" and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."


 * Summarizing calculations and deductions based on supported data/figures is not original research (WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR). The footnote doesn't supplant anything; it doesn't present new information unfounded elsewhere in the article. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "However, it fell off the US chart a few weeks later." -> Removing per MOS:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.-> The fact that the album fell off the US charts not a key point warranting a mention in the lead.


 * Wow. You seemed to have needed guideline-text 10 times the size of the text you are trying to remove to attempt to justify its removal. Already a bad sign... WP:IGNORE: Fact is, omitting this fall-off creates the illusion to readers that the album was greater success than it really was, since we lead off with the chart-opening and say no more. Which brings me to another point, WP:AUDIENCE:  Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Removing song lyrics per WP:NOTDATABASE "Most song lyrics published after 1925 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum", WP:CV and WP:FANCRUFT-> Including almost half of the songs lyrics in the article is not only fancruft but boarders on a copyright violation.


 * They're nowhere close to almost half. And both WP:QUOTATION and WP:LYRIC support their inclusion, as I originally defended to at the FAC, which you seem to have never reviewed yourself, yet freely sling around poorly-formed judgements here... Piotr Jr. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Removing quote from Ann Mincieli per WP:QUOTEFARM The article in many parts is essentially a quote farm, and clean-up is needed.
 * I don't see anywhere at WP:QUOTEFARM where it says that this article is essentially a quote farm... Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And finally reverting per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it" "...editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars...". Samsonite Man (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Come off your hyperbolizing and hypocrisy, man... (WP:KETTLE) Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Piotr Jr. I've reverted your edit based on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:BRD "BRD is not mandatory. BRD fails if: there is a dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus and a single editor is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes." Samsonite Man (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Piotr Jr. WP:HARASS "The purpose [of harassment] is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing".--> As a target of your harassment over the course of the last three or four months or so, I'm considering taking your unacceptable behavior to the administrators!Samsonite Man (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Samsonite, I would gladly accept a notification for intervention to an administrator. In fact, I have tried quite a few times... but I won't accept your bad-faith suggestions and accusations. Quite frankly, they are pathetic and desperate attempts to avoid confronting the substance of the content dispute, instead resorting to a character dispute. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)